Batman-Online.com

Now that we're under a year away from Justice League coming out, I believe it's a good idea to start a thread discussing Superman in the DCEU, and share what we like and don't like about him, what could improve and what we want to see from him in JL and beyond. If anyone wants to air their grievances about him, go ahead, this is not meant to be a one-sided thread. Unless if you haven't seen any of the films.

I think, rightly or wrongfully depending on your point of view, it's fair to say that Superman's reception among audiences has been polarizing at best. There has been some superficial criticism against this take i.e. lack of smiling and always mopey, and there has been some criticism about how his character arc has been executed so far i.e. Christ figure allusions.

I've seen some absurd claims by some people declaring "Superman is just as dark as Batman". I can't understand how. In BvS, Batman is easily the most psychologically disturbed between the two heroes. His paranoia over what Superman might do if he were to turn rogue, and his nightmare in the mausoleum are enough to explore his deeply damaged psyche. In contrast, Superman tries to be the best hero he can be, but he is troubled by a cynical and divided world; he's uncomfortable how one half sees him as a God just as he's disturbed by the other half who see him as a threat. I get that some people don't like this theme, or thought it wasn't explored as well as they could've hoped, but that doesn't make Superman dark.

In my opinion, my only real complaint of Superman's story in the DCEU to date would have to be the decision to kill off Jonathan Kent. I understand what they were going for, but I reckon it was unnecessary because he's already tragic enough as the adopted lonely alien, growing up unsure if the world would accept or reject him. If humanity were to accept Superman, it makes Pa Kent's death even more painful to bear. That being said, would that tornado scene in MOS worked better for audiences if the teenage Clark played it, instead of Cavill? Who knows?

I used to be annoyed by Pa Kent's "maybe" line, but upon reflection, I'm not so bothered by it anymore. After watching that scene in the farm again, it made realise that there might have been a long pause in between that word and the rest of his sentence. After all, Jonathan's point to Clark wasn't that he shouldn't have saved anyone, as many people incorrectly assumed. It was to warn Clark that the world isn't ready for someone like him, and he should grow up as a man and decide if he wants to bear such a responsibility, instead of getting exposed at a young age.

Quote
Clark: What was I supposed to do? Just let them die.

Pa Kent: Maybe...(long pause)...there's more to stake than just our lives, Clark, and the lives of those around us. When the world finds out what you can do, it's gonna change everything, our beliefs, our notions of what it means to be human. Everything.

That being said, when Superman eventually returns from the dead, I anticipate his struggles with the world would already be over. Not because of a change in narrative to address the over-exaggerated backlash by critics, but because of his sacrifice to save the planet from Doomsday. If the ending of BvS should tell you anything, it's that despite the mistrust and hatred aimed for him, Superman would still give his own life to save humanity. Because that's the kind of man he is.

For better or for worse, the through line Goyer, Snyder and everyone else settled on for Superman is "contact", where mankind finally realizes there are aliens out there and the effect that would have on society. To their credit, it IS a big deal and most previous incarnations of Superman tend to underplay the significance of that.

One major challenge is Cavill's Superman doesn't exist in a vacuum. It comes on the heels of Smallville (which showed a fairly optimistic and relatively well-adjusted Clark), the STM generation's hegemony on Superman fandom (rightly or wrongly, those movies are considered "feel good" entertainment in ways MOS and BVS aren't) and STAS (ditto).

My honest opinion is that WB doesn't like Superman. Snyder and maybe Goyer do like Superman but they're up against a machine without the same affection for the character and his history. Snyder is coloring inside the lines as well as he can under the circumstances.

It doesn't help that Superman isn't an easy character to craft a feature-length movie around in today's world. As Lex himself says in BVS, Superman is both all good and all powerful.

A character who is one or the other is probably catnip for writers. But a character who's both is a big challenge because what arc can you put that character through in a way that won't compromise him? What challenge can you throw at him that won't make him look weak?

I understand the challenges of doing Superman in today's world and I admire Snyder for doing the job as well as anybody could've. He wasn't my first choice to direct Superman but I think he hasn't gotten anywhere near enough credit for a job extremely well done.

I don't have much to worry about on this front. I like what Snyder's done.

I would have agreed somewhat about Superman being underused if the UC didn't come along. But it did, and those extra Clark Kent scenes really strengthened the portrayal for me. A lot rests with how Snyder resurrects Superman from the dead, and what they do with Clark. But I'm not worried. I have confidence it will work out fine. The end of BvS has a world in mourning, so the pressure and hate is going to be reduced.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 20 Dec  2016, 10:31
For better or for worse, the through line Goyer, Snyder and everyone else settled on for Superman is "contact", where mankind finally realizes there are aliens out there and the effect that would have on society. To their credit, it IS a big deal and most previous incarnations of Superman tend to underplay the significance of that.

I'm normally not a fan of Goyer's "realistic" treatment of DC characters, but this is one area where he and Snyder don't get enough credit. I was left cold and unimpressed with the so-called "realism" in the Nolan Batman films because they tend to focus on superficial details i.e. where Batman gets his equipment and explaining how the costume works and so on, and not enough emphasis on how his actions affect Gotham. We arguably get more insight about Batman from the scared dungeon prisoners and the few people Clark spoke to in the Ultimate Edition than the general public has to say in the entire trilogy.

But if you explore how people might react to Superman's presence in the world, and how people with agendas could take advantage of public perception, you've got something fascinating to explore. I believe it's a lot more tangible showing how there's a cause and effect in what Superman does and there is something you can take away from it intellectually. In real life, people like to talk about UFOs and aliens, but I don't think humanity would know how to react if first contact is made with aliens. Particularly if they're capable of things we can't do, which depending on the person, this could be looked as something to admire and worship (Day of the Dead audience), or to condemn as an abomination (Capitol protestors).

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Tue, 20 Dec  2016, 15:03I'm normally not a fan of Goyer's "realistic" treatment of DC characters, but this is one area where he and Snyder don't get enough credit. I was left cold and unimpressed with the so-called "realism" in the Nolan Batman films because they tend to focus on superficial details i.e. where Batman gets his equipment and explaining how the costume works and so on, and not enough emphasis on how his actions affect Gotham. We arguably get more insight about Batman from the scared dungeon prisoners and the few people Clark spoke to in the Ultimate Edition than the general public has to say in the entire trilogy.

But if you explore how people might react to Superman's presence in the world, and how people with agendas could take advantage of public perception, you've got something fascinating to explore. I believe it's a lot more tangible showing how there's a cause and effect in what Superman does and there is something you can take away from it intellectually. In real life, people like to talk about UFOs and aliens, but I don't think humanity would know how to react if first contact is made with aliens. Particularly if they're capable of things we can't do, which depending on the person, this could be looked as something to admire and worship (Day of the Dead audience), or to condemn as an abomination (Capitol protestors).

Indeed. What works for me is how it resonates with Jor-El's mission from MOS. It's a very Grant Morrison idea of Superman serving not just as an example for mankind but leading them into a better tomorrow.

I think the Jesus thing is actually on point for those reasons since there is an obvious political angle to the Davidic throne. So BVS is touching upon the Jesus metaphor, yes, but it's from the standpoint of Christ the King for most of its run time than Christ the Savior angle. It's relevant to Christ's identity, the Jesus metaphor is obviously not foreign to Superman and all those politicos yammering on TV about this or that religious thing are hitting the nail on the head.

Mind you, this is not to speak of the fact that Superman dies in BVS... which came out on Good Friday. So hmm.

Anyway, the public is obviously grappling with Superman as mankind's guide but they're breaking in his direction. Yes, there are some dialectics people need to go through in order to accept Superman's leadership. But that is where the trends are going in the movie.

Obviously the conclusion of the movie both accelerates their acceptance of Superman (posthumously, of course, but it still happens) while also bringing a depth of fulfillment to the Jesus metaphor that no filmmaker has really done before.

And it is here that I'm torn between how well done everything is (and it IS well done!) and what I want from Superman in live action cinema right now (eg, a very Pre-Crisisy, Silver Agey type of do-gooder). Snyder isn't giving me what I want from Superman right now, per se. But what he is doing is RIDICULOUSLY well executed so it's hard to complain too much. It's apparent a lot of thought and detail went into Superman's arc in the DCEU up to now.

To put the final touches on all this, the Injustice: Gods Among Us thing might be in the future. And if it is, I have to view that as the dark side (so to speak) of what Jor-El wanted Kal to be as mankind's guide. Yes, there is benevolent manifestation of Superman as mankind's leader and champion.

But there's also a pissed off, heartbroken Superman being mankind's conqueror... which is kinda sorta totally the opposite of what Jor-El envisioned.

The payoff to that might be Superman deciding to be a hero but not necessarily a sort of aspirational guide along the lines of what Jor-El originally planned.

It's also possible I'm completely wrong and you should just ignore me. We can't discount that possibility.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Tue, 20 Dec  2016, 15:03
But if you explore how people might react to Superman's presence in the world, and how people with agendas could take advantage of public perception, you've got something fascinating to explore. I believe it's a lot more tangible showing how there's a cause and effect in what Superman does and there is something you can take away from it intellectually. In real life, people like to talk about UFOs and aliens, but I don't think humanity would know how to react if first contact is made with aliens. Particularly if they're capable of things we can't do, which depending on the person, this could be looked as something to admire and worship (Day of the Dead audience), or to condemn as an abomination (Capitol protestors).

Honestly, I think the Superman montage sequence with all the TV talking heads is the best Superman scene from ANY of the films. I think it's the best example of applying 'realism' to something that is completely fantastical. I've seen that clip many times, but I still get goosebumps. The chills peak when the "maybe he's just a guy trying to do the right thing" quote pops up. That says so much to me. It cuts right to the core of the character. He's truly 'just a guy' like you or me, except that he's an alien with superpowers. And he's a good samaritain with no hidden ulterior motive. But he stills gets a hard time. To me, along with the broody and emotional music, they totally nailed the modern Superman atmosphere.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu,  5 Jan  2017, 14:21Honestly, I think the Superman montage sequence with all the TV talking heads is the best Superman scene from ANY of the films. I think it's the best example of applying 'realism' to something that is completely fantastical. I've seen that clip many times, but I still get goosebumps. The chills peak when the "maybe he's just a guy trying to do the right thing" quote pops up. That says so much to me. It cuts right to the core of the character. He's truly 'just a guy' like you or me, except that he's an alien with superpowers. And he's a good samaritain with no hidden ulterior motive. But he stills gets a hard time. To me, along with the broody and emotional music, they totally nailed the modern Superman atmosphere.

I enjoy the multiple perspectives that sequence offers. And you're right, it is captivating to watch on a visual level. Zimmer's score in that sequence is incredibly well done too. It has this strange brew mix of optimism, paranoia and heroism. Incredibly well done and it perfectly captures the tones of all those talking heads.

The thing that really works for me is how the end of the movie is the perfect resolution to that sequence. Superman's name is now a legend and he will be loved forever after he comes back. He's earned it by this point too.

Great sequence!

The moral of the story is that Superman must intervene and he will. He's the big kid in the playground. If he does nothing, he's held equally responsible for the violence he failed to stop. But if he steps up and gives someone a good whacking, he's called a bully. The only way to cut through these media driven outrages is to simply do the right thing. If something has to be done, it has to be done, even if it's unpopular. Period. Because the professionally outraged will be moaning regardless.

I think obviously Superman is going to be a lot more loved in JL. But I think someone like Superman would always be divisive, because the media would see to that. They're not going to give an all powerful saviour great press because they're all about tearing people down and being sceptical. They want people to fail. In an ideal scenario, I'd have the media more or less continuing their BvS attitude because they won't be told otherwise, even though they've been wrong the entire time. But this time the people rise up and say 'eff your divide and conquer, we stand with Superman, not you'.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri,  6 Jan  2017, 14:49In an ideal scenario, I'd have the media more or less continuing their BvS attitude because they won't be told otherwise, even though they've been wrong the entire time. But this time the people rise up and say 'eff your divide and conquer, we stand with Superman, not you'.

Heh, if these movies are intended to reflect real world events in metaphor, very similar things are happening with the real world's so-called news media so I'd be for this.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri,  6 Jan  2017, 14:02

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu,  5 Jan  2017, 14:21Honestly, I think the Superman montage sequence with all the TV talking heads is the best Superman scene from ANY of the films. I think it's the best example of applying 'realism' to something that is completely fantastical. I've seen that clip many times, but I still get goosebumps. The chills peak when the "maybe he's just a guy trying to do the right thing" quote pops up. That says so much to me. It cuts right to the core of the character. He's truly 'just a guy' like you or me, except that he's an alien with superpowers. And he's a good samaritain with no hidden ulterior motive. But he stills gets a hard time. To me, along with the broody and emotional music, they totally nailed the modern Superman atmosphere.

I enjoy the multiple perspectives that sequence offers. And you're right, it is captivating to watch on a visual level. Zimmer's score in that sequence is incredibly well done too. It has this strange brew mix of optimism, paranoia and heroism. Incredibly well done and it perfectly captures the tones of all those talking heads.

The thing that really works for me is how the end of the movie is the perfect resolution to that sequence. Superman's name is now a legend and he will be loved forever after he comes back. He's earned it by this point too.

Great sequence!

I still haven't found anyone who can convincingly explain to me why they were so put off by Superman in this film, even after watching the Ultimate Edition. Nearly all of the comments I see online are hyperbolic. One person even suggested that Superman didn't want to carry a burden and be a hero. Did he/she actually watched the film?

I've seen some people complain about Superman not saying a word during the Capitol scene. While I originally had my issues with this scene (which are now resolved thanks to the Ultimate Edition), it didn't bother me so much because the point was that Lex was setting everything in motion to not only manipulate Batman into fighting Superman, but to rob Superman the chance of making his voice heard.

A common thing about Superman is when he is demanded to face questioning by the government, he'll come forward. Just like how he submitted himself to the military in MOS. Superman thought by coming forward to answer his actions in Africa would be doing the right thing, but instead, his presence continues to cause unintended consequences. It was Lex's way of dehumanising Superman in the eyes of the public.

But this does NOT mean that the filmmakers themselves believe Superman is immoral, and deserves to be hated. If that were the case, the film would've ended with Superman retiring for good, and Batman and Wonder Woman saving the day.

I really dig Supes as a badass. This whole STAS plotline is fantastic, but I'm going to use the first 23 seconds of this clip:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Km5DgeLDkNI

Love it. Superman isn't always this head in the clouds dreamer like some people think.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat,  7 Jan  2017, 06:44
I really dig Supes as a badass. This whole STAS plotline is fantastic, but I'm going to use the first 23 seconds of this clip:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Km5DgeLDkNI

Love it. Superman isn't always this head in the clouds dreamer like some people think.

Ah yes, Darkseid brainwashing Superman. Let's remember fans have theorised that the evil Superman in the Knightmare sequence was a result of Darkseid's doing.

And this has to be posted, given the moaning about MoS's ending.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ywo6F4xYTvA

Going back to the Superman rescue montage sequence, I read a tweet from some nobody who called the entire scene, starting off with the Day of the Dead crowd worshipping Superman, as "one of the most cringeworthy and ham-fisted scenes in superhero cinema history".

I don't see how. That scene was a juxtaposition between those who saw Superman as a guardian angel and those debate his existence. In any case, Superman was uncomfortable with the complicated and diverse public opinion. Without it, Superman's arc would be cheapened. If I could criticise one thing about this entire sequence, I'd say it wasn't long enough for my liking.

Mechanically I think the scene is in the movie because, let's face it, we need more rescues and whatnot in the movie.

Textually it highlights the ramifications of Superman's actions.

Meta-textually, as Fish says, it illustrates the vast diversity of opinion caused by his actions.

As far as character, also like Fish says, it plays up Superman's own reaction to how the press treats him.

George Lucas, of all people, once said that a movie scene can't accomplish just one thing. It needs to accomplish at least two things. That's how economical storytelling gets done.

The Day of the Dead sequence and the following montage accomplishes at least those things above. And maybe more I'm forgetting about. Anybody who doesn't recognize that is just kidding himself. I can understand not enjoying the execution of it, since that's rather subjective anyway. But there's no arguing it doesn't elegantly accomplish those things.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 17 Jan  2017, 06:28
And this has to be posted, given the moaning about MoS's ending.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ywo6F4xYTvA

Putting that example aside for a moment, I'm no longer convinced that the collateral damage in MOS is a totally reasonable complaint now that Captain America: Civil War has established that the Avengers are scrutinised and condemned for causing their own collateral damage throughout the MCU.

Personally, I still have my issues with some of the collateral damage in the film e.g. Superman plowing Zod right into a gas station which started the whole battle in Smallville (oddly enough I don't see too many critics complaining when Superman was directly responsible for causing damage!), and I think Snyder missed a glorious opportunity in not filming a sequence where Superman uses his strength to prevent the Fortress of Solitude from crashing into Metropolis. But despite this, all this destruction is not something unseen before in Superman media. Even Supes in Superman II was guilty of causing a bit of damage.

Superman flying through the gas station is reckless, to be sure. But I put that down to passion and inexperience. On the whole though, property damage doesn't seem to phase Superman that much when he's in the process of rescuing someone or fighting a villain. I've been watching the Justice League cartoon quite a bit lately - which is sensational. And Superman doesn't fool around. He often punches down doors and charges through walls. Nothing stops him from moving forward in his goal. If Snyder could only ever do one thing for the character, I'd always take re-establishing Superman as a physical hero who does punch, get angry and cause mess from time to time. It was divisive, but Snyder started the conversation. The public and fan base were way too used to the Reeve way as the only way.

On the whole, I truly don't grasp why some fans see Dawn of Justice as Snyder himself hating Superman. Sure, the character has a hard time via Bruce, the media and Lex. But that does not reflect Snyder's real world feelings. Snyder is merely exploring the character three dimensionally and utilising social commentary. It's entirely natural for Clark to question himself and his crusade. That doesn't make him weak, that makes him human.

It's as if any character flaw or growth equals disrespect. I just don't accept that point of view. Superman came back and saved the world in the end anyway. I think Superman will be more at ease from now on, largely due to being accepted by the world. But in any case, I see BvS as completely valid, interesting and necessary in the long run.

I think the destruction is there primarily as eye-candy. It's Snyder saying "Man, isn't this COOL?" Thinking about it beyond that is probably missing the point.

I've heard of some bizarre complaints from critics since this movie came out. Some of them accuse Superman of being narcissistic (FFS, HOW?!  ???), others claim Superman and Batman suddenly became "best buddies" after their fight, and so on. But what's more bizarre is people still wondering why would Batman view Superman as a threat in the first place.

When MOS came out, there was backlash over Superman "destroying Metropolis and causing collateral damage". I remember watching some hyperactive fools on YouTube complain passionately that the S did not stand for hope, but it stood for destruction instead. These people had an enormous distaste for Superman and didn't care about him at all. But what makes it even more astonishing to me is a lot of these people didn't have any sympathy for Batman having such a prejudiced view of Superman. If anything, I'd say Batman in this film represents as an avatar to the audience who deeply hated MOS and have a lot of things in common with those type of people.

BvS established Batman as a witness to the destruction and deems Superman responsible from his point of view. He believes that nobody with such power could ever remain good and must be destroyed, and like the haters in the audience, completely ignored all the good deeds that Superman continues to do. Before realising that he was the one who was on the verge of becoming evil at the end of the fight, Batman deemed Superman with extreme distaste and didn't regard him as a god or a man, much like the haters. To me, it seems there is a contradiction between the complaints for Superman in the DCEU and not understanding the premise behind Batman's opposition towards him in BvS. And it's not something that critics themselves have seemed to realise.

Just when I thought couldn't see any more idiocy on display, I saw somebody on Twitter post this rubbish while on the subject of Matthew Vaughn directing the Superman sequel:

https://twitter.com/SuperheroSpot/status/842283083663519744

QuoteHenry Cavill's Superman is missing a heart. This scene is why Matthew Vaughn would be a fantastic director for Man of Steel 2.

What scene is he referring to exactly? He's talking about this scene in Kick-Ass.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9h6VV9BGNps

First of all, how in the f*** can anybody refer to something as vile as Kick-Ass as having any heart? That was a film where a ten year old girl and her father dress up as a dynamic duo team brutally killing people, and the same girl got herself beaten up violently by a grown man. Apparently, the idiot wrote this somehow missed Superman's sacrifice to save the planet in BvS. Yeah, that scene certainly doesn't compare to the idiot in the green costume getting his ass beaten by punks in Kick-Ass. Superman is such a bastard. ::)

Seriously, why is it that when it comes to a lot of people talking about DC Comics-based films, whether it's past films or in the DCEU, they tend to show signs of suffering from some kind of mental disorder?

I think Superman has had the disservice of having films directed/produced by people who either want to try people who want to turn the character into a farce (Richard Lester, the Salkinds, Cannon Group), try too hard to emulate Richard Donner (Bryan Singer), or force the religious symbolism down your throat (Zack Snyder). Donner had such a reverent, humble way of approaching the character, which was perfect. Their Superman felt like a human being  and that's often something that is lost in translation. Yeah, he's an alien, but he's also alien that was raised to be human.

Quote from: GoNerdYourself on Thu, 20 Apr  2017, 15:20
I think Superman has had the disservice of having films directed/produced by people who either want to try people who want to turn the character into a farce (Richard Lester, the Salkinds, Cannon Group), try too hard to emulate Richard Donner (Bryan Singer), or force the religious symbolism down your throat (Zack Snyder). Donner had such a reverent, humble way of approaching the character, which was perfect. Their Superman felt like a human being  and that's often something that is lost in translation. Yeah, he's an alien, but he's also alien that was raised to be human.

Singer was just as guilty when it came to religious symbolism; if anything, Snyder went even further with it. I say this as an observation, by the way, not a critique.

In terms of Donner's take on Superman feeling like a human being...I'm not sure about that. I only got that feeling when we see young Clark growing up in Smallville, witnessing Pa Kent dying and saying goodbye to Ma Kent while leaving home to discover whatever destiny has in store for him. Otherwise, I don't think Reeve's Superman felt more of a human being than Cavill's.

Mind you, I know that sounds like I'm trying to favour one over the other, but I'm not. I like both versions as they are, but both have strengths and weaknesses, in my opinion.

Quote from: GoNerdYourself on Thu, 20 Apr  2017, 15:20I think Superman has had the disservice of having films directed/produced by people who either want to try people who want to turn the character into a farce (Richard Lester, the Salkinds, Cannon Group), try too hard to emulate Richard Donner (Bryan Singer), or force the religious symbolism down your throat (Zack Snyder). Donner had such a reverent, humble way of approaching the character, which was perfect. Their Superman felt like a human being  and that's often something that is lost in translation. Yeah, he's an alien, but he's also alien that was raised to be human.

The literary concept of a christfigure predates Superman. And realistically, he's a good candidate for that type of metaphor.

Superman II and, to a greater extent, Superman III are very Bronze Age Superman types of stories. I'm at a tremendous loss to think of anything from Superman III, in particular, that couldn't be found in hundreds of Bronze Age Superman comics. The comedic guest star driving the subplots, Superman visiting Smallville, romantic tension with Lana, a showdown with a giant robot (of sorts), it's all there. It's a little sad to me that Superman III may go down in history as one of the least comic book-faithful movies in history when, in fact, it's probably one of the most faithful.

Overall, the only Superman movies I truly loathe are Superman II and Superman Returns. The latter in particular is to me what The Phantom Menace is to a lot of Star Wars fans.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 21 Apr  2017, 18:03
Superman II and, to a greater extent, Superman III are very Bronze Age Superman types of stories. I'm at a tremendous loss to think of anything from Superman III, in particular, that couldn't be found in hundreds of Bronze Age Superman comics. The comedic guest star driving the subplots, Superman visiting Smallville, romantic tension with Lana, a showdown with a giant robot (of sorts), it's all there. It's a little sad to me that Superman III may go down in history as one of the least comic book-faithful movies in history when, in fact, it's probably one of the most faithful.

Overall, the only Superman movies I truly loathe are Superman II and Superman Returns. The latter in particular is to me what The Phantom Menace is to a lot of Star Wars fans.

I think we should all remember that there were religious analogies in Donner's take as well.

I don't consider myself a huge fan of SII either nowadays, but I gotta admit colors, I'm a little surprised that it has fallen that FAR in your estimation. It's definitely the most overrated out of the Reeve films, but do you think the overlooked flaws - some of which people have condemned Snyder's take for having - have taken its toll?

In terms of religious imagery for Superman, I don't have a problem with it. Batman has Gothic imagery and Superman has religious imagery. That's how how it is, and I think it should be utilised. But I prefer it to be how the world views Superman. Humanity views him as a Christ like figure. They see him up in a golden sky looking down upon them, ready to save and protect. But Superman shouldn't view himself that way, and he doesn't.

I found someone on Twitter collecting the darkest scenes in the DCAU to counter claims the recent DC films are too dark.
https://twitter.com/ComicBookDebate/status/854885430667378688

Who can forget Darkseid murdering Dan Turpin, or Superman wanting turn Darkseid into "greasy smear on his fist"? Not exactly all happy go lucky, is it?

Looking back, I'm a glad Superman fans haven't disowned the Dini/Timm interpretation.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 21 Apr  2017, 23:40I think we should all remember that there were religious analogies in Donner's take as well.

I don't consider myself a huge fan of SII either nowadays, but I gotta admit colors, I'm a little surprised that it has fallen that FAR in your estimation. It's definitely the most overrated out of the Reeve films, but do you think the overlooked flaws - some of which people have condemned Snyder's take for having - have taken its toll?

It was the 2001 era Superman movie DVD releases that did it for me. I never gave Superman II much consideration before then. To me, it was just another Superman movie.

But seeing it again for the first time in years as an adult was eye-opening. Superman's motivations through the entire film are pretty selfish. In the end, he only makes the right decision because he has to. It's almost an issue of guilt for him. Except Superman's defining trait is altruism so guilt doesn't play as well there.

One thing that Man of Steel brought out was the idea that it's okay to dislike Superman II. A lot of Donnerphiles resent comparing Superman killing Zod in Superman II (which is what he did) and Superman killing Zod in MOS. And their counter-argument to that is actually really persuasive and articulate. "Shut up."

Seriously, that's what a lot of them say when you bring up how they love Superman II and despise MOS for the exact same reasons. "Shut up."

Donner gets cut a lot of slack on that. But people forget that Lester reshot scenes but he didn't really change the broad trajectory of the story. Donner's ending for Superman II would have been either identical to Lester's or else very similar. Superman II in its broad strokes is basically Donner's brain child. It's fair and reasonable to hold him accountable for how awful that movie really is.

At least Superman in MOS has excuses. He was either a rookie or else he was up against an existential threat and had to take life. Those experiences shaped him. He'll do better next time.

In Superman II, few or none of those same conditions explicitly apply. So he's just a Super-Jerk.

No, I don't enjoy Superman II. I'll take Superman III any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

I like BBBB - Big Blue Being Badass.

Big Blue sends Zod sliding down into an abyss. Violent? Nasty? Yeah, but it's satisfying.
Big Blue returns to the diner to even the score. Petty? Jerkish? Yeah, but it's satisfying.
Big Blue strips himself of his superpowers and underwear because he has a super itch. Dumb? Selfish? Yeah, but it's satisfying.

Big Blue in Superman II killed the villain, settled an old score and got funky with his lover because felt like it.

I may be viewing this stuff from a Batman fan's perspective so take that into account.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 21 Apr  2017, 18:03The comedic guest star driving the subplots,

I remember you mentioning this when we wrote our comic analysis of Superman III a few years ago, but at the time I didn't appreciate just how right you were. Since then, I've stumbled across several more Superman stories featuring famous comedians.

Bob Hope:


Jerry Lewis:


Don Rickles:


In retrospect, it's a wonder Pryor didn't guest star in the comics as well as the film.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 22 Apr  2017, 03:30Superman's motivations through the entire film are pretty selfish. In the end, he only makes the right decision because he has to. It's almost an issue of guilt for him. Except Superman's defining trait is altruism so guilt doesn't play as well there.

But doesn't the guilt arise from internal conflict between his altruistic and selfish drives? Guilt only arises if the person knows they've done something wrong to begin with. If Superman wasn't altruistic, if he didn't understand the folly of what he'd done, then he wouldn't have felt guilty. As Father Lantom says in DD s2: "Guilt can be a good thing. It's the soul's call to action. The indication that something is wrong. The only way to rid your heart of it is to correct your mistakes and keep going until amends are made." Superman's capacity to err makes him more human, and that's the central theme in Superman II – Clark screws up big time and humanity suffers the consequences.

When you hold the fate of the world in your hands, the slightest error in judgement can have disastrous consequences. Superman II is the only movie in the franchise to successfully explore such an eventuality. Superman IV and Superman Returns attempted to address similar themes, but neither quite pulled it off. The movie is all about Superman's greatest failure. And it's not a failure of strength or power, but a failure of his conscious mind. That's where Superman is best tested; not by how much he can bench press, but by how he responds to moral and intellectual quandaries. And in Superman II he makes the wrong decision by picking the selfish path. But he recognises his error, learns from his mistake and strengthens his resolve as a result of it.

Such character arcs are a common component of the second act in the classical hero's journey: the hero fails, is scarred and must learn from his mistake. It's also common in the darker second chapters of many film franchises: Luke fails to save Han or defeat Vader and loses his hand as a consequence; Kirk fails to retrieve the Genesis device or save Spock and he loses his best friend as a consequence; Batman fails to save Rachel or Dent and loses the faith of the entire city as a consequence. If they'd done this in the first Superman movie, then I agree it would have been a miscalculated way of launching the franchise. But it made for an excellent second chapter IMO.

In terms of narrative structure, Superman's selfish decision to relinquish his powers is what Vladimir Propp referred to as the 'violation of interdiction': the point in the story where the hero ignores a previously stated mandate or piece of advice and makes a bad decision that empowers the villain and has other negative consequences. This failure is necessary to facilitate the later stage of 'transfiguration' where the hero is reborn in a better form. In the case of Superman II, that would be the scene where Clark regains his powers at the Fortress of Solitude. I get that some people may not like it, but Superman II contains solid well-structured storytelling. And unlike almost every other film in the franchise, it has a reasonably balanced tone that's neither too silly nor too miserable.

I also give the film credit for introducing us to the modern General Zod. I've read every Zod comic published before that film came out, and back then he simply wasn't a very interesting or memorable character. In fact he was one of the more forgettable Phantom Zone criminals. I felt the movie fleshed out and improved the character in every way imaginable. Many of the defining characteristics we associate with Zod today originated in Superman II. I also consider Stamp's Zod to be the best movie villain Superman has faced to date (though that's not saying much). Without Superman II, I doubt Man of Steel would even exist.

It definitely has flaws and contains several scenes and plot points I don't like, but overall I still rate it as the second best live action Superman film after the 1978 original. But that's just my opinion and I'm not trying to impose it on anyone else. If others like Superman III or Man of Steel better, then that's perfectly fine with me.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 22 Apr  2017, 03:30A lot of Donnerphiles resent comparing Superman killing Zod in Superman II (which is what he did) and Superman killing Zod in MOS.

I guess I must be a Donnerphile then, because I honestly don't think that analogy holds water. However much Snyder fans might want it to be, Superman killing Zod in Superman II is not canon. Superman killing Zod in MoS definitely is.

I don't want to get into this subject too deeply as I already made my case in an older thread, but the fact remains it was never Donner or Reeve's intention for Superman to kill Zod in Superman II. There are quotes from both men to support this. The script and numerous authorised extended TV cuts make it clear that Zod and his cronies were simply depowered and then handed over to Earth's authorities (it was Donner who shot the footage of both the Fortress confrontation and the subsequent arrest scene; it was Lester who neglected to include the second half of that sequence in the theatrical cut, not Donner). In the Donner Cut, Superman even goes so far as to reverse time to restore them to the Phantom Zone. In Donner's director's commentary he clearly states the villains could have returned in a future film as they're "still out there". Fact: it was never Donner's intention for Superman to kill Zod.

I understand that DCEU fans like this interpretation as they feel it vindicates Snyder's creative decision, and that's fine. If we're talking about the Lester theatrical cut, the ambiguity is definitely there to allow for that reading. I have no problem acknowledging the validity of that interpretation. But it is just an interpretation. It's not canon. And it certainly doesn't reflect Donner's intent when he shot the scene.

I also think if we're going to acknowledge Snyder's Ultimate Edition of BvS over the theatrical version then it's only fair to acknowledge the extended TV cuts of Superman II. Those weren't fan edits like the Batman Forever: Red Book Edition. Rather they were official cuts authorised by Warner Bros. And those versions of the film remove any ambiguity over the fate of the Phantom Zone criminals and clarify the filmmakers' intentions on the matter.

There are numerous cuts of Superman II where it's canonically stated that Zod did not die. There isn't one official edit, nor any documentation or quotes from anyone who worked on the film, where it's canonically stated that Zod definitely did die. If some fans prefer that reading of the Lester cut, then I have no problem with that. As I say, the ambiguity's there in the Lester cut. It's a perfectly valid interpretation and I respect it. What I do object to however is the assertion that Supes killing Zod is unquestionably, definitively, canonically the only true meaning of that scene – even though the script, the director and the extended cuts prove otherwise – and that anyone who doesn't accept it as such is a hypocritical idiot blinded by nostalgia.

The hostility towards fans of Donner's Superman and Nolan's Batman in general is growing tiresome. Not everyone who likes those films is a mindless sheep who gets their opinions from Rotten Tomatoes or is incapable of independent thought. I'm happy to respect the views of people who prefer Snyder's interpretation, and I have no desire to insult, belittle or devalue their opinions with ad hominem insults. It would be nice if Snyder fans could return the courtesy. And if they've encountered Donner or Nolan fans who treated their views disrespectfully, then that's equally wrong and I don't for one second condone it. The best response to fanboy immaturity is to ignore it, not stoop to that same level. There are things in life worth fighting over – superhero films aren't amongst them.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 22 Apr  2017, 03:30And their counter-argument to that is actually really persuasive and articulate. "Shut up."

Snyder fans can be every bit as petulant, intolerant and abusive when someone disagrees with them. Trust me, I've experienced it firsthand.

I don't buy into the argument that the fates of the Phantom Zone villains in SII is only an interpretation and it isn't canon.

If Lester and Donner wanted to, they could've added that arctic police scene into the final cut of their own versions of SII. No matter how difficult the legal dispute was and maybe still is, I see no reason why either side couldn't include this scene, or show the villains surviving in a different way - if they really want to convey that was the case and eliminate any sort of ambiguity.

After all, if Tim Burton took only a quick second to show the audience that Catwoman was still alive in the end of Batman Returns, there's no reason why Lester couldn't do the same for Zod and co. But he didn't.

In Donner's case, he had access and total control to all of his original footage - including the arctic police scene - when he was editing his version of the movie. Instead, he didn't include it and the scene was left behind in a Deleted Scenes feature on the DVD/Blu-Ray. It's clear to me that Lester and Donner's decision to exclude that scene meant they never wanted it in their versions of the movie, despite whatever was originally intended in the script and what Donner suggests in interviews. Scripts don't always go to plan, and things change. Just look at B89.

The Ultimate Edition of BvS is supposed to be complete version of the film as it was intended, unlike the unfinished and compromised cuts of SII (some of which you still can't buy on home video to this day, unless they're on bootleg).

Quote
The hostility towards fans of Donner's Superman and Nolan's Batman in general is growing tiresome. Not everyone who likes those films is a mindless sheep who gets their opinions from Rotten Tomatoes or is incapable of independent thought. I'm happy to respect the views of people who prefer Snyder's interpretation, and I have no desire to insult, belittle or devalue their opinions with ad hominem insults. It would be nice if Snyder fans could return the courtesy. And if they've encountered Donner or Nolan fans who treated their views disrespectfully, then that's equally wrong and I don't for one second condone it. The best response to fanboy immaturity is to ignore it, not stoop to that same level. There are things in life worth fighting over – superhero films aren't amongst them.

Problem is, you're guilty of disrespecting others' opinions as well; as you once suggested that most people who don't like Nolan must be biased in favour of Burton, or accusing others of being locked in a mindset in hating his films, even over issues you originally agreed with. I don't mind people liking Nolan's films, but I despise the fact they're put on a such a ridiculous pedestal when they're just as guilty of the same criticisms people enjoy throwing at something like Burton, Snyder's two films, or even the earlier seasons of Arrow, and hardly anybody wants to acknowledge or admit it.

Anyway, I don't hate Donner. S78 is still my favourite Supes film to date and I can still see some good things in SII despite not enjoying it as much as I used to. But as I said earlier, Donner isn't perfect, and neither is Snyder. Both have their strengths and weaknesses.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 22 Apr  2017, 15:20
Anyway, I don't hate Donner.

This is me, although Man of Steel is my number one. I like the first two Superman films because in my opinion, without them I think the Superman movie franchise's track record is abysmal - I'm not a fan of III, IV or Returns. Superman and Superman II are not perfect but I think they have enough going for them. But if push comes to shove, I'm a Snyder man through and through. I prefer everything he has done over Donner. I like Superman. At the core though, I'm not heavily invested in any Superman fan base wars. The same passion just isn't there.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 23 Apr  2017, 01:43This is me, although Man of Steel is my number one. I like the first two Superman films because in my opinion, without them I think the Superman movie franchise's track record is abysmal - I'm not a fan of III, IV or Returns. Superman and Superman II are not perfect but I think they have enough going for them. But if push comes to shove, I'm a Snyder man through and through. I prefer everything he has done over Donner. I like Superman. At the core though, I'm not heavily invested in any Superman fan base wars. The same passion just isn't there.

Drama with that other forum aside, I find that Batman tend to mostly be more unified than Superman fans. It's all relative but Superman fans tend to be rather divided.

Honestly, I chalk it up the plethora of Superman reboots, new origins, restarts and retcons floating around. As of now, with comics people can prefer Pre-Crisis, Byrne's MOS, Birthright, Secret Origin, New 52 and probably more stuff coming soon.

By contrast, for a lot of years there Batman fans all had Year One as their rallying point. Even though I'm not real big on Year One, even I have to admit that some amazing stuff came from the Year One concept. There may have been continuity problems or the occasional retcon but Year One was pretty much always there to serve as the foundation for Batman comics.

Superman fans don't have that. And it long ago became a major point of contention. It's to the point now that there are "types" of Superman fans. Batman fans, in my observation, typically don't have those problems. That may have changed after Zero Year. I wouldn't know. But it looks like Batman fans have remained unified.

The major point of conflict for Batman fans appears to be movie adaptations. Burton, Nolan, Snyder, Schumacher (to a lesser degree) and others all have fans who hate everybody else's version. But when it comes to comics, they all seem to be pretty much on the same page with each other.

It would make an interesting thesis, I think.

One of the biggest reasons why I will still prefer the original theatrical version of SII over the Donner cut is the ending Superman taking the American flag back to the White House and promises the President to never let him down again. Although I still don't think it makes up for Superman impulsively giving up his powers in the first place, at least this ending shows Supes taking some responsibility and acknowledging he was wrong, as opposed to the cop-out ending where he gets to rewind the clock back in time once again.

The BvS Ultimate Edition has some slight changes, i.e. Superman destroying a missile drone before coming to Lois' rescue, and Clark's watching the news coverage of the African witness speaking instead of the reporting of Batman's brutal methods. But on the whole, the overall plot remains intact with extra scenes to help fill in the blanks from the theatrical cut. SII, on the other hand, had too many cuts that don't correlate very well continuity wise, i.e. Jor-El, the vastly different opening and closing sequences, how Lois learn's Clark's secret identity etc. It does sour the experience for me.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 23 Apr  2017, 04:16
Drama with that other forum aside, I find that Batman tend to mostly be more unified than Superman fans. It's all relative but Superman fans tend to be rather divided.

That's true. I think it's about being content. As a Batman fan I am content. I am happy with the character's history. We have the 66 show, Burton's flicks, BTAS, Schumacher, Nolan, the Arkham games and now Snyder. I'm not the biggest Nolan fan but his trilogy genuinely honors the character. That much we have to say. I enjoy the lighter interpretations of Batman, but honestly, when DC go dark with Batman they can't really go wrong. The Batman brand has been remarkably consistent over the years. Superman I think less so, but that's not to say he doesn't have great material.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 23 Apr  2017, 08:27
The BvS Ultimate Edition has some slight changes, i.e. Superman destroying a missile drone before coming to Lois' rescue, and Clark's watching the news coverage of the African witness speaking instead of the reporting of Batman's brutal methods.

And they are all improvements in my eyes. At the end of Man of Steel Superman rips a surveillance drone out of the sky and says he will help the government, but on his terms. At the start of BvS UE, Superman destroys a missile drone. The guy doesn't like drones. I like that thematic continuity. By destroying the missile drone he also saves the village, so it kills two birds with one stone. Clark watching the African witness builds up the paid actress plotline which is entirely absent in the Theatrical Cut. Clark still learns about the brandings when Lex sends him the photos later on, so that aspect of the plot isn't ignored anyway. It's a win-win.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 23 Apr  2017, 10:50
I'm not the biggest Nolan fan but his trilogy genuinely honors the character.

Could've fooled me. I don't consider Nolan's rubbish writing as honoring the character at all. :-[

I am not a fan of the plot trajectories Nolan took. I think his films are grossly overrated. But did Nolan honor the character? At the end of the day I think so. From a realism point of view he more or less nailed his brief, I guess. I don't like realism and Batman mixed together but that's beside the point. Nolan's stories are rooted in the comics even though he has deviations like everyone else. I think the problems with his Batman are really on full show in TDK Rises. He crams in No Man's Land, Knightfall and The Cult into one movie and its just too much to handle to be satisfying and coherent. All the bread and butter themes are there in the Nolan trilogy for me to say the character was honored but there's no doubt things became messy. That's my beef. Batman was great well before Nolan arrived on the scene. Case in point BTAS. I just prefer other interpretations of Batman other than Nolan. I'm not going to roll over and praise TDK Trilogy now, but the arrival of Affleck and Snyder really lifted my mood cinematically.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 23 Apr  2017, 11:19
From a realism point of view he nailed his brief.

See, I even call bullsh*t on that. For all the attempts to make Batman 'real', it didn't work because it focused too much superficial crap like how the costume is made, or being inconsistent with what Batman can and can't do, and contradict his moral principles every single time without reason or logic, and not even affect him once.

No matter what people say about Snyder's take on Superman and Batman, at least we can see how their presence is having an affect on society, and how both overcome all obstacles and shortcomings to redeem themselves in the end. Ironically, BvS shows more realism than anything we see in Nolan's stuff. But BvS is deemed a complete failure, while Nolan's morally warped TDK series is not only accepted, but hailed as a masterpiece? Get the f*** out of here. The fact that people still complain about Batman killing on film to this day, but are happy to overlook Nolan's hypocrisy, is a pathetic travesty by itself. And to add further insult to injury, idiots actually have the nerve to accuse Snyder of dumbing down his audience, unlike Nolan! HA!!!

For me, I'd compare my distaste for Nolan's take to Superman fans' dislike for Bryan Singer's movie: to me, taking the fall for a psychopath is not any better than giving a hero an illegitimate son (as fans would say). But unlike Singer's movie, people have been brainwashed into thinking Nolan's movies define Batman. That is something I will never accept.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 23 Apr  2017, 10:50
I'm not the biggest Nolan fan but his trilogy genuinely honors the character.

Absolutely. I've made no bones about the fact I prefer Burton's overall approach to Nolan's, but as a lifelong comic fan I can't deny the thrill I got from seeing Bruce Wayne represented so accurately on screen in Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. It's not a perfect depiction by any means – no live action version is – but it came satisfyingly close and ticked most of the important boxes. It was especially rewarding for die hard comic fans to see Nolan address characteristics that were flat out ignored by Burton and Schumacher (Bruce training his body to peak condition, Batman interrogating criminals and visiting crime scenes to gather evidence, meeting with Gordon on the roof of the GCPD HQ, suddenly disappearing in the middle of conversations, etc). To quote Denny O'Neil, one of the greatest Batman writers of all time and the greatest Batman editor:

"I can answer that in two words: Christopher Nolan. I created one of the characters in the first and third, so you would expect me to be pretty picky about it. And about halfway through that script I thought: 'My God, he's doing it better than I did. He really gets this character... why the hell didn't I think of this?' He is a man who has great respect for the source material – that's not always been true – and a master of his own craft."
http://screenrant.com/best-batman-movie-version-comic-book-writers/

On the subject of comics and Nolan's Batman films, I'd just like to mention that we haven't forgotten about The Dark Knight comic analysis feature. Hopefully we'll have it posted in time for the 10th anniversary next year, but it's going to be a mammoth undertaking. That movie is full of material taken from the comics.

On the subject of SII, I slightly prefer Donner's Cut (which technically is just an approximation of what a Donner Cut might have been, but not really), but I think both those cuts are very flawed. Mostly, I like the opening better and I love how Lois tricked him later in the film. I also love Brando's scenes. There's some weird placement in terms of editing in the Donner Cut. The Theatrical Cut feels more triumphant when Superman tricks Zod at the end and the theme begins to play. And, of course, it had the flag scene. And both cuts have my least favorite scenes, with the over the top hillbillies.

The only Superman film in that series that I truly love is the original. I would love to have seen what SII would have been like had Donner returned to finish it.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sun, 23 Apr  2017, 14:34On the subject of comics and Nolan's Batman films, I'd just like to mention that we haven't forgotten about The Dark Knight comic analysis feature. Hopefully we'll have it posted in time for the 10th anniversary next year, but it's going to be a mammoth undertaking. That movie is full of material taken from the comics.

If you want, I can dig around and see if I can throw in some tidbits.

Still, you have my sympathies. That's one hell of a big job you've got. So much of it can be summarized as "Go read The Long Halloween" but there's a ton of other stuff in there too.

Quote from: GoNerdYourself on Sun, 23 Apr  2017, 15:49I slightly prefer Donner's Cut (which technically is just an approximation of what a Donner Cut might have been, but not really

This statement points to the major problem I have with the Donner Cut.

I've seen tons of people say the Donner Cut is better than the Lester Cut. So I take issue with that, of course. I mean, in some ways it's picking gnat $#!+ out of pepper to argue which one is better. My view is Superman II sucks on the conceptual level so there's no margin in debating which version is better.

But that aside, I guess I believe the Lester cut is better than Donner's and, in response to someone who says they prefer the Donner Cut, I typically list off the multitude of things done better in Lester's Cut.

Invariably the rejoinder to that is the other guy says the Donner Cut is imperfect, unfinished and not really comparable to Lester's.

But isn't it? Because many of the Donner Cut lovers are fond of saying the Donner Cut is better than Lester's. So obviously they're comparable to each other at least on some levels.

But as the discussion about Donner vs. Lester continues, the feeling sinks in that Donner fan in the discussion is fine with comparing the two cuts when it benefits Donner. But when it benefits Lester, hey, Donner's cut is unfinished, flawed, incomplete, yadda yadda yadda.

I'm not bashing on you, you understand. You didn't say those exact words. But it's something I've seen a lot and wanted to get this off my chest.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 22 Apr  2017, 03:30One thing that Man of Steel brought out was the idea that it's okay to dislike Superman II. A lot of Donnerphiles resent comparing Superman killing Zod in Superman II (which is what he did) and Superman killing Zod in MOS. And their counter-argument to that is actually really persuasive and articulate. "Shut up."

That's not true. As someone who isn't a fan, I state that the difference is tone, atmosphere and storytelling/character structure. SMII kills Zod, but the movie doesn't treat it like a death, nobody freaks out or has a breakdown. The movie doesn't treat it like something awful and then ignore it. It treats like an action hero moment. Not good Superman adapting, fine, but consistent with the character and story. Same with Burton's Batman. He's a homicidal vigilante. But the movie doesn't treat it like he's this huge awful thing, until he interferes with police. They don't care about anything else he does. He messes up, by getting Jack 'killed' and the police go after him because Gordon wanted to use him against Grissom. In parallel, BvS Batman is being hunted by Superman for branding people. The movie sets a precedent for the fact that Superman takes issue with this. And the movie expects us to look at Batman with some form of disdain I guess for this action. Hence the no brand at the end. But the movie also wants us to see this as a new thing for him. But no one treats it like it is. Alfred doesn't stop Bruce and try to talk some sense into his homicidal maniac of a supposed friend. He jumps on him for Superman. But not for anything else he does that's bad. Branding criminals is mean, but it's not bad really. Batman kills people here pointlessly and in contradiction to his goal and no one says a word. It doesn't matter. But we're supposed to care that he brands. Now, let's lay the one rule out here for everyone in BB, because that's important: Batman in this does not have an aversion to killing if there's no other options in a situation to save himself and/or someone else. He continues this into TDK. In a situation where he's outnumbered he sets off an explosion that could get people killed and does get at least 1 person killed. He pushed Harvey off the side. Now, in these situations, does he intend to kill them? There's nothing to suggest that. But he states his goal in BB and it's: I will not become an executioner. His actions here aren't that. They're actions in defense of someone else and/or himself. Same with the Ra's situation, if you'd count that as in the same vein, because factually Ra's stabbed the console and messed up the train himself. And in another connection the chase scene in TDKR. These are consistent rules for the character that line up. Same with Burton and even with Donner. Batman doesn't have a break down about getting those men killed and then is cool with it in the next scene and Alfred isn't about to get onto Bruce for branding and then never say a word about killing, in B's or N's. Now, this is the direct MOS connection: In D's Superman, he kills Zod in a non violent, vague way and an issue isn't created out of it and in the next scenes it's consistent with that. In MOS, he kills Zod in a violent, overly in your face way that's meant to be uncomfortable presumably, and Superman cries out in pain and Lois cradles him as he cries and then in the next scene everything is light and Superman is cool and smug and a woman calls him hot. It's the problem with the scene before that too. Superman saves Lois and lands in the middle of the crater and is surrounded by people being crushed by rubble and people in ash and Superman and Lois makeout, then crack a joke. Then Zod shows up and they fight and Superman is devestated and broken and then he's totes cool. That's the problem. Not to mention that the reason for having it done was nonsense.

QuoteAt least Superman in MOS has excuses. He was either a rookie or else he was up against an existential threat and had to take life. Those experiences shaped him. He'll do better next time.

That's a issue it: It's not a reason. It's an excuse to have this happen. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

(https://crazylister.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/wall-of-text.jpg)

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sun, 23 Apr  2017, 14:34
I can't deny the thrill I got from seeing Bruce Wayne represented so accurately on screen in Batman Begins and The Dark Knight.

It's not a perfect depiction by any means – no live action version is – but it came satisfyingly close and ticked most of the important boxes.

We must have seen two different sets of films then. All I saw was a cheap James Bond knock-off with a sore threat, who consistently betrayed his principles for no reason and in the second film put the entire town in harm's way because of his recklessness, despite his convictions of morality. That doesn't scream "Batman" to me.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sun, 23 Apr  2017, 14:34
It was especially rewarding for die hard comic fans to see Nolan address characteristics that were flat out ignored by Burton and Schumacher (Bruce training his body to peak condition, Batman interrogating criminals and visiting crime scenes to gather evidence, meeting with Gordon on the roof of the GCPD HQ, suddenly disappearing in the middle of conversations, etc).

Disagree with the crime scenes. As I alluded to before, nearly all of the detective work needed Lucius Fox's help, who was the equivalent of Q in this series (hell in some cases, he did ALL of the detective work), and a lot of the crime scene investigations, i.e. the bullet scene in TDK, had little to no impact whatsoever. It certainly didn't undermine the Joker in any significant way, and if you remove that scene, it wouldn't have changed the film at all. It all came across as pointless fan service, at best. And honestly, apart from interrogating Flass, this Batman didn't get that far either.

Besides, did you forget that Burton's Batman investigated which chemicals the Joker had tainted to create the Smilex poison, or Affleck's Batman investigated the White Portuguese ship and uncovered the Kryptonite (even though it appeared that's what Lex wanted all along)?

Quote
To quote Denny O'Neil, one of the greatest Batman writers of all time and the greatest Batman editor:

"I can answer that in two words: Christopher Nolan. I created one of the characters in the first and third, so you would expect me to be pretty picky about it. And about halfway through that script I thought: 'My God, he's doing it better than I did. He really gets this character... why the hell didn't I think of this?' He is a man who has great respect for the source material – that's not always been true – and a master of his own craft."
http://screenrant.com/best-batman-movie-version-comic-book-writers/

::)

Oh, bloody hell. So an incompetent Batman who endangers an entire town with his inconsistent moral stance and telling a lie to protect a psychopath's reputation that eventually backfires spectacularly, is O'Neil's idea for "respecting the source material" or "getting the character"? If somebody like Zack Snyder did that, people would've threatened to murder him. But if Nolan does it, he's a "master of his craft"? Please.

Dennis O'Neill is without a doubt a great writer - The Joker's Five Way Revenge is one of my favourite Joker stories of all time, but I wouldn't take anything he says here so seriously. He's one of those people who looks at Nolan's stuff with rose-tinted glasses. It's pretty sad that he actually believes that Nolan bested his own work. He's really selling himself so short there. Even his worst Batman story is better than this crap.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sun, 23 Apr  2017, 14:34
That movie is full of material taken from the comics.

That's nice and all, but to borrow a popular rebuttal by people who hated BvS, it counts very little if the story is a "terrible mess".

The Nolan films are already much celebrated by the mainstream, often overrated to absurd heights. They need their criticism to add some perspective.

TDK is great, its importance to the Batman franchise can't be overstated, but it's not a masterpiece and its flaws are made even more obvious when a few people pretend it is something which blatantly isn't.

It's an entertaining comic book action/adventure film with a serious tone, "grounded" non-stylized visuals and a powerhouse performance by Heath Ledger, not a "genre transcending" crime drama.

This is why it made a billion and had an entire generation of teens dressing up as Ledger's Joker. It was mostly enjoyed as a thrilling ride, not a philosophy lecture.

Quote from: Azrael on Mon, 24 Apr  2017, 14:23TDK is great, its importance to the Batman franchise can't be overstated, but it's not a masterpiece and its flaws are made even more obvious when a few people pretend it is something which blatantly isn't.

It's an entertaining comic book action/adventure film with a serious tone, "grounded" non-stylized visuals and a powerhouse performance by Heath Ledger, not a "genre transcending" crime drama.

This is why it made a billion and had an entire generation of teens dressing up as Ledger's Joker. It was mostly enjoyed as a thrilling ride, not a philosophy lecture.

^ A fair and balanced assessment. I don't disagree with any of this.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Mon, 24 Apr  2017, 09:29In D's Superman, he kills Zod in a non violent, vague way and an issue isn't created out of it and in the next scenes it's consistent with that.

Torturing someone by crushing his hand into powder, slamming him against a wall and allowing him to plummet to a likely grisly death isn't "violent"?

I guess if you blare the Williams hero theme loud enough, it's possible to overlook anything.

I didn't read that wall o' text, so thanks for trimming a more manageable quote from it, colors. Killing someone is a 'non violent way' is a most curious turn of phrase. I take it the person on the receiving end of the 'non violent' method still ends up dead?

Quote from: Azrael on Mon, 24 Apr  2017, 14:23
TDK is great, its importance to the Batman franchise can't be overstated, but it's not a masterpiece and its flaws are made even more obvious when a few people pretend it is something which blatantly isn't.

Disagree. I think it is a terrible film with really warped messages in morality that has sadly invited hypocritical biases when it comes to Batman on screen, which has done a lot of damage as we've seen with the overblown critical backlash towards Batman's characterisation in BvS.

The sad thing is, it COULD'VE been salvaged if Nolan stayed consistent to Batman's principles. Particularly if he didn't lie about Two-Face in the end. A good ending would've made me appreciate the film much better than I do today. That's the hardest thing I'll never get over.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 24 Apr  2017, 22:15
I didn't read that wall o' text, so thanks for trimming a more manageable quote from it, colors. Killing someone is a 'non violent way' is a most curious turn of phrase. I take it the person on the receiving end of the 'non violent' method still ends up dead?

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 24 Apr  2017, 17:57Torturing someone by crushing his hand into powder, slamming him against a wall and allowing him to plummet to a likely grisly death isn't "violent"?

I guess if you blare the Williams hero theme loud enough, it's possible to overlook anything.

Honestly, yes. Not aggressive, heavy or dark. The tone is one of action hero placement. Like Batman in BR setting a bad guy on fire with his batmobile. Superman just defeated the bad guys and that's it. The movie doesn't treat it like something hugely awful, so the audience doesn't. MOS does and then ignores it. It trains the audience to feel horrified by the moment and then betrays them for it in the next scene by having Superman be happy go lucky. It's inconsistent. We never see Zod die in SMII so the audience doesn't feel like he did. It doesn't make the audience feel it. Call it cheap, call it a cop out, it likely is, but it's consistent with itself.

Hm. So it looks like the takeaway lesson here is that it's okay for one fictional character to kill another fictional character. The key issues are to blast the Williams Superman theme in the background and instantly forget that the character just took someone else's life. After all, actions never have consequences (anybody who says otherwise is lying or selling something, eh?) so it's best to just do whatever and forget about it as quickly as possible.

Got it.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 25 Apr  2017, 07:41Hm. So it looks like the takeaway lesson here is that it's okay for one fictional character to kill another fictional character. The key issues are to blast the Williams Superman theme in the background and instantly forget that the character just took someone else's life. After all, actions never have consequences (anybody who says otherwise is lying or selling something, eh?) so it's best to just do whatever and forget about it as quickly as possible.

Got it.

I was talking about the top statement. The music doesn't matter. The tone being consistent in it and after it do. Actions not having consequences is the exact problem with MOS. The action of killing doesn't have a consequence in SMII either. But it doesn't pretend it will. It just isn't treated hugely. MOS is inconsistent. It wants to give the illusion of consequences. But it doesn't walk the walk in this situation. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

You're wrong again Dagen. The killing of Zod has a consequence. Have you seen a film called Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice by any chance? It's the direct sequel to Man of Steel. In that film, Lex Luthor takes General Zod's body into his possession and creates Doomsday. The action of killing Zod doesn't have any consequence in Superman III. It's flat out ignored as they move onto a brand new story. Have a very great day!

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 23 Apr  2017, 10:50

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 23 Apr  2017, 08:27
The BvS Ultimate Edition has some slight changes, i.e. Superman destroying a missile drone before coming to Lois' rescue, and Clark's watching the news coverage of the African witness speaking instead of the reporting of Batman's brutal methods.

And they are all improvements in my eyes. At the end of Man of Steel Superman rips a surveillance drone out of the sky and says he will help the government, but on his terms. At the start of BvS UE, Superman destroys a missile drone. The guy doesn't like drones. I like that thematic continuity. By destroying the missile drone he also saves the village, so it kills two birds with one stone. Clark watching the African witness builds up the paid actress plotline which is entirely absent in the Theatrical Cut. Clark still learns about the brandings when Lex sends him the photos later on, so that aspect of the plot isn't ignored anyway. It's a win-win.

Indeed. As I once said, I haven't seen many director's cuts improve the original, but the UE did that. It fills in the gaps left behind in the theatrical version, without radically changing what was already established.

Which brings me to question the argument regarding continuity in SII. Again, I think the debate about the arctic police scene is futile because that scene's omission means neither Lester nor Donner wanted it in continuity, and give the impression the villains met an untimely fate. People can cite what was originally scripted all they want and Donner can speculate 'possibilities' in interviews all he wants, but actions speak louder than words. Not in a final cut of a movie, didn't happen. Tough sh*t.

But for argument's sake, let's say we choose to accept that scene as canon because 'it improves the story'. Okay then. What about scenes that were vastly different in the Donner and Lester cuts, and one finds both each improve on one aspect over the other? What happens if you prefer Jor-El's subplot over the original involving Lara, but prefer the Paris rescue scene over Donner's Daily Planet opening scene? If we're going to deleted count scenes as canon, are we going to do it if it improves the story? Or are we going to hypocritically pick and choose which scenes are canon whenever it suits our liking?

Food for thought.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Tue, 25 Apr  2017, 00:42

Disagree. I think it is a terrible film with really warped messages in morality

I don't disagree with what you say about its dubious morality (I've read many of your posts about the film, and to an extent I agree with several arguments) but try arguing that it's a "terrible film", not to über-fans of the film who look too much into it ("it's important", "it says something" etc etc) and their opinion is anyway too myopic, but to general film buffs, critics etc. There's those who simply rate it highly as a superhero picture (rightly so), but then a few others who take an exciting Batman movie with a captivating Joker and elevate it to Godfather levels of quality, saying it transcends the genre, rendering every Batman movie version that came before as obsolete, forgettable, campy, unimportant. Here's the problem.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Tue, 25 Apr  2017, 00:42
that has sadly invited hypocritical biases when it comes to Batman on screen, which has done a lot of damage as we've seen with the overblown critical backlash towards Batman's characterisation in BvS.

Let's face it, a lot of it has more to do both with a few problems the film has and a bit of prejudice towards Snyder's name in the credits than with Batman going blitzkrieg on a few thugs. The Batman aspect of the film was the one less criticized (if you discount a vocal nitpicking minority). The overrated status of TDK played its part too.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Tue, 25 Apr  2017, 00:42
The sad thing is, it COULD'VE been salvaged if Nolan stayed consistent to Batman's principles. Particularly if he didn't lie about Two-Face in the end. A good ending would've made me appreciate the film much better than I do today. That's the hardest thing I'll never get over.

Agreed. If you take the ending too seriously. Personally I wrote it off as "rule of drama" - if characters acted smart all the time, there wouldn't be much drama (or sometimes much of a movie) but yes, it could end differently. Anyway, that's why in many cases superhero movies shouldn't be taken too seriously and called crime dramas, especially TDK.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 25 Apr  2017, 10:00You're wrong again Dagen. The killing of Zod has a consequence. Have you seen a film called Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice by any chance? It's the direct sequel to Man of Steel. In that film, Lex Luthor takes General Zod's body into his possession and creates Doomsday. The action of killing Zod doesn't have any consequence in Superman III. It's flat out ignored as they move onto a brand new story. Have a very great day!

That's not an actual consequence. That's a plot device. It means nothing for Clark's character. But I was talking about MOS, not BvS. What BvS means doesn't change MOS's story or character. Just like SMIII's situation would mean nothing to SMII if it dealt with Zod's death. This isn't a TV series. It's a single film. It enhances the experience of BvS, but it doesn't change MOS's. Just like revealing SHIELD is infiltrated by HYDRA in TWS doesn't make SHIELD having HYDRA weapons in Avengers brilliant. It changes nothing about the movie. The consequences belong to MOS. I'm also talking about character based consequences, not plot consequences.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Tue, 25 Apr  2017, 09:44Actions not having consequences is the exact problem with MOS. The action of killing doesn't have a consequence in SMII either. But it doesn't pretend it will. It just isn't treated hugely. MOS is inconsistent. It wants to give the illusion of consequences. But it doesn't walk the walk in this situation.

The consequences of Superman killing Zod permeate BVS. The most prominent example is the creation of Doomsday. That wouldn't have been possible without a Kryptonian cadaver to work with. And there wouldn't have been a Kryptonian cadaver without Superman killing Zod back in MOS.

Irrespective, I reject the premise. I believe there's a time and a place for Superman to kill. He isn't human and I think there should be limits to which he should be expected to abide by human law and/or human morality. One example is Superman killing an existential threat.

Zod was an existential threat. If Superman didn't kill Zod, Zod would have killed all of mankind.

Superman made the right call. If anything, he probably waited too long to do it.

Superman doesn't need to kill a car thief or a bank robber or a purse snatcher. We have a criminal justice system ready, willing, able and eager to prosecute those types of cases. All Superman really needs to do in those situations is to detain the suspect until the police arrive. No big deal.

But mankind has literally nothing it can throw at a superpowered Kryptonian. If one ever goes on a rampage, mankind is pretty much screwed. So Superman did what mankind obviously wanted to do but wasn't able.

Try though I might, I can't see how Superman acted in the wrong in MOS.

By contrast, every impression of the Donner and Lester cuts of Superman II indicate that the Zoners died in the Fortress. They'd lost their powers. They were no longer a threat. Superman didn't have to crush Zod's hand into splinters. Superman didn't have to toss Zod across the room like a rag doll and slam him against a wall. Superman didn't have to allow Zod to plummet to what sounded like a grisly death after a long fall.

But he did.

I call Superman's actions in MOS the height of valor and heroism. But his actions in Superman II are virtually always wrong all the time.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 25 Apr  2017, 21:20
The consequences of Superman killing Zod permeate BVS. The most prominent example is the creation of Doomsday. That wouldn't have been possible without a Kryptonian cadaver to work with. And there wouldn't have been a Kryptonian cadaver without Superman killing Zod back in MOS.

In MoS, Clark screams after he kills Zod. Zod was a monster and he had to be stopped. But nonetheless, Clark killed a fellow Kryptonian. Lois consoles him because she can see his obvious pain. In Superman II, Superman throws Zod down an abyss in the strong likelihood it will kill him. He smiles and Lois gets in on the act too. There is no remorse at all. Given both of these actions take place at the very end of the film, the runtime to explore the consequences is limited.  But Cavill's Superman at least makes a point to show he's upset. You can mentally build on something like that. The last of his kind alone again, etc. And as said, we also have BvS. Getting impaled by a spike means everything for Clark because it kills him.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 25 Apr  2017, 21:20
They'd lost their powers. They were no longer a threat. Superman didn't have to crush Zod's hand into splinters. Superman didn't have to toss Zod across the room like a rag doll and slam him against a wall. Superman didn't have to allow Zod to plummet to what sounded like a grisly death after a long fall.

Exactly.

I don't have a problem with Superman doing this to Zod in Superman II because I find it satisfying. But facts are Superman didn't have to treat Zod in this way. In that moment, Zod was no different to Hackman's Lex. Would it have been okay if Superman threw Lex against the wall too? There was no threat. Superman was all powerful and Zod was all weak. In Man of Steel, Superman had to treat Zod in this way because they were both superpowered. Who has the better excuse for taking lethal action? It's not Reeve's Superman.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 25 Apr  2017, 21:20The consequences of Superman killing Zod permeate BVS. The most prominent example is the creation of Doomsday. That wouldn't have been possible without a Kryptonian cadaver to work with. And there wouldn't have been a Kryptonian cadaver without Superman killing Zod back in MOS.

BvS isn't MOS. I'm talking about MOS.

QuoteIrrespective, I reject the premise. I believe there's a time and a place for Superman to kill. He isn't human and I think there should be limits to which he should be expected to abide by human law and/or human morality. One example is Superman killing an existential threat.

Zod was an existential threat. If Superman didn't kill Zod, Zod would have killed all of mankind.

Superman made the right call. If anything, he probably waited too long to do it.

Superman doesn't need to kill a car thief or a bank robber or a purse snatcher. We have a criminal justice system ready, willing, able and eager to prosecute those types of cases. All Superman really needs to do in those situations is to detain the suspect until the police arrive. No big deal.

But mankind has literally nothing it can throw at a superpowered Kryptonian. If one ever goes on a rampage, mankind is pretty much screwed. So Superman did what mankind obviously wanted to do but wasn't able.

Try though I might, I can't see how Superman acted in the wrong in MOS.

By contrast, every impression of the Donner and Lester cuts of Superman II indicate that the Zoners died in the Fortress. They'd lost their powers. They were no longer a threat. Superman didn't have to crush Zod's hand into splinters. Superman didn't have to toss Zod across the room like a rag doll and slam him against a wall. Superman didn't have to allow Zod to plummet to what sounded like a grisly death after a long fall.

But he did.

I call Superman's actions in MOS the height of valor and heroism. But his actions in Superman II are virtually always wrong all the time.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 26 Apr  2017, 00:07In MoS, Clark screams after he kills Zod. Zod was a monster and he had to be stopped. But nonetheless, Clark killed a fellow Kryptonian. Lois consoles him because she can see his obvious pain. In Superman II, Superman throws Zod down an abyss in the strong likelihood it will kill him. He smiles and Lois gets in on the act too. There is no remorse at all. Given both of these actions take place at the very end of the film, the runtime to explore the consequences is limited.  But Cavill's Superman at least makes a point to show he's upset. You can mentally build on something like that. The last of his kind alone again, etc. And as said, we also have BvS. Getting impaled by a spike means everything for Clark because it kills him.

Exactly.

I don't have a problem with Superman doing this to Zod in Superman II because I find it satisfying. But facts are Superman didn't have to treat Zod in this way. In that moment, Zod was no different to Hackman's Lex. Would it have been okay if Superman threw Lex against the wall too? There was no threat. Superman was all powerful and Zod was all weak. In Man of Steel, Superman had to treat Zod in this way because they were both superpowered. Who has the better excuse for taking lethal action? It's not Reeve's Superman.

That has nothing to do with the tone, story or character structure consistency. The morality have the situation wasn't being discussed. The quality in writing was. I'm not calling him wrong. I'm calling it poorly written.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Wed, 26 Apr  2017, 03:19BvS isn't MOS. I'm talking about MOS.

And I'm talking about characters in both movies, a still-unfolding story and the progression of that story. While I understand your desire to limit the discussion to issues you think better bolster your point, I refuse to cooperate because there's a larger narrative unspooling here and it's myopic to focus only on one part of a bigger whole as you are attempting to do.

Quote from: Azrael on Tue, 25 Apr  2017, 17:54
I don't disagree with what you say about its dubious morality (I've read many of your posts about the film, and to an extent I agree with several arguments)

Let me take this opportunity to apologise up front for being repetitive about this subject. I know it can be annoying that I say the same thing over again, but it's something I feel strongly about.

Quote from: Azrael on Tue, 25 Apr  2017, 17:54
but try arguing that it's a "terrible film", not to über-fans of the film who look too much into it ("it's important", "it says something" etc etc) and their opinion is anyway too myopic, but to general film buffs, critics etc.

I'm not swayed by what film buffs and critics say. Especially if they're the same people who criticise something like BvS for its dark tone, characterisation, story structure and so forth, when all those things are not only present in TDK, but they're much worse. It doesn't make sense how the latter gets overlooked for this, there's a massive disparity in critical judgment going on there.

But even as a turn-off-your-brain, popcorn blockbuster, I don't think TDK succeeds in that area either because it doesn't hold up in rudimentary storytelling. Each Nolan film, especially TDK, made it specifically clear that Batman believed in a certain set of rules and beliefs, and then he does a 360 degree turn without logic at all. Nor does he actually learn from the experience or become better for it, which makes it even more frustrating.

People can criticise BvS all they want about whether or not Batman should've done this, or Superman should've done that, but they managed to redeem themselves in the end. Some may dismiss Superman's arc by dismiss him as "beaten up for the sake of being a Christ figure", but it shows that no matter how much the world might have doubted him, he still committed a selfless act to save it. That is a Superman trait by itself. Batman in particular actually learned from his mistakes, recovered from his blind rage and showed his gratitude and guilt for Superman's sacrifice by trying to start the Justice League. It's because of how these arcs ended in such a positive note that I could tolerate whatever issues I had with how they behaved earlier on as a "rule of drama", to borrow your term.

TDK doesn't have that mitigating factor to me (frankly, nor does the rest of the trilogy). Some fans try to defend the ending by arguing Batman taking the fall proves that the Joker won from an ideological point of view, which I don't buy one bit. But even if that were true, then how in the hell can anybody call that ending uplifting and heroic? That's much darker than what we saw in BvS.

Let me make myself clear that I don't think BvS is a masterpiece either (although I do think it's misunderstood). Otherwise, I wouldn't have started this thread inviting an open conversation about Cavill's Superman, never mind sharing my own critique of how he's written so far.

Quote from: Azrael on Tue, 25 Apr  2017, 17:54
The Batman aspect of the film was the one less criticized (if you discount a vocal nitpicking minority).

Are you sure about that? I've read a lot of reviews from online publications complaining about this aspect of the story, conveniently forgetting that B&R is the only film to date where he doesn't kill anyone. You'd be surprised how powerful groupthink is.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed, 26 Apr  2017, 12:36Let me take this opportunity to apologise up front for being repetitive about this subject. I know it can be annoying that I say the same thing over again, but it's something I feel strongly about.

I should apologise for unwittingly hijacking the thread with a comment not directly related to the main subject, Cavill's Superman.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed, 26 Apr  2017, 12:36I'm not swayed by what film buffs and critics say. Especially if they're the same people who criticise something like BvS for its dark tone, characterisation, story structure and so forth, when all those things are not only present in TDK, but they're much worse. It doesn't make sense how the latter gets overlooked for this, there's a massive disparity in critical judgment going on there.

I'm not either, these opinions do not affect my own (e.g. I like the SW prequels), you can't totally ignore them, though.

My entire point is that it's like punching a wall, the arguments about the film's dubious morality or choices characters make may lose validity and get ignored if they're accompanied by reasons why the film itself is overall terrible (speaking objectively, detached, well, it isn't). My problem is when it's elevated to levels it doesn't belong to, when it becomes the standard for Batman films. That should be fought, yes.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed, 26 Apr  2017, 12:36TDK doesn't have that mitigating factor to me (frankly, nor does the rest of the trilogy). Some fans try to defend the ending by arguing Batman taking the fall proves that the Joker won from an ideological point of view, which I don't buy one bit. But even if that were true, then how in the hell can anybody call that ending uplifting and heroic? That's much darker than what we saw in BvS.

Word.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed, 26 Apr  2017, 12:36Are you sure about that? I've read a lot of reviews from online publications complaining about this aspect of the story, conveniently forgetting that B&R is the only film to date where he doesn't kill anyone. You'd be surprised how powerful groupthink is.

Well, I can't be 100% sure because I haven't researched all (major) reviews, but what I've read mostly talked about problems with the film, script etc. not with Batman. I've seen negative reviews praising Affleck and Irons. My perception was that Batman's brutality was criticized by a vocal minority obsessed with the "no kill!" rule. Maybe I was wrong and it's even worse. Groupthink is a real bane, yes.

Not much to add except I overall agree and share the sentiment both for BvS and TDK. Just like with the unfair, constant and matter-of-factly bashing of the SW prequels, the same has happened with BvS in several mainstream outlets (like cracked), and it's sad.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed, 26 Apr  2017, 05:32And I'm talking about characters in both movies, a still-unfolding story and the progression of that story. While I understand your desire to limit the discussion to issues you think better bolster your point, I refuse to cooperate because there's a larger narrative unspooling here and it's myopic to focus only on one part of a bigger whole as you are attempting to do.

I'm talking about the quality of single movie. BvS doesn't change MOS's quality. Just like TDK doesn't change BB. But again, consequences of plot aren't what I'm talking about. But actual character based consequences. Superman killing Zod has no effect on him in MOS. Also in BvS. But that doesn't matter to MOS. It's not ignoring. It's treating them for what they are: Movies. Not a TV series. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed, 26 Apr  2017, 12:36TDK doesn't have that mitigating factor to me (frankly, nor does the rest of the trilogy). Some fans try to defend the ending by arguing Batman taking the fall proves that the Joker won from an ideological point of view, which I don't buy one bit. But even if that were true, then how in the hell can anybody call that ending uplifting and heroic? That's much darker than what we saw in BvS.

Quote from: Azrael on Wed, 26 Apr  2017, 16:15Word.

The uplifting part is that Batman refuses to let the Joker win and is willing to take the heat. I don't see how it isn't. But it still isn't completely. It's bittersweet. And it fits with Batman's self destructive tendencies. It isn't darker than BvS, because with Batman that's the point. Also, Batman's actively alive. But a majority of the movie is spent talking about how Batman isn't a hero. That's in the end speech. Alfred says it to Rachel. Batman says it. So, I don't know why that's an expectation.

Quote
My entire point is that it's like punching a wall, the arguments about the film's dubious morality or choices characters make may lose validity and get ignored if they're accompanied by reasons why the film itself is overall terrible (speaking objectively, detached, well, it isn't).

Sorry, but I'm not going to ignore crucial plot points that undermine the whole film. If I think something is wrong, I'll say it. Keep in mind that I've only focused on the last five minutes of the film. Don't get me started on the film's other flaws i.e. Two-Face, Gordon faking his death etc.

If you think these things don't hurt the overall film itself, that's fine. We all have different opinions.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Wed, 26 Apr  2017, 19:52I'm talking about the quality of single movie.

Yes, I saw that the first time.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Wed, 26 Apr  2017, 19:52BvS doesn't change MOS's quality.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Wed, 26 Apr  2017, 19:52But again, consequences of plot aren't what I'm talking about.

And yet they are what I'm talking about. You're attempting to force a macro-story into a micro-sample. Apart from being nonsensical, I refuse to accept that premise. If you want to view MOS independently of everything else (in spite of the filmmakers' and movie studio's avowed intent), your interpretive framework is objectively wrong.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Wed, 26 Apr  2017, 19:52Superman killing Zod has no effect on him in MOS.

I guess he shouted in pain like that because he stubbed his toe, eh?

Quote from: Dagenspear on Wed, 26 Apr  2017, 19:52Also in BvS. But that doesn't matter to MOS. It's not ignoring. It's treating them for what they are: Movies. Not a TV series.

These movies are stories. These stories are based on comics. Comics frequently tell a serialized story. As episodic as film inherently is, there is nevertheless a macro-story going on. Your refusal to acknowledge that doesn't change the fact that a serialized story has been (and is being) told.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 27 Apr  2017, 01:45Yes, I saw that the first time.

And yet they are what I'm talking about. You're attempting to force a macro-story into a micro-sample. Apart from being nonsensical, I refuse to accept that premise. If you want to view MOS independently of everything else (in spite of the filmmakers' and movie studio's avowed intent), your interpretive framework is objectively wrong.

I don't why you replied to my comment then if it's not what the same thing I'm talking about. But they're wrong. Stories are told with forward momentum. If it's to be viewed interconnectedly, it has to be immediate. This story is separate from BvS. It doesn't even matter if it was planned, it has no effect on this film. This film is it's own. MOS can enhance BvS with it's interconnection, but not the other way around. Forward momentum doesn't work backwards. You have to slant the angle to make that happen, ala a prequel.

QuoteI guess he shouted in pain like that because he stubbed his toe, eh?

He might as well. It lasted about as long as that. What you describe is an immediate reaction. Not an effect. He's not effected in any scene after that by it. It means nothing. And it's inconsistent about meaning nothing, because it pretends it means something.

QuoteThese movies are stories. These stories are based on comics. Comics frequently tell a serialized story. As episodic as film inherently is, there is nevertheless a macro-story going on. Your refusal to acknowledge that doesn't change the fact that a serialized story has been (and is being) told.

Serialization doesn't matter. It's not a comic. Even a TV series paying off something a year later only works if the seeds of that payoff were planted in the year before or have been slowly building ever since. BvS by it's very nature as a film doesn't have that. Just like TDK can't enhance BB, intention or not, BvS can't enhance MOS. If they had showed Lex taking the body, maybe it could've worked, but they didn't. So, the plot payoff means nothing to MOS. But that has nothing to do with what I'm saying. I'm talking about character. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

I know this is sort of going back to the "Superman is just as dark as Batman" complaint which I addressed in my first post in this thread, but another common complaint I've seen aimed at Superman are accusations of how he's being hypocritical for questioning Batman's brutal brand of vigilantism and how he is scaring the common man, when the same can be said of Supes himself.

Personally, I'm not convinced by this notion. One can criticise Superman's recklessness in MOS or feel disappointed at how he's not this omnipotent being who can prevent every disaster possible, but at no point was Clark Kent trying to impose his strength to intimidate others like Batman did. That was why Clark made a point of civil liberties were being interfered when meeting Bruce at Lex's party.

We  see Clark in both Snyder films always doing good and helping people whenever he could, and no matter how much he began to reconsider whether it was worth it, he never backed away from these intentions.  Not once, regardless how many detractors will try to argue otherwise, did he stoop down to a level and delude himself into thinking he is doing something for the greater good like Batman did. In fact, despite telling Lois about nobody could stay good in this world before facing Batman, this proves to be only a momentary lapse by Superman because he still held back and refused to kill Batman throughout the fight. In spite of Lex trying to deconstruct and taint him in every way possible.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu,  4 May  2017, 12:19Personally, I'm not convinced by this notion. One can criticise Superman's recklessness in MOS or feel disappointed at how he's not this omnipotent being who can prevent every disaster possible, but at no point was Clark Kent trying to impose his strength to intimidate others like Batman did. That was why Clark made a point of civil liberties were being interfered when meeting Bruce at Lex's party.

This is a really interesting point, tbh. And it's something I hadn't really considered before.

As you say, Clark criticized Batman for violating peoples' civil liberties. Through BVS, we mostly see Superman performing rescues. Even taking down the terrorist who was hassling Lois was done in the context of saving her. We don't really see Superman fight crime in the movies so far. It's almost like he doesn't really think that's his mandate.

People talk a lot about the influence Superman has had on Batman. Specifically, Batman maybe taking a kinder, gentler approach in the future. But a different issue is the influence Batman might have on Superman, where Batman inspires Superman to be more than just a superpowered rescuer. Instead, Superman might take a more active hand in fighting crime himself. Nowhere near as brutally as Batman, obviously, but still fighting crime nevertheless.

I like that. It gives both characters room to grow, it points out legit flaws they both have and it shows them influencing each other's ideas and methods. Neither character is really "right" nor is either one "wrong". They simply grow in office a little bit.

It's a neat idea; I'll enjoy that angle if that's where things go in the future.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu,  4 May  2017, 12:19I know this is sort of going back to the "Superman is just as dark as Batman" complaint which I addressed in my first post in this thread, but another common complaint I've seen aimed at Superman are accusations of how he's being hypocritical for questioning Batman's brutal brand of vigilantism and how he is scaring the common man, when the same can be said of Supes himself.

Personally, I'm not convinced by this notion. One can criticise Superman's recklessness in MOS or feel disappointed at how he's not this omnipotent being who can prevent every disaster possible, but at no point was Clark Kent trying to impose his strength to intimidate others like Batman did. That was why Clark made a point of civil liberties were being interfered when meeting Bruce at Lex's party.

We  see Clark in both Snyder films always doing good and helping people whenever he could, and no matter how much he began to reconsider whether it was worth it, he never backed away from these intentions.  Not once, regardless how many detractors will try to argue otherwise, did he stoop down to a level and delude himself into thinking he is doing something for the greater good like Batman did. In fact, despite telling Lois about nobody could stay good in this world before facing Batman, this proves to be only a momentary lapse by Superman because he still held back and refused to kill Batman throughout the fight. In spite of Lex trying to deconstruct and taint him in every way possible.

He didn't refuse to kill him because he threw him through a building, knowing that he was a human being. He also didn't care about anything in that fight. As shown by his unwillingness to not only fight Batman to save his mom, but also to tell Batman what's going on. It's such a weird nonsensical situation. Not to mention that, by Lex's standards Superman had already been tainted by his killing of Zod and his framing of him for the deaths of those men at the beginning of the movie. In all honesty, it doesn't matter, because Superman is still causing people to live in fear, so his claims against Batman are still hypocritical. Whether he intends to or not. And he still is brutal, like his slamming of that man through the wall. Yes, to him it's for the greater good, the way he justified going after Batman needlessly and him telling Lois that he didn't kill those men. His recklessness and the intention of it aren't the point. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

Quote from: Dagenspear on Thu,  4 May  2017, 23:10He didn't refuse to kill him because he threw him through a building, knowing that he was a human being.

"Stay down! If I wanted it, you'd be dead already."

Sounds pretty definitive to me.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Thu,  4 May  2017, 23:10He also didn't care about anything in that fight. As shown by his unwillingness to not only fight Batman to save his mom, but also to tell Batman what's going on.

Not sure if I'm parsing this correctly or not. But Superman did try reasoning with Batman. He called him "Bruce", he admitted he'd been wrong and tried to explain Lex's scam. But Batman was having none of it. So he wasn't "unwilling" to tell Batman what's going on. Batman simply refused to listen to him.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Thu,  4 May  2017, 23:10Not to mention that, by Lex's standards Superman had already been tainted by his killing of Zod and his framing of him for the deaths of those men at the beginning of the movie.

That's the point. There was controversy over Superman but it wasn't a matter of widespread consensus that Superman is dangerous. Some people thought so, others didn't.

Lex saw the blood on Superman's hands and wanted the rest of the world to see it too. So maybe Superman killing Batman would do the job.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Thu,  4 May  2017, 23:10the way he justified going after Batman needlessly

If you mean going after Batman as Clark Kent, that's legit news. And, from Clark's standpoint, a serious cause for concern.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Thu,  4 May  2017, 23:10and him telling Lois that he didn't kill those men.

And he told the truth. He didn't kill them. Lex's minions did that.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri,  5 May  2017, 06:08"Stay down! If I wanted it, you'd be dead already."

Sounds pretty definitive to me.

Too bad throwing him through a building came first.

QuoteNot sure if I'm parsing this correctly or not. But Superman did try reasoning with Batman. He called him "Bruce", he admitted he'd been wrong and tried to explain Lex's scam. But Batman was having none of it. So he wasn't "unwilling" to tell Batman what's going on. Batman simply refused to listen to him.

He was unwilling because Batman couldn't hurt him and Superman didn't say anything anyway. Him calling him by name and telliing him he doesn't understand isn't reasoning with him. Telling him what's actually happening is. To anyone with no information you're just saying things that have no meaning.

QuoteThat's the point. There was controversy over Superman but it wasn't a matter of widespread consensus that Superman is dangerous. Some people thought so, others didn't.

Lex saw the blood on Superman's hands and wanted the rest of the world to see it too. So maybe Superman killing Batman would do the job.

By Lex's own words Superman going to kill Batman was an admission of his dirtiness, but by this same logic him killing Zod is the admission too, so he's already admitted it. Lex's plan means nothing. Superman killing an insane murderous vigilante who even the people he saves are afraid whose been absent for years apparently and only just recently restarted wouldn't mean much of anything to anyone.

QuoteIf you mean going after Batman as Clark Kent, that's legit news. And, from Clark's standpoint, a serious cause for concern.

Clark's standpoint of going after a guy who brands people who get shanked and is scary to people is ridiculously silly and nonsensical. Why is Batman more important than every warlord, terrorist, crime boss in the world? It's nonsense to put the vigilante loon as top priority from either side. Why isn't Superman going after the guys who were in charge of trafficking those people, instead of the person who beat up the lackeys of those that were trafficking those people.

QuoteAnd he told the truth. He didn't kill them. Lex's minions did that.

I know. I wasn't saying that he was. I'm saying that he justifies his actions as saying that it's cool because he didn't kill them. I agree with him there, but it's still a justification. Have avery great day!

God bless you all!

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri,  5 May  2017, 07:31Too bad throwing him through a building came first.

I agree, Superman knew he'd survive. You're totally right about that.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri,  5 May  2017, 07:31He was unwilling because Batman couldn't hurt him

The sonar attack didn't look like it tickled.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri,  5 May  2017, 07:31Superman didn't say anything anyway.

When the other guy demonstrates his refusal to listen, what more was Superman supposed to do? Looks to me like Superman thought he needed to kick Batman's @$$ a little and then maybe they could both start being reasonable.

By the by, I love how you're ignoring Superman's conversation with Lois prior to his showdown with Batman where he voices aloud the need to recruit Batman to rescue Martha.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri,  5 May  2017, 07:31Him calling him by name and telliing him he doesn't understand isn't reasoning with him.

It's the start of it. And if Batman had let Superman get a word in edgewise, more would have followed.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri,  5 May  2017, 07:31Superman killing an insane murderous vigilante who even the people he saves are afraid whose been absent for years apparently and only just recently restarted wouldn't mean much of anything to anyone.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri,  5 May  2017, 07:31Clark's standpoint of going after a guy who brands people who get shanked and is scary to people is ridiculously silly and nonsensical.

Bernie Goetz is a controversial figure even to this day. Certainly a lot of ink was spilled about him at the time that he did what he did. It's not too much of a stretch to see a journalistic angle here considering the real world counterparts to this sort of thing.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri,  5 May  2017, 07:31Why is Batman more important than every warlord, terrorist, crime boss in the world?

How many of those unofficially operate under the imprimatur of their local police and law enforcement?

Of those, how many are literally across the bay from Metropolis?

Whether you like it or not, stories about Batman are a completely valid thing for Clark to advocate with Perry.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri,  5 May  2017, 07:31Why isn't Superman going after the guys who were in charge of trafficking those people, instead of the person who beat up the lackeys of those that were trafficking those people.

Not sure what you're referring to here.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri,  5 May  2017, 07:31I'm saying that he justifies his actions as saying that it's cool because he didn't kill them. I agree with him there, but it's still a justification.

Were laws broken? Was anybody killed? Was United States foreign policy somehow compromised or hindered? Did the terrorist kill Lois?

Looks to me like the answers are all "no". So I'm not sure I see the problem there.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri,  5 May  2017, 17:54I agree, Superman knew he'd survive. You're totally right about that.

He didn't. He couldn't.

QuoteThe sonar attack didn't look like it tickled.

It didn't incapicate him or keep him from speaking, so he has no excuse is my point.

QuoteWhen the other guy demonstrates his refusal to listen, what more was Superman supposed to do? Looks to me like Superman thought he needed to kick Batman's @$$ a little and then maybe they could both start being reasonable.

By the by, I love how you're ignoring Superman's conversation with Lois prior to his showdown with Batman where he voices aloud the need to recruit Batman to rescue Martha.

Hold Batman down and tell him that Lex Luthor kidnapped his mom and is forcing him to kill him.

If he was intent on saving his mom, then kicking Batman around would be the absolute last thing he would do.

I'd believe that if his entire attitude towards the situation didn't contradict that. Even when Batman's down, after being thrown through the building, Superman still doesn't say anything about what's really happening. Fighting Batman runs contrary to his goals, unless he'd decided to not even try convincing him and just do what Lex wanted.

QuoteIt's the start of it. And if Batman had let Superman get a word in edgewise, more would have followed.

Batman doesn't have to let him. It's Superman. He can just hold him down and tell him, if he wanted to. But even when Batman's down, after being thrown through the building, Superman still doesn't say anything about what's really happening.

QuoteI have no idea what you're trying to say here.

Nobody would care that Superman killed Batman.

QuoteBernie Goetz is a controversial figure even to this day. Certainly a lot of ink was spilled about him at the time that he did what he did. It's not too much of a stretch to see a journalistic angle here considering the real world counterparts to this sort of thing.

The journalistic angle isn't what I'm talking about.

QuoteHow many of those unofficially operate under the imprimatur of their local police and law enforcement?

Of those, how many are literally across the bay from Metropolis?

Whether you like it or not, stories about Batman are a completely valid thing for Clark to advocate with Perry.

This doesn't justify Superman getting involved with him over real bad guys that are a threat to innocent.

QuoteNot sure what you're referring to here.

The guy that Batman branded who was part of that human trafficking ring.

QuoteWere laws broken? Was anybody killed? Was United States foreign policy somehow compromised or hindered? Did the terrorist kill Lois?

Looks to me like the answers are all "no". So I'm not sure I see the problem there.

Laws being broken aren't the point. Superman justifying his actions are.

I saw this nice collage that somebody on Twitter compiled to illustrate examples how Superman touched people's lives, and connect them to a line spoken by Batman in the latest Justice League trailer.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DGKk_51W0AANppz.jpg:large)

Source: https://twitter.com/TheoB0rg/status/892457373260017664

One can state the execution hasn't always been the best, but it's foolish to say Snyder's Superman hasn't made a positive influence to the world in the DCEU.

Before Cavill, I had basically lost any Superman fandom I once had. I've always been a Batman guy. Always.

I watched the Reeve films about once and that was it. I watched the Cain show, and that really connected with me in a big way. Same with Smallville for a while, but that passion died away in time. I liked S:TAS quite a bit, but again....I was all about Batman. And I still am. He's my favorite character of all time. Superman wasn't unique in that every other character came second. But honestly, it was Man of Steel that woke me up.

I tried to get involved with the character way back in 2006. I liked Superman Returns at the time. But as time progressed and that cinematic relaunch evaporated, my enthusiasm evaporated too. And my tastes changed. Man of Steel was what I needed and it came at the right time. The suit was redesigned. The theme was changed and there was action to get excited about. Snyder got me on board. I felt a part of something.

It made me rediscover Superman's past which I largely ignored for so long. I still think Superman III, IV and Returns stink, but STM and SII? I like them, and you'll even see me defend them these days. Not in a big and bold way like Batman, but nonetheless, I'll try and fight my corner.

I think S:TAS, along with the two JL cartoons, are the best incarnation of the character, bar none. That's all I'll say about that.

But the biggest revelation for me has been the comics. I maintain that Batman has the best comics out of any character. I don't think it's even a fair fight. The quality is really deep and varied in a way that others can't compete. But Superman? He's no slouch in the comic department. The foundation of any character has to be strong to justify their existence in the first place, and Superman's foundations are strong.

Cavill/Snyder made me care about this character in a way that I didn't before. I mean every word of that. I bought a Superman logo shirt and I wear it from time to time on the weekends. I couldn't imagine doing that years ago. But here we are. The values of Superman (truth, justice and the American way) really spoke to me in a big way. I think that's really important. It's what we need and I'm happy to broadcast it.

I don't think I'm alone when I say the Snyder films made me appreciate Superman more than I had done. To tell you the truth, Dawn of Justice is what cemented my feelings. When I saw him get falsely accused it struck a chord with me. He put up with so much crap, yet still laid down his life for humanity. It doesn't get any more heroic than that. So when people bash Dawn of Justice, remember there's always someone like me who responded positively to it.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed,  2 Aug  2017, 11:11I saw this nice collage that somebody on Twitter compiled to illustrate examples how Superman touched people's lives, and connect them to a line spoken by Batman in the latest Justice League trailer.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DGKk_51W0AANppz.jpg:large)

Source: https://twitter.com/TheoB0rg/status/892457373260017664

One can state the execution hasn't always been the best, but it's foolish to say Snyder's Superman hasn't made a positive influence to the world in the DCEU.

That's the thing here: He didn't make people see the best of themselves at all. People just did it. Nothing Superman does would effect people this way. Superman doesn't turn Batman around. Batman sees Superman as a person based on something they have in common. Superman's actions aren't different here than they are in MOS. There's no reason for it to change anything. The only thing that holds water to me is the bully to friend thing. Society wouldn't treat Superman as if his loss was the equivalent of the loss of many lives. Ally wasn't earned. That soldier was one in connection to trying to save the world irregardless of Superman. There's no reality to many of these statements. Society doesn't change like that. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

Quote from: Dagenspear on Wed,  2 Aug  2017, 19:36Society doesn't change like that.

On December 6, 1941, America wanted no part of war with anybody. On December 8, 1941, they couldn't want to beat the snot out of the Japanese. One incident caused that change.

On September 10, 2001, American society was fairly high-trust. Beginning September 12, 2001, American society has become progressively less and less high-trust. One incident caused that change.

In his time, Benedict Arnold was originally regarded as one of our great heroes and patriots. And his memory would probably still be that way if he'd died in the Battles of Saratoga. One incident caused that change.

Yeah, society absolutely changes like that.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed,  2 Aug  2017, 23:25

Quote from: Dagenspear on Wed,  2 Aug  2017, 19:36Society doesn't change like that.

On December 6, 1941, America wanted no part of war with anybody. On December 8, 1941, they couldn't want to beat the snot out of the Japanese. One incident caused that change.

On September 10, 2001, American society was fairly high-trust. Beginning September 12, 2001, American society has become progressively less and less high-trust. One incident caused that change.

In his time, Benedict Arnold was originally regarded as one of our great heroes and patriots. And his memory would probably still be that way if he'd died in the Battles of Saratoga. One incident caused that change.

Yeah, society absolutely changes like that.

That's not the loss of a single person. It's not comparable at all. A single persons' loss like this, even a hero's, doesn't shift hate to love. It doesn't happen. Not to mention, that shifting from apathetic to angry isn't huge. From hate to love, very much.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Thu,  3 Aug  2017, 00:03It's not comparable at all.

Probably true but unfortunately there's never been an alien who arrived on Earth, saved a bunch of people, was misunderstood and then sacrificed his life saving the world from extinction which caused society to reappraise him.

So lacking an identical analog event in history to which I can point, I offered up examples of other times society changed overnight.

You seem very literalistic. Apart from being an annoying trait in general, that characteristic comes off as though you're desperately searching for "problems" to pick apart to justify your disliking of the movie.

And I get it, you don't like the BVS or the DCEU Superman. In fact, apart from the Nolan trilogy I'm at a loss to think of anything you actually do enjoy. Trust me, we all got the memo a year ago. So what's this all about?

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu,  3 Aug  2017, 00:10

Quote from: Dagenspear on Thu,  3 Aug  2017, 00:03It's not comparable at all.

Probably true but unfortunately there's never been an alien who arrived on Earth, saved a bunch of people, was misunderstood and then sacrificed his life saving the world from extinction which caused society to reappraise him.

So lacking an identical analog event in history to which I can point, I offered up examples of other times society changed overnight.

You seem very literalistic. Apart from being an annoying trait in general, that characteristic comes off as though you're desperately searching for "problems" to pick apart to justify your disliking of the movie.

And I get it, you don't like the BVS or the DCEU Superman. In fact, apart from the Nolan trilogy I'm at a loss to think of anything you actually do enjoy. Trust me, we all got the memo a year ago. So what's this all about?

Aliens don't have the magical ability to change how society acts. Alien or not. Hero or not. Society doesn't change like that.

I'm a big fan of the Burton/Schumacher movies and the animated series. Also Smallville. Batman: The Brave And The Bold. And Gotham. I don't understand the assumption.

I wonder now if the naysayers of MOS and BvS that wanted to Superman to be more cheerful are happy with how he turned out in JL. Or if they're like the fans of the movies, and turn around and say he's a cartoon. ::)

You can't win with these people.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat,  9 Dec  2017, 12:52
I wonder now if the naysayers of MOS and BvS that wanted to Superman to be more cheerful are happy with how he turned out in JL. Or if they're like the fans of the movies, and turn around and say he's a cartoon. ::)

You can't win with these people.

This. I always had a tough time respecting the anti-MOS and anti-BVS contingents. But after JL, they have no cred with me whatsoever. They got everything they said they wanted in JL but they're still whining and complaining.

I wash my hands of them.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat,  9 Dec  2017, 12:52I wonder now if the naysayers of MOS and BvS that wanted to Superman to be more cheerful are happy with how he turned out in JL. Or if they're like the fans of the movies, and turn around and say he's a cartoon. ::)

You can't win with these people.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat,  9 Dec  2017, 14:26This. I always had a tough time respecting the anti-MOS and anti-BVS contingents. But after JL, they have no cred with me whatsoever. They got everything they said they wanted in JL but they're still whining and complaining.

I wash my hands of them.

There's a seeming desire here to ignore the context that some people wanting a light Superman doesn't mean they want a cheesy Superman. Good writing matters.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Sat,  9 Dec  2017, 20:01There's a seeming desire here to ignore the context that some people wanting a light Superman doesn't mean they want a cheesy Superman. Good writing matters.

Yes, please do lecture me, the lifelong Superman fan, on what's wrong with his depiction in the DCEU.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat,  9 Dec  2017, 21:07Yes, please do lecture me, the lifelong Superman fan, on what's wrong with his depiction in the DCEU.

My post wasn't about what's wrong or right with the Superman depiction. It was about people wanting a light character not meaning they want a cheesy character and about good writing.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat,  9 Dec  2017, 14:26

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat,  9 Dec  2017, 12:52
I wonder now if the naysayers of MOS and BvS that wanted to Superman to be more cheerful are happy with how he turned out in JL. Or if they're like the fans of the movies, and turn around and say he's a cartoon. ::)

You can't win with these people.

This. I always had a tough time respecting the anti-MOS and anti-BVS contingents. But after JL, they have no cred with me whatsoever. They got everything they said they wanted in JL but they're still whining and complaining.

I wash my hands of them.

Dawn of Justice Superman was a character. You can't say the same about Whedon League's Superman. It's so infuriating that a goldmine of a story (Superman returning from the dead) is given lip service. It's barely even explored. The studio freaked about Snyder's original vision.....but seriously. I don't see how Superman fans can be overjoyed with what they ultimately ended up receiving. A computer generated mouth man who barely even appears in the film. He's just a pair of fists. A character's emotions and struggles are deemed 'too risky' now. Check out Ian Fleming's You Only Live Twice to see how to properly deconstruct an icon and then build him back up. It's 100% more satisfying than gutless pandering.

I noticed that the shot of Superman flying towards from an angle while in battle is not only a recurring image in these films, it's a visual that's copied in other media such as Supergirl and Injustice 2.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DQx_wFiVQAADM3W.jpg:large)

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fforeveryoungadult.com%2F_uploads%2Fimages2%2Fsupergirl_1x8_gif.gif&hash=f633f607a3de1e4d9ddf434990c78260b694c8bd)

(https://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/11113/111131285/6095160-3849073254-giphy.gif)

While Henry Cavill reflecting on his "one regret" playing Superman thus far in an interview promoting the latest Mission Impossible movie, this idiotic little snippet from whoever wrote the article caught my attention:

Quote
Man Of Steel itself attracted controversy for its darker take on the Big Blue Boy Scout – Zac Snyder creating a moody film that felt closer in spirit to Christopher Nolan than Christopher Reeve. At the climax Superman snaps General Zod's neck: a killing to save an endangered family, but a killing in cold blood nonetheless.

Source: https://www.squaremile.com/features/interview/henry-cavill-mission-impossible/

The last time I checked in the Cambridge University website, the phrase 'in cold blood' means to "intentionally [kill] and without emotion".

Maybe my eyes are deceiving me, but Superman looked pretty upset that he had to kill somebody. Never mind the fact genocidal Zod already made it clear by shouting "There's only one way this ends, Kal. Either you die, or I do".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_93l5q7AWDM

But whatever, I guess this shows once again that if you pay lip service to a moral code or you have a charismatic person who kills somebody in true cold blood (like Wonder Woman and SII), people will accept anything.

Moving on, Cavill confirmed the plan for this event was to pave the way towards the more traditional, confident Superman:

Quote
The killing of Zod would have led to a wonderful reason why Superman never kills. Not, he never kills just because his dad said so one day. He made the decision himself because of an impossible scenario, to which he then said, 'I don't care if it's impossible again, I'm gonna find a way to make it possible in the impossible.'

The move toward a DC Universe meant "we didn't get the opportunity to show the other side of it, the 'I'm ready to be Superman now and I'm ready to show the world the best examples'. That's where the joy and glee comes from, and that sense of warmth from the character, which is his real superpower – he makes people believe in themselves. It was a shame because it would've been nice, and it would have been a lovely coupling with the seriousness and the depth of Man of Steel."

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 14 Jul  2018, 08:28
While Henry Cavill reflecting on his "one regret" playing Superman thus far in an interview promoting the latest Mission Impossible movie, this idiotic little snippet from whoever wrote the article caught my attention:

Quote
Man Of Steel itself attracted controversy for its darker take on the Big Blue Boy Scout – Zac Snyder creating a moody film that felt closer in spirit to Christopher Nolan than Christopher Reeve. At the climax Superman snaps General Zod's neck: a killing to save an endangered family, but a killing in cold blood nonetheless.

Source: https://www.squaremile.com/features/interview/henry-cavill-mission-impossible/

The last time I checked in the Cambridge University website, the phrase 'in cold blood' means to "intentionally [kill] and without emotion".

Maybe my eyes are deceiving me, but Superman looked pretty upset that he had to kill somebody. Never mind the fact genocidal Zod already made it clear by shouting "There's only one way this ends, Kal. Either you die, or I do".

sh*t like this is why the age of the internet and bloggers suck. Any idiot who can type can be called a "writer," even though they don't fact check and are f***ing ignorant. And it's not like we're talking about some grand deep detail that takes a bit of studying or whatever to master. Knowing what "IN COLD BLOOD" means should be f***ing simple. It's pathetic. But they can get by with it and somebody who's just as ignorant is going to read the sh*t and be like "Oh, it was in cold blood, wow" and it just starts a domino effect of stupid motherf***ertude.

I hate people.

Quote from: Catwoman on Sat, 14 Jul  2018, 18:50sh*t like this is why the age of the internet and bloggers suck. Any idiot who can type can be called a "writer," even though they don't fact check and are f***ing ignorant. And it's not like we're talking about some grand deep detail that takes a bit of studying or whatever to master. Knowing what "IN COLD BLOOD" means should be f***ing simple. It's pathetic. But they can get by with it and somebody who's just as ignorant is going to read the sh*t and be like "Oh, it was in cold blood, wow" and it just starts a domino effect of stupid motherf***ertude.

I hate people.

Funny, this sounds a lot like my critique of democracy.

Quote from: Catwoman on Sat, 14 Jul  2018, 18:50
sh*t like this is why the age of the internet and bloggers suck. Any idiot who can type can be called a "writer," even though they don't fact check and are f***ing ignorant. And it's not like we're talking about some grand deep detail that takes a bit of studying or whatever to master. Knowing what "IN COLD BLOOD" means should be f***ing simple. It's pathetic. But they can get by with it and somebody who's just as ignorant is going to read the sh*t and be like "Oh, it was in cold blood, wow" and it just starts a domino effect of stupid motherf***ertude.

I hate people.

If you think this is bad, wait till you hear people's overreaction to Cavill's comments about the #metoo movement he made a couple of days ago.  ::)

As I told you before in the WW thread, THIS is the reason why I have no respect for people for their misguided outrage over MOS and BvS. Not only do they fail to understand the context of what was happening in that scene with Zod, they simply don't understand what the term "in cold blood" means. Same thing goes for the term "murder". Murder, according to multiple dictionary sources, means to "to kill of another human being without justification or excuse, especially the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought". I'm not an expert on common law by any means, but from what I understand, Superman's actions could be compared to committing justifiable homicide.

These films have their flaws, no doubt. If somebody says "Zod's death wasn't an issue, but I didn't like the film because x, y and z", that's perfectly fine.
If the circumstances were normal, I'd agree with you when you say understand why some people have a problem with them. But these loudmouths don't just express their subjective dislike for them, oh no, they get all high and mighty about it, because they supposedly don't like the idea of Superman and Batman having blood on their hands. All the while not even recognising their own hypocrisy with their praise of Wonder Woman and past Batman and Superman films for doing the exact same thing. How many bloody times do people with common sense have to point this out to these delusional idiots?

Make no mistake, mass media manipulation does play a part in this perception. Particularly bottom feeder YouTube channels and blogs. For example, I wasn't a fan of The Last Jedi. But I'm not blind, I've seen a lot of videos on YT taking advantage of piling on the film just for the sake of clicks. I had to unsubscribe somebody because he went from expressing honest movie reviews, to constantly report anti-Star Wars news day-in, day-out ever since TLJ was released. He did this for a very good reason, it helped him grow his channel and get plenty of subscribers, who are dumb enough to donate their own money to his Patreon account.

I have no doubt that clickbait sites like Collider, ComicBook.com, comicbookmovie.com and Batman-News take advantage of the hysteria over the DCEU on purpose. As a matter of fact, another stupid website Comic Book Resources routinely posts blog articles of James Gunn explaining to fans on Twitter what were the meanings to his Easter eggs and ideas of scenes in his Guardians of the Galaxy films. Zack Snyder engages with fans on another site called Vero, and what CBR do? They spin it by running these headlines "Zack Snyder needing to explain BvS shows it's a bad film". When fans called out on their double standards, CBR doubles down by running the same headline again. The worst thing is, this actually works! People get brainwashed by this rubbish.

As for people in general? This video highlights how people are susceptible to the herd mentality perfectly.

https://youtu.be/NoII-P_8fpg

I must seek this book by Gustave Le Bon, sounds very fascinating. Nonetheless, my rant's over.

Following the rumours over Henry Cavill supposedly leaving the role yesterday, the actor came out with this strange little video on Instagram, with a caption saying "Today was exciting".

https://www.instagram.com/p/BnpPIrmFN9n/?hl=en&taken-by=henrycavill

Quote from: Dagenspear on Tue, 25 Apr  2017, 09:44

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 25 Apr  2017, 07:41Hm. So it looks like the takeaway lesson here is that it's okay for one fictional character to kill another fictional character. The key issues are to blast the Williams Superman theme in the background and instantly forget that the character just took someone else's life. After all, actions never have consequences (anybody who says otherwise is lying or selling something, eh?) so it's best to just do whatever and forget about it as quickly as possible.

Got it.

I was talking about the top statement. The music doesn't matter. The tone being consistent in it and after it do. Actions not having consequences is the exact problem with MOS. The action of killing doesn't have a consequence in SMII either. But it doesn't pretend it will. It just isn't treated hugely. MOS is inconsistent. It wants to give the illusion of consequences. But it doesn't walk the walk in this situation. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

It's going to be hard to not sound insulting here, but I'll try to do my best.

You've said a lot of intellectually dishonest things ever since you've started participating on this forum. Your particular criticisms of MOS for not exploring the consequences over Superman killing Zod, while refusing to acknowledge those consequences were explored in BvS, as well as the nonsense you wrote about Superman didn't inspire people throughout the films, is definitely one of your most ridiculous comments. It also shows a staggering lack of self-awareness because you continue to deny the lack of consequences of Nolan's Batman killing in each film. Never mind the fact you continue to deny he ever killed anyone despite what is seen and heard on screen, as well as always moving the goalposts to desperately deny any sort of inconsistency. Not only does it make you a hypocrite, it ruins any point of trying to have a conversation with you, because you lack reasoning and have a distorted perspective when it comes to movies in general. It's just projection.

I'm sorry that sounds harsh Dagenspear. Believe it or not, I don't want to insult you. If I didn't know any better, I would've thought you were trolling. But instead, I'm rather concerned about your state of mind. The stuff you say for the vast majority of the time makes me worried about your mental health.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed, 28 Nov  2018, 11:52It's going to be hard to not sound insulting here, but I'll try to do my best.

You've said a lot of intellectually dishonest things ever since you've started participating on this forum. Your particular criticisms of MOS for not exploring the consequences over Superman killing Zod, while refusing to acknowledge those consequences were explored in BvS, as well as the nonsense you wrote about Superman didn't inspire people throughout the films, is definitely one of your most ridiculous comments. It also shows a staggering lack of self-awareness because you continue to deny the lack of consequences of Nolan's Batman killing in each film. Never mind the fact you continue to deny he ever killed anyone despite what is seen and heard on screen, as well as always moving the goalposts to desperately deny any sort of inconsistency. Not only does it make you a hypocrite, it ruins any point of trying to have a conversation with you, because you lack reasoning and have a distorted perspective when it comes to movies in general. It's just projection.

I'm sorry that sounds harsh Dagenspear. Believe it or not, I don't want to insult you. If I didn't know any better, I would've thought you were trolling. But instead, I'm rather concerned about your state of mind. The stuff you say for the vast majority of the time makes me worried about your mental health.

I don't deny that Nolan's Batman killed. He did. BvS doesn't deal with Clark's reaction to killing Zod. That's what I mean when I talk about consequences. I maintain that the idea of Superman inspiring people isn't something that movie develops. I agree the movie says he did. But I don't think the movie develops it. My statements about him not inspiring people in this thread, as far as I've seen, post here:

Quote from: Dagenspear on Wed,  2 Aug  2017, 19:36

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed,  2 Aug  2017, 11:11I saw this nice collage that somebody on Twitter compiled to illustrate examples how Superman touched people's lives, and connect them to a line spoken by Batman in the latest Justice League trailer.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DGKk_51W0AANppz.jpg:large)

Source: https://twitter.com/TheoB0rg/status/892457373260017664

One can state the execution hasn't always been the best, but it's foolish to say Snyder's Superman hasn't made a positive influence to the world in the DCEU.

That's the thing here: He didn't make people see the best of themselves at all. People just did it. Nothing Superman does would effect people this way. Superman doesn't turn Batman around. Batman sees Superman as a person based on something they have in common. Superman's actions aren't different here than they are in MOS. There's no reason for it to change anything. The only thing that holds water to me is the bully to friend thing. Society wouldn't treat Superman as if his loss was the equivalent of the loss of many lives. Ally wasn't earned. That soldier was one in connection to trying to save the world irregardless of Superman. There's no reality to many of these statements. Society doesn't change like that. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

I assume this is what you're talking about. But I was talking about these situations and that I think it doesn't apply.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Thu, 29 Nov  2018, 22:57BvS doesn't deal with Clark's reaction to killing Zod.

"They need to see the fraud you are. With their eyes. The blood on your hands."

Not very long after that line was delivered, Superman took a spike to the chest... which wouldn't have been possible if he hadn't killed Zod back in MOS.

So hmm.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Thu, 29 Nov  2018, 22:57I assume this is what you're talking about. But I was talking about these situations and that I think it doesn't apply.

Of course. They're not precisely the same so that must mean they're complete opposites, right?

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 30 Nov  2018, 05:11"They need to see the fraud you are. With their eyes. The blood on your hands."

Not very long after that line was delivered, Superman took a spike to the chest... which wouldn't have been possible if he hadn't killed Zod back in MOS.

So hmm.

That's not about how he deals with it.

QuoteOf course. They're not precisely the same so that must mean they're complete opposites, right?

I don't think Clark inspired them. Except for the bully.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 30 Nov  2018, 22:00That's not about how he deals with it.

You say this after Superman was accused of the desert massacre and a big percentage of the public believed it, which is partly why Superman had that crisis of confidence in the movie.

I sometimes wonder if we even watched the same movie.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 30 Nov  2018, 22:00I don't think Clark inspired them. Except for the bully.

Not the exact same! Must be total opposites!

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat,  1 Dec  2018, 07:41
You say this after Superman was accused of the desert massacre and a big percentage of the public believed it, which is partly why Superman had that crisis of confidence in the movie.

BvS Superman rules more and more as time goes on because he reflects the times and is not a shallow cardboard cutout. He's someone with amazing patience, with his demeanor being insanely in control despite being framed for crimes he did not commit, enduring media hounding on said false conspiracies. Innocent until proven guilty? Not anymore. Due process goes out the window and the victims must be believed no matter what, facts be damned. Perception carries more weight in the age of clickbait headlines. Can you begin to grasp how FRUSTRATING that would be, especially for a man with incredible power? How do you even really prove your innocence in this instance other than saying it didn't happen, and by continuing to exhibit heroic behavior? And even then, said heroic behavior isn't enough to shake the negativity pushed upon him. People say Snyder didn't respect Superman, but what is that charge based on? Giving him emotional complexity and adversity? That's exactly what the character needs. Kicking sand in the face of heroes gives them obstacles to overcome, which is the whole point. It seems Snyder was too effective in this regard for some people. Ridiculous.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat,  1 Dec  2018, 07:41You say this after Superman was accused of the desert massacre and a big percentage of the public believed it, which is partly why Superman had that crisis of confidence in the movie.

I sometimes wonder if we even watched the same movie.

That's not about how he deals with his feelings in killing Zod.

QuoteNot the exact same! Must be total opposites!

I don't agree.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri,  5 May  2017, 17:54

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri,  5 May  2017, 07:31Why is Batman more important than every warlord, terrorist, crime boss in the world?

How many of those unofficially operate under the imprimatur of their local police and law enforcement?

Of those, how many are literally across the bay from Metropolis?

Whether you like it or not, stories about Batman are a completely valid thing for Clark to advocate with Perry.

That, and Superman perceiving Batman as a serious threat early on in their careers is a precedent in the comics. When both characters met each other for the first time in John Byrne's Man of Steel mini-series, Superman went to Gotham City with the intention to capture Batman and turn him over to the police, because Batman was working outside the law. It was until he was coerced by Batman and learned about Magpie being a bigger threat at large that they had to work together. But nonetheless, Superman was wary of Batman because he didn't approve vigilantism and outlaws. In the end though, he permits Batman to continue roaming through the streets because he realises Gotham City needs him, but Superman promises to keep a close eye on him to make sure his actions don't go too far.

In BvS, Batman appeared to have Gotham City's law enforcement by his side, as Clark Kent saw in that cartoon sketch at the police station while trying to investigate the Santos case with uncooperative cops in the Ultimate Edition. If the police, as an institution, never supported Batman's violent methods, there's no doubt in my mind Superman would've tried to apprehend Batman, instead of giving him that tense warning at the end of the Batmobile chase scene.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon, 28 Jan  2019, 02:08That, and Superman perceiving Batman as a serious threat early on in their careers is a precedent in the comics. When both characters met each other for the first time in John Byrne's Man of Steel mini-series, Superman went to Gotham City with the intention to capture Batman and turn him over to the police, because Batman was working outside the law. It was until he was coerced by Batman and learned about Magpie being a bigger threat at large that they had to work together. But nonetheless, Superman was wary of Batman because he didn't approve vigilantism and outlaws. In the end though, he permits Batman to continue roaming through the streets because he realises Gotham City needs him, but Superman promises to keep a close eye on him to make sure his actions don't go too far.

In BvS, Batman appeared to have Gotham City's law enforcement by his side, as Clark Kent saw in that cartoon sketch at the police station while trying to investigate the Santos case with uncooperative cops in the Ultimate Edition. If the police, as an institution, never supported Batman's violent methods, there's no doubt in my mind Superman would've tried to apprehend Batman, instead of giving him that tense warning at the end of the Batmobile chase scene.

I think a different idea applies because that Superman isn't this one. I think this Superman has as little right to do this as Batman does. And if the loony vigilante is the threat he thinks he should take his time to go after, why him and not anything else?

I got into a similar discussion about this with someone who defended it by saying something about how Clark doesn't like that he's criticized while Batman isn't and that's why he goes after Batman. I think that's not a strong defense for a couple reasons.

Batman is criticized because he violates people's civil rights on a nightly basis.

Superman is criticized because he saves people in otherwise hopeless situations.

One of those criticisms is well merited. The other, less so.

I agree with that. Superman is largely slammed over WHAT IFS.

What if he loses control?
What if he become a fascist ruler?
What if he represents the end of human progress?
What if, what if.

These comic universe panic merchants and see what he actually does, and appreciate that. Superman does remain in control and saves lives. He's on our side. Time and time again he demonstrates this. But the power of that what if freaks people out.

Batman largely gets slammed for WHAT IS.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 29 Jan  2019, 12:32
I agree with that. Superman is largely slammed over WHAT IFS.

What if he loses control?
What if he become a fascist ruler?
What if he represents the end of human progress?
What if, what if.

These comic universe panic merchants and see what he actually does, and appreciate that. Superman does remain in control and saves lives. He's on our side. Time and time again he demonstrates this. But the power of that what if freaks people out.

Batman largely gets slammed for WHAT IS.

Is it a what if? Or is it something he's already engaged in? He didn't have control in that fight in metropolis. His search for his roots led Zod to earth. I don't put Clark at fault for the destruction. He was working in defense. But his powers are dangerous. He's essentially a walking uncontrollable nuclear weapon. Not to mention him being framed for the frying of those people in another country. It's not just a what if?

Is there a reason people should trust him? Him helping doesn't mean he always will. He's not infallible. Automatically trusting him to me isn't much different than automatically trusting someone pointing a bazooka at me.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 28 Jan  2019, 20:52Batman is criticized because he violates people's civil rights on a nightly basis.

Superman is criticized because he saves people in otherwise hopeless situations.

One of those criticisms is well merited. The other, less so.

I wouldn't agree that that means that Clark thinks he's automatically owed any trust. Superman isn't ostracized. Apparently there are people who support him. Even in the movie, he's being mostly criticized because he's thought to have flown in fried people on international soil. That and the guy grafitii-ing the statue is what's developed. The movie even presents it through Perry as the end of a love affair. I take that to mean that he was liked mostly before that. Even the grafitii comes from someone because they seem to blame Clark for his situation. Even Batman's issue I think is steeped in revenge for the destruction in metropolis. Along with displaced rage about other things potentially. And that he justifies it as a precautionary tactic.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 28 Jan  2019, 20:52Batman is criticized because he violates people's civil rights on a nightly basis.

Superman is criticized because he saves people in otherwise hopeless situations.

One of those criticisms is well merited. The other, less so.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri,  1 Feb  2019, 03:06I wouldn't agree that that means that Clark thinks he's automatically owed any trust. Superman isn't ostracized. Apparently there are people who support him. Even in the movie, he's being mostly criticized because he's thought to have flown in fried people on international soil. That and the guy grafitii-ing the statue is what's developed. The movie even presents it through Perry as the end of a love affair. I take that to mean that he was liked mostly before that. Even the grafitii comes from someone because they seem to blame Clark for his situation. Even Batman's issue I think is steeped in revenge for the destruction in metropolis. Along with displaced rage about other things potentially. And that he justifies it as a precautionary tactic.

That has literally nothing to do with what I wrote.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri,  1 Feb  2019, 03:39That has literally nothing to do with what I wrote.

I was responding to you saying why he's being criticized with why I think that's not the case. By saying that I think he's not criticized for his saves, but for things people blame him for and even events he's been framed for.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri,  1 Feb  2019, 08:55

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri,  1 Feb  2019, 03:39That has literally nothing to do with what I wrote.

I was responding to you saying why he's being criticized with why I think that's not the case. By saying that I think he's not criticized for his saves, but for things people blame him for and even events he's been framed for.

I see. So basically when Finch says that Superman "shouldn't act unilaterally" with his "state-level interventions" and never even mentions the faked desert massacre, it was all because she believed he was guilty of the faked desert massacre?

Cool story, bro.

Here's another if. Superman was lambasted for going toe to toe with Zod. But what if he didn't? I'm sure it would've been 'this alien had all this power, equal to Zod, and he sat back and did nothing to stop him. What a disgrace.'

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri,  1 Feb  2019, 11:41I see. So basically when Finch says that Superman "shouldn't act unilaterally" with his "state-level interventions" and never even mentions the faked desert massacre, it was all because she believed he was guilty of the faked desert massacre?

Cool story, bro.

What about the talk at the beginning, when that woman told them about him killing those people? Wasn't that the initiation of the issue? Isn't people being afraid of him due to that? Why would Perry describe the situation as the end of a love affair in regards to that guy's graffiti if people didn't generally like Superman before?

Wouldn't what Batman did have similar justification? Batman stopped those human traffickers. By the same measure of Batman violating their civil liberties, doesn't Superman violate international law by getting involved in the situation?

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat,  2 Feb  2019, 01:14Here's another if. Superman was lambasted for going toe to toe with Zod. But what if he didn't? I'm sure it would've been 'this alien had all this power, equal to Zod, and he sat back and did nothing to stop him. What a disgrace.'

I think that doesn't change that there would be those who blame him. Superman did fight Zod in a situation he didn't have control of. And I think his search led Zod to earth.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri,  1 Feb  2019, 11:41I see. So basically when Finch says that Superman "shouldn't act unilaterally" with his "state-level interventions" and never even mentions the faked desert massacre, it was all because she believed he was guilty of the faked desert massacre?

Cool story, bro.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Sat,  2 Feb  2019, 02:19What about the talk at the beginning, when that woman told them about him killing those people? Wasn't that the initiation of the issue? Isn't people being afraid of him due to that? Why would Perry describe the situation as the end of a love affair in regards to that guy's graffiti if people didn't generally like Superman before?

I'm not sure if the reason your post completely ignores my point is intentional or accidental.

The fact remains, however, that your post ignores my point. Finch is an example of someone who took issue with Superman over reasons that have precisely nothing to do with faked desert attacks. Address this point or else don't reply to this post.

Thanks.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat,  2 Feb  2019, 02:42I'm not sure if the reason your post completely ignores my point is intentional or accidental.

The fact remains, however, that your post ignores my point. Finch is an example of someone who took issue with Superman over reasons that have precisely nothing to do with faked desert attacks. Address this point or else don't reply to this post.

Thanks.

I think I don't understand what you're talking about. I was talking about the reasons I think some people are against him. And how I think his actions in the terrorist situation by human law standards aren't that different from Batman's in regards to the human traffickers. I would say the movie doesn't depict Finch as criticizing Superman, so much as I think pointing out that I think he violated human international law. Either way I think if the movie is saying that she's more concerned with that than the fried people, I don't get that.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Sat,  2 Feb  2019, 06:42

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat,  2 Feb  2019, 02:42I'm not sure if the reason your post completely ignores my point is intentional or accidental.

The fact remains, however, that your post ignores my point. Finch is an example of someone who took issue with Superman over reasons that have precisely nothing to do with faked desert attacks. Address this point or else don't reply to this post.

Thanks.

I think I don't understand what you're talking about. I was talking about the reasons I think some people are against him. And how I think his actions in the terrorist situation by human law standards aren't that different from Batman's in regards to the human traffickers. I would say the movie doesn't depict Finch as criticizing Superman, so much as I think pointing out that I think he violated human international law. Either way I think if the movie is saying that she's more concerned with that than the fried people, I don't get that.

I'm not recapitulating this entire thread just to stop you from weaseling out of answer my point.

I'll simply enjoy your implied concession on this and move along.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Sat,  2 Feb  2019, 02:19
I think that doesn't change that there would be those who blame him. Superman did fight Zod in a situation he didn't have control of. And I think his search led Zod to earth.

Of course. What I'm saying, Dagen, is that some people are going to be blamed no matter what course of action they take. The fact you state his search led Zod to Earth confirms that.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun,  3 Feb  2019, 00:03Of course. What I'm saying, Dagen, is that some people are going to be blamed no matter what course of action they take. The fact you state his search led Zod to Earth confirms that.

I don't blame Clark for the destruction of metropolis, because I think his actions led to Zod finding earth. Isn't that what happened in the movie? But, while that may be the case in regards to some being blamed no matter what, the actions Clark take have consequences. Though in the movie, I think the main issue is (if what thecolorsblend says is true) about Clark I think breaking international law and/or him being framed for those people being burned.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Mon,  4 Feb  2019, 02:35

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun,  3 Feb  2019, 00:03Of course. What I'm saying, Dagen, is that some people are going to be blamed no matter what course of action they take. The fact you state his search led Zod to Earth confirms that.

I don't blame Clark for the destruction of metropolis, because I think his actions led to Zod finding earth. Isn't that what happened in the movie? But, while that may be the case in regards to some being blamed no matter what, the actions Clark take have consequences. Though in the movie, I think the main issue is (if what thecolorsblend says is true) about Clark I think breaking international law and/or him being framed for those people being burned.

You mischaracterize my argument. As with so many things you post, I can't be sure if it's done intentionally or not.

In any case, my point in the post which you cannibalized was that Batman encounters condemnation from others because of his objectively criminal behavior. Superman encounters condemnation from performing humanitarian acts. A significant amount of the criticism to which Superman is subjected in BVS is due to his errands of mercy, rescues and so forth. My example for this condemnation was Senator Finch... who, it should be noted, did not condemn Superman for "violating international law" but for acting outside the auspices of the United States government.

I went on to imply that the condemnation Batman experiences is well justified while the condemnation Superman experiences is not justified.

In the future, if you choose to paraphrase any of my posts, please do so accurately. I resent being misquoted and I resent even more my intended meaning being so heavily mangled.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon,  4 Feb  2019, 04:08You mischaracterize my argument. As with so many things you post, I can't be sure if it's done intentionally or not.

In any case, my point in the post which you cannibalized was that Batman encounters condemnation from others because of his objectively criminal behavior. Superman encounters condemnation from performing humanitarian acts. A significant amount of the criticism to which Superman is subjected in BVS is due to his errands of mercy, rescues and so forth. My example for this condemnation was Senator Finch... who, it should be noted, did not condemn Superman for "violating international law" but for acting outside the auspices of the United States government.

I went on to imply that the condemnation Batman experiences is well justified while the condemnation Superman experiences is not justified.

In the future, if you choose to paraphrase any of my posts, please do so accurately. I resent being misquoted and I resent even more my intended meaning being so heavily mangled.

I wasn't trying to belittle you for your argument. I'm sorry if I came off that way.

I don't necessarily agree that Batman's behavior is any more criminal than Superman's, if he did violate any kind of law. I don't think his rescues are really criticized. I think there's more or less concerns about Superman being there in general. I think that acting outside the auspices of the government could be argued to be violate that law. Isn't there a law for that? I maintain not really understanding the movie's issues then, if the concern is about Superman just going to another country over them thinking he's burned people.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Mon,  4 Feb  2019, 06:52

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon,  4 Feb  2019, 04:08You mischaracterize my argument. As with so many things you post, I can't be sure if it's done intentionally or not.

In any case, my point in the post which you cannibalized was that Batman encounters condemnation from others because of his objectively criminal behavior. Superman encounters condemnation from performing humanitarian acts. A significant amount of the criticism to which Superman is subjected in BVS is due to his errands of mercy, rescues and so forth. My example for this condemnation was Senator Finch... who, it should be noted, did not condemn Superman for "violating international law" but for acting outside the auspices of the United States government.

I went on to imply that the condemnation Batman experiences is well justified while the condemnation Superman experiences is not justified.

In the future, if you choose to paraphrase any of my posts, please do so accurately. I resent being misquoted and I resent even more my intended meaning being so heavily mangled.

I wasn't trying to belittle you for your argument. I'm sorry if I came off that way.

I don't necessarily agree that Batman's behavior is any more criminal than Superman's, if he did violate any kind of law. I don't think his rescues are really criticized. I think there's more or less concerns about Superman being there in general. I think that acting outside the auspices of the government could be argued to be violate that law. Isn't there a law for that? I maintain not really understanding the movie's issues then, if the concern is about Superman just going to another country over them thinking he's burned people.

If offering aid to people outside your country is somehow against the law, we need to imprison just about every religious missionary, Amnesty International, Doctors Without Borders, the International Red Cross and probably zillions of other NGO's too.

In case I'm not being clear, no, it's not against the law.

Why this is a challenging idea for you, I have no idea. But it's not against the law.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon,  4 Feb  2019, 20:40If offering aid to people outside your country is somehow against the law, we need to imprison just about every religious missionary, Amnesty International, Doctors Without Borders, the International Red Cross and probably zillions of other NGO's too.

In case I'm not being clear, no, it's not against the law.

Why this is a challenging idea for you, I have no idea. But it's not against the law.

More than anything I think I'm trying to work out how the movie's conflict works now. I thought the movie positioned Finch as someone to root for in the story. I guess if I'm not supposed to, was that why we had that peach tea thing? I also wonder why that issue is a big deal for Clark.

I'm not sure myself, but wouldn't those people need permission to do those things on some levels? I still think that Superman doesn't have the right to pass judgement on Bruce.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Tue,  5 Feb  2019, 03:30

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon,  4 Feb  2019, 20:40If offering aid to people outside your country is somehow against the law, we need to imprison just about every religious missionary, Amnesty International, Doctors Without Borders, the International Red Cross and probably zillions of other NGO's too.

In case I'm not being clear, no, it's not against the law.

Why this is a challenging idea for you, I have no idea. But it's not against the law.

More than anything I think I'm trying to work out how the movie's conflict works now. I thought the movie positioned Finch as someone to root for in the story. I guess if I'm not supposed to, was that why we had that peach tea thing? I also wonder why that issue is a big deal for Clark.

I'm not sure myself, but wouldn't those people need permission to do those things on some levels? I still think that Superman doesn't have the right to pass judgement on Bruce.

Are you sure you've even seen BVS???

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue,  5 Feb  2019, 03:51Are you sure you've even seen BVS???

Yes, and I didn't get the impression I was supposed to be anti-Finch.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon,  4 Feb  2019, 20:40

Quote from: Dagenspear on Mon,  4 Feb  2019, 06:52

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon,  4 Feb  2019, 04:08You mischaracterize my argument. As with so many things you post, I can't be sure if it's done intentionally or not.

In any case, my point in the post which you cannibalized was that Batman encounters condemnation from others because of his objectively criminal behavior. Superman encounters condemnation from performing humanitarian acts. A significant amount of the criticism to which Superman is subjected in BVS is due to his errands of mercy, rescues and so forth. My example for this condemnation was Senator Finch... who, it should be noted, did not condemn Superman for "violating international law" but for acting outside the auspices of the United States government.

I went on to imply that the condemnation Batman experiences is well justified while the condemnation Superman experiences is not justified.

In the future, if you choose to paraphrase any of my posts, please do so accurately. I resent being misquoted and I resent even more my intended meaning being so heavily mangled.

I wasn't trying to belittle you for your argument. I'm sorry if I came off that way.

I don't necessarily agree that Batman's behavior is any more criminal than Superman's, if he did violate any kind of law. I don't think his rescues are really criticized. I think there's more or less concerns about Superman being there in general. I think that acting outside the auspices of the government could be argued to be violate that law. Isn't there a law for that? I maintain not really understanding the movie's issues then, if the concern is about Superman just going to another country over them thinking he's burned people.

If offering aid to people outside your country is somehow against the law, we need to imprison just about every religious missionary, Amnesty International, Doctors Without Borders, the International Red Cross and probably zillions of other NGO's too.

In case I'm not being clear, no, it's not against the law.

Why this is a challenging idea for you, I have no idea. But it's not against the law.

To be honest, even though the lawmakers will always disagree, I side with Selina from BR when she says "the law doesn't apply to people like him or us." Batman, Superman and these types are exceptional people and exist outside the mundane existence of regular citizens. They have developed reputations of excellence during their careers. They do what others cannot and therefore should be able to utilize their skill sets accordingly. Spider-Man should be paid by the City instead of slandered by the Bugle. Superman should be able to slam down into a compound and shut down any way he sees fit. You'd have to be a miserable sack of dung to take big blue to court for property damage after saving the world from a hostile threat that humans stood no chance against. Let these assets off the leash. They're off it anyway.

This clickbait website called Nerdist tweeted this tasteless image of Christopher Reeve's face superimposed over Cavill's in the mid-credit scene of JL. I assume this scene was edited with the controversial software called Deepfakes, which came under fire last year because people's faces (both celebrities or otherwise) were captured and manipulated to simulate pornographic movie scenes.

(https://i.imgur.com/u4DDAlz.jpg)

The ignorance of this tweet astounds me, given that Reeve wasn't even the first Superman on screen. It's rubbish that fuels Cavill Superman fans into believing the detractors are nostalgic Reeve fans, and honestly, I can't blame them for thinking that.

Speaking of Cavill, I believe it's only a matter of time before he and Amy Adams are next in line to leave, following Affleck and Will Smith's departures.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon, 11 Mar  2019, 03:09
(https://i.imgur.com/u4DDAlz.jpg)

The ignorance of this tweet astounds me, given that Reeve wasn't even the first Superman on screen. It's rubbish that fuels Cavill Superman fans into believing the detractors are nostalgic Reeve fans, and honestly, I can't blame them for thinking that.

As always, I will not be lectured by somebody whose entire experience with Superman begins and ends with Reeve.

Some may call that attitude "elitist". Me, I think of it just as being honest.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon, 11 Mar  2019, 03:09Speaking of Cavill, I believe it's only a matter of time before he and Amy Adams are next in line to leave, following Affleck and Will Smith's departures.

Oh, no question about it. Odds are they're already officially out. The public is always the last to know. Either Superman on film has been put on ice or else they're already casting about for a replacement. But I'm leaning toward the former.

It's sickening, honestly, but I've already said my piece on that.

Affleck is towing the studio line when he says he couldn't nail a script, and thus that's why he decided to leave. I don't doubt he was jaded, but even then, the studio wanted to move on, and that also includes sidelining Cavill. He's done like a dinner, and that's a real shame. Same goes for Adams. Once they brought in Whedon I'm sure the studio's decision was made to essentially start over.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 11 Mar  2019, 19:28
As always, I will not be lectured by somebody whose entire experience with Superman begins and ends with Reeve.

Some may call that attitude "elitist". Me, I think of it just as being honest.

There's nothing elitist about it, at all. You're right to dismiss these types of naysayers. If people don't understand that Christopher Reeve isn't the be-all-end-all for everything Superman, then it's them who don't understand the character. Especially if they think he was the first screen incarnation. The only positive thing I can say about those hacks from Nerdist is they know how to spell his name correctly. A lot of loudmouths say they love Reeve, but they always spell his name wrong by putting the letter S in the end. Drives me crazy.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 11 Mar  2019, 19:28
Oh, no question about it. Odds are they're already officially out. The public is always the last to know. Either Superman on film has been put on ice or else they're already casting about for a replacement. But I'm leaning toward the former.

It's sickening, honestly, but I've already said my piece on that.

Your guesses reminded me when you once said the so-called "fans" and Cheetoh-munching bloggers don't deserve another DC movie in their lifetime. I think you're definitely onto something.

Meanwhile, I think we can add Ezra Miller onto the list, if this rumour is correct:

Quote
It may be zero hour for Ezra Miller and The Flash.

In an effort to stay on as star of the DC Comics-based movie, Miller has taken it upon himself to write his own script...and enlisted the help of comics author Grant Morrison.

The reason is this: Miller has his own...darker...vision for what the movie should be. But it clashes with what directors John Francis Daley and Jonathan Goldstein have in mind.

It's a shocking move and if the studio, which is already on the path of fun and light (see Aquaman, Shazam!) but made a deal for Miller and Morrison to do their version regarldess, doesn't go for it, Miller's run as hero Barry Allen could be cut short.

https://link.hollywoodreporter.com/view/518d53f9191b2a646dbcdf4d9pbj3.1ht/0e0dcddd
https://twitter.com/Borys_Kit/status/1106709888476934144?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

I say Miller is better off leaving. f*** that worthless excuse for a movie studio.

I've seen some really idiotic, over-the-top criticisms over Cavill's Superman that has drowned any legitimate conversation over the years, but this really takes the cake. I found this crazy comment on a YouTube video, unsurprisingly.

Quote
I can argue that Superman didn't save people because the audience only IMAGINED he did, after reading his comics for years. But if you knew nothing about Superman, and you watch this film, there's no evidence he would have saved the flood victims. He just stood there and I assumed he left, which would be totally in character in this film. He didn't save his dad, because Daddy gave him the "don't save me, gesture." He didn't save the people in the courthouse because . . . I'm not going to try to understand that one.

Going by this fool's logic, we didn't see Reeve's Superman actually capturing those crooks in that "Bad vibrations?" scene during the Donner movie, we only imagined that he did.  ::)

It would be understandable if he said he was disappointed how the moment cuts off to the next and the flood survivors' rescue happened off-screen. I think that would be fair criticism, but he's not saying that. Instead, he's using that scene to dismiss every moment we see Superman saving people in the movies. It's shamelessly obtuse.

As for Jonathan Kent, say what you will about him, but he was willing to sacrifice himself to protect his son from a world who wasn't ready for him. And this is coming from somebody who still isn't a big fan of how he died. Even I can understand the reasons why despite not necessarily agreeing with it.

As for the courthouse comment, I have a hunch that even if the theatrical cut of the movie had included the scene where Lois discovered Keefe's wheelchair was covered in lead, it wouldn't have made a difference to this person. He'd likely move the goalposts and say "Superman should've been quick enough to save all of those people as soon as the bomb exploded".

Superman rescued the girl from the burning building, the capsule from the exploding space shuttle and the ice breaker. In the same montage of Superman completing zillions of other rescues, we're supposed to infer that he simply abandoned the people in the flood?

Is life imitating art here? In the film, Superman was shown being increasingly misunderstood by the world around him in spite of his actions. It seems the same has been happening IRL since the movie's release.

Very strange.

Seems to me people are misreading the meaning of the scene. Not you folks, of course. But the detractors. The point of the scene is that humanity NEEDS Superman, and that need may not be healthy. The delayed rescue (Superman hovering in the sky) allows the visual of the desperate woman reaching out to the sky. That's the symbolic money shot. Superman saves the girl in Mexico and he's treated like a deity, with everyone wanting to touch him.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 30 Mar  2019, 09:34It would be understandable if he said he was disappointed how the moment cuts off to the next and the flood survivors' rescue happened off-screen. I think that would be fair criticism, but he's not saying that. Instead, he's using that scene to dismiss every moment we see Superman saving people in the movies. It's shamelessly obtuse.

I don't what scene with Reeve's Clark you're referring, but I think it may be likely that we don't pan over and just hold on Clark for a couple seconds watching from someone elses perspective as Clark just floats there. While I don't care about this personally, I don't necessarily think that complaint is based on that idea that he doesn't save people, more how the movie depicts the saving.

QuoteAs for the courthouse comment, I have a hunch that even if the theatrical cut of the movie had included the scene where Lois discovered Keefe's wheelchair was covered in lead, it wouldn't have made a difference to this person. He'd likely move the goalposts and say "Superman should've been quick enough to save all of those people as soon as the bomb exploded".

I have more issue with the scene happening at all with the wheelchair blowing up. I don't care that he couldn't see it nowadays, more that, again, we just hold on him surrounded by burning bodies as he looks sad (Killing Zod elicited a stronger reaction) and more than that, the movie took away the opportunity to get inside Clark's head and have him voice his emotions specifically, in a situation that I think ultimately doesn't have much of a point (Clark gets sad and blames himself, leaves, walks somewhere in the snow, talks to his dad somehow who gives him advice that I don't think is helpful or really works and Clark comes back). Arguably for the fight to play to me, having Clark not have a bouncing back moment only for Clark to suddenly revert, and having be made to fight Batman at his hardest moment, I think would help the emotion of the scene from his end.

So, this must be yet another indication Cavill is out as Superman. Take a look at this stupid cameo in Shazam.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJr769TmN-s

The PR department tried to spin this by saying Cavill was unable appear because of scheduling conflicts. HA! This rubbish corporation really loves to insult the fans' intelligence, don't they? And I just love how they played the first few notes of the John Williams theme to pander to nostalgia yet again.  ::)

At this rate, Cavill is better off leaving and having nothing to do with this joke of a corporation. Let them cannibalise their own movie franchise just for the sake of going after money-making trends. No integrity whatsoever. (https://www.batman-online.com/forum/Themes/batmanonlinecom_default/images/post/thumbdown.gif)

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 14 Jul  2018, 08:28

Quote
Man Of Steel itself attracted controversy for its darker take on the Big Blue Boy Scout – Zac Snyder creating a moody film that felt closer in spirit to Christopher Nolan than Christopher Reeve.

Source: https://www.squaremile.com/features/interview/henry-cavill-mission-impossible/

I'm coming back to my earlier post.

I just love how these worthless critics love to put Nolan on such a pedestal for supposedly creating "dark, high concept, cerebral cinema that elevated superheroes" while blatantly ignoring every f***ing fault that overrated hack does; and yet, not only do they ignore the fact he co-wrote MOS, but the moody tone they cherished so much is suddenly not suitable for a Superman movie. All the while still adopting a different standard when it comes to Snyder and do it with such shameless vitriol, for the same reasons they excuse Nolan for doing. Once again, I don't think Snyder is a genius by any means either, but I despise the pure, disgraceful hypocrisy coming from these snide, and often hateful, scumbags.

Anyway, I found this three year old blog by a fan called Alessandro Maniscalco, who took the time to address scathing criticisms of the movie shortly after it came out. Among one of the reviews he addressed was this putz called Steve, who made a negative video review on YouTube. One might wonder why would anybody waste time to write a rebuttal to some nobody on the internet, and under any normal circumstances that would be a very logical question to ask. Sadly, the video review in question was apparently very popular on YouTube.

Among a lot of things in this video, the YouTuber had appeared to have taken issue with how Lois and Clark's relationship developed on screen, which Alessandro responds.

http://reviewbvsreview.blogspot.com/2016/07/review-of-batman-v-superman-beautiful_7.html

Quote from: Alessandro Maniscalco
Steve states that Superman and Lois' relationship is underdeveloped and horribly toxic.  What?  What does that even mean?!?!  He says he doesn't know what either of them wants from the other.  I can't help but laugh at the absurdity of that statement.  What does anyone want in a relationship and what does anyone want from their significant other.  He argues that Lois and Clark's relationship makes no sense as if any relationship is supposed to have more purpose than simply two people loving each other.  No, instead he insists that Lois is supposed to be Superman's world and his connection to humanity but that Martha fills that role.  In what way is the love a mother the same as the love of a mate?  And in what scenario is it healthy for a man's mother to be his world?  Furthermore, if Steve claims that Man of Steel failed at making Martha Superman's connection to humanity, why would he question Lois filling that role?

...

The fact that Steve questions why Superman would do anything to save Lois, the woman that he loves, is probably the most idiotic thing in this whole video rant.  Seriously?  Calling Superman overly infatuated?  I don't know Steve personally, but I have to wonder if he has ever been in love.  If you love someone you would raise heaven and earth for them.  He cites the fact that Superman becomes a tyrannical monster once Lois dies.  Has he never watched any show or movie in which a spouse dies leaving a completely grief stricken widow or even heard of people dying from heartache from losing a spouse?  It is completely asinine.  What does Lois love about Superman?  Well ignoring the fact that he's Superman, and the fact that he is a loving, caring, attractive person, I say what does anyone love about their significant other?

If this is what the detractor said, then yes, it is idiotic indeed. I could go in depth by recapping how Clark and Lois showing compassion for each other slowly develops into their romance ever since MOS and continues in the sequel, but that would be redundant to mention in great detail. You just need to watch the movies, and pay attention. If people like this Steven think any of that was underdeveloped, then I'd hate to imagine what would constitute a good onscreen relationship.

As for questioning Superman's love for Lois, I guess this Steve putz would take issue with Crisis on Infinite Earths because it showed Earth-Two Superman momentarily losing the will to live because he thought his wife Lois had vanished for good, along with the rest of his world. I suppose you could say Superman's grief is "horribly toxic" and "overly infatuated". ::)

(https://i.imgur.com/WdakISM.jpg)

So, here we are three years later. The DCEU is in disarray, we've lost Affleck and we're very likely to lose Cavill, because of Warner deciding to cater to morons like Alessandro is calling out.

Pathetic.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun,  2 Jun  2019, 03:41I'm coming back to my earlier post.

I just love how these worthless critics love to put Nolan on such a pedestal for supposedly creating "dark, high concept, cerebral cinema that elevated superheroes" while blatantly ignoring every f***ing fault that overrated hack does; and yet, not only do they ignore the fact he co-wrote MOS, but the moody tone they cherished so much is suddenly not suitable for a Superman movie.

How is it hypocrisy to think one tone can fit for one character and another tone can fit for another?

I think an argument can be made in the idea that tone can come from how a director interpret's what the script does in some ways. But I think Nolan wasn't a match for this material in the first place.

QuoteIf this is what the detractor said, then yes, it is idiotic indeed. I could go in depth by recapping how Clark and Lois showing compassion for each other slowly develops into their romance ever since MOS and continues in the sequel, but that would be redundant to mention in great detail. You just need to watch the movies, and pay attention. If people like this Steven think any of that was underdeveloped, then I'd hate to imagine what would constitute a good onscreen relationship.

I wouldn't call it toxic, though I do think it's underdeveloped. They don't really have any real personal conversations about themselves or eachother as people. Clark really talks at her about his dad's death and that's it. I don't think they have a relationship much at all. Saying that it happens off screen I think doesn't work, for me, and maybe some others. We don't see their relationship build, I think, even to justify their kiss at the end of MOS, in consideration to the tone of the scene and in BvS justify their relationship being as important to Clark as is described.

QuoteAs for questioning Superman's love for Lois, I guess this Steve putz would take issue with Crisis on Infinite Earths because it showed Earth-Two Superman momentarily losing the will to live because he thought his wife Lois had vanished for good, along with the rest of his world. I suppose you could say Superman's grief is "horribly toxic" and "overly infatuated". ::)

(https://i.imgur.com/WdakISM.jpg)

So, here we are three years later. The DCEU is in disarray, we've lost Affleck and we're very likely to lose Cavill, because of Warner deciding to cater to morons like Alessandro is calling out.

Pathetic.

The rest of his world is a component there I think. But if he momentarily did that, I think that's something that can happen if the relationship has been developed more. Giving up entirely, I'd think be a bit much.

I don't think WB thinks their in disaray, with what their doing, and with Matt Reeves Batman seeming to come together now.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Mon,  3 Jun  2019, 03:26
I don't think WB thinks their in disaray, with what their doing, and with Matt Reeves Batman seeming to come together now.

Agreed. Regardless of what one thinks of what transpired with Suicide Squad and Justice League, and the tone going forward, Aquaman and Shazam were both received favorably and fared respectably at the box office, especially Aquaman. Joker with Joaquin Phoenix has generated a fair share of interest. Wonder Woman 2 is bound to be popular, and I also think Birds of Prey with Margot Robbie will have appeal. Patman's reveal seems to have been relatively smooth in comparison to the Affleck and Keaton announcements. Any fan backlash suggested by the media is mostly exaggerated for clickbait.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon,  3 Jun  2019, 11:59
Any fan backlash suggested by the media is mostly exaggerated for clickbait.

Um...in case you haven't paid any attention in the last couple of years, Warner Butchers buckled to any type of backlash exaggerated for clickbait. Hell, they've been COMPLICIT in the clickbait themselves with their constant lying and dillydallying.

Besides, take another read what I said: I'm talking about the actual DCEU being in disarray. That Joker-in-name-only movie is irrelevant to the discussion.

Let's get real, the whole DCEU now is just a basketcase, despite latest reviews and box office to the last couple of movies. The continuity is now a mess, Affleck is gone, Cavill doesn't look like he's returning, the future over Miller and Fisher's roles as Cyborg and Flash respectively are up in the air, and there is no JL sequel on the horizon, and likely won't ever be. What are they going to do now, just use Gadot and Momoa going forward? While completely ignoring the other characters, or worse, use body doubles to make awkward cameo appearances like in Shazam? That's just stupid. What happens if the next crop of movies don't do well? If this is what they're going to do, just stop making these movies.

Besides, if Warner has demonstrated anything in the last year or so following the PR debacle surrounding JL and refusing to acknowledge the demand over the Snyder cut, they haven't learned a god damn thing. Mark my words, if Reeves's movie fails to satisfy mass audiences and earn the money Warner wants, they'll sabotage that franchise too.

I found this tweet from some idiot who calls himself "SJW Superman".

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EB9I3_aWkAEYgKz.jpg)

As I said before, there is some criticism to be had when talking about Cavill's Superman. But there's nothing I hate more when some dickhead makes a cheap point by quoting a line from BvS out of context to dismiss the entire movie. If this fool had more than a single brain cell inside his pitiful little head, he'd understand Superman said that a line in a moment of fear and doubt. According to his/her logic (oh sorry, am I assuming its gender?  ::)), all the good Superman does, whether it's saving a village from a missile drone, rescuing people from disasters and sacrificing his life to protect humanity, is all for nothing. Because he said something in the spur of the moment and doesn't have a scene talking somebody out of suicide, that apparently makes Cavill's Superman completely worthless. How stupid.

Even if the movies had a scene like that example from All-Star Superman, it would need to actually have some relevance to the story. That scene might serve its purpose well for a dying Superman wanting to make the most of his limited time alive in All-Star. But a movie adapting such a scene without a particular reason would come across as a cheap attempt at a feel good moment. Then again, looking at how mass audiences react to superhero movies, I get the impression they care about how something feels in the moment, rather than really thinking about the plot.

I shouldn't have wasted my time poking fun at somebody who goes by such a ridiculous screen name, and has a picture of Brandon Routh as the Kingdom Come Superman that Alex Ross drew. But I'm pissed off because dickheads like this are the reason why Warner Butchers sabotaged the DCEU, and why we'll unlikely see another Superman movie in the near future. At this rate, I'll be surprised if we'll ever see another Superman movie in our lifetime.

A fan who tweeted "Henry Cavill is Superman" got a reply from John Glover, aka the Riddler, Lionel Luthor and Dr. Woodrue:

Quote from: John Glover
Just never had one good film to showcase it sadly

https://twitter.com/RealJohnGlover/status/1477383566103236608

Pretty poor form to talk down on somebody else's work so publicly. He's not the only high profile DCAU actor do so, I remember Susan Eisenberg, who played Wonder Woman, had tweeted some unsavoury comments when ZSJL was announced, and called the $70 million budget that was used to finish the cut as "a waste of money". Really poor form from her too.

John Glover is in no position to make unflattering comments about other actors' movies, considering he appeared in Batman & Robin. I say this as somebody who doesn't even have strongest dislike for B&R, but I don't need to remind everyone about the fallout surrounding it, do I?

For some reason, Alex Ross uploaded a side-by-side comparison of comic panels he drew and Superman in BvS, and tagged it to Gunn. This was the second time he uploaded this montage on Twitter, but he deleted the post he tagged on Gunn's name.

(https://preview.redd.it/alex-rosss-twitter-account-posted-this-tagging-james-gunn-v0-3i6yy8fdmglc1.jpeg?auto=webp&s=c7b8cd8c70984ff751d6b9d079b2967c68b32d66)

Don't know if it's worth reading into. But you can tell Ross appreciates the similarities between his work and the shots in BvS.