I don't know if I'd call it a rant but to be honest it's hard to know what to make of that scene, the audience couldn't tell whether pa kent was a hallucination or a memory or clark being low on oxygen due to altitude or he just decided to go on a spiritual acid trip or just Snyder -again- trying to be deep.
The type of conversation Clark had with Jonathan in BvS is so common that there is a
webpage devoted to the trope with notable examples from a variety of famous works in multiple genres, including
The Dark Knight Rises, The Lion King, and its inspiration
Hamlet which Terrio has indicated informed the BvS script. Those works weren't "trying to be deep," but were deep, as was BvS.
Yeah I don't think anyone can harbor that fantasy anymore.
No one ever did. People argue that they feel the movie is good to them, not that it was popular.
I agree with Mark Hughes that Superman is not Nick Fury, that Nick needs the help of the Avengers because he can't do it himself. Also feel that Superman always showing up for the sake of including him, in every other hero's movie, would feel contrived. He should only be there if it makes sense. A Shazam!/Black Adam cameo makes sense, as we saw in the Shazam! animated short featuring him.
I think you and Hughes are taking the Nick Fury reference too literally. It probably just means a character who appears in multiple movies, not a character whose appearances function as Fury's did in terms of accomplishing a specific goal destined to be achieved in a later film. It goes without saying that Superman's appearances should make sense, but that's not hard to do and has been something animation and comics, where crossovers and teamups are common, have been doing for decades. Most recently, Superman appeared on
Supergirl, and people thought it worked fine and really enjoyed it.
But solely doing cameos? No. Superman needs a reason for existing. He needs his solo movies to show who he is and why he is needed in the first place.
As far as I'm aware, no one is suggesting or confirming that ONLY cameos are in the cards for Superman. That said, it just makes more sense, if a solo film's future is uncertain, but cameos are possible, to do the cameos. Not knowing the future, executives can choose to do cameos without foreclosing the possibility of a solo film. Meaning, there can be uncertainty about whether a solo will happen, but uncertainty isn't the same as deciding in advance that it can't and never will happen. So, if they do cameos with that kind of open mindset, the result is either that the cameos are all people get because a solo film doesn't eventually happen or the cameos end up being an appetizer that satisfies people and gets them to crave a solo film. Again, Superman's appearances on
Supergirl accomplished this by providing encouragement and support while, freed from the weight of his own narrative, he could shine in small ways people seem to like such as winking at people he's saved or doing some light comedy in his nerd persona. For the DCEU, this could be how to accumulate scenes people felt were missing in previous films that involve public interaction or inspiring the little guy, including a fellow hero. It would be better than not doing any cameos and getting no solo film, or not getting cameos that either make a solo film less possible or make a solo film's appeal less because audiences' last memory of Superman was BvS/JL.
So people think that a good modern adaptation of Superman is impossible because of Superman Returns and DCEU Superman both failing? That is honestly so stupid. Those interpretations failed because they actually just sucked, not because fans or the general audience are impossible to please.
Maybe. Maybe not. There is no way of knowing or verifying what the truth is in such a chicken/egg scenario.
And you know what's weird? I think the Reeve version can be surpassed and I don't think it'd be anywhere near as difficult as some make it out to be. That isn't a slight at Christopher Reeve, who I think embodied the character as well as anyone ever could, but I do think those movies can be improved upon in many ways given how far the genre has been pushed in the past few decades.
There's already a great take. It was the Christopher Reeve version, and his first two films were critically acclaimed, widely popular, and mark the last time the character enjoyed significant relevance and influence.
It's so easy to say this, but a lot harder to do and to prove or demonstrate that crafting a similar story in the present that would hit the same heights critically and commercially would be a simple task. I'm not saying it's not possible, but to assume that filmmakers haven't been trying to surpass the Reeve version by including elements of those films, yet trying to push it further with advances in Superman's personal life (a child) or advances in his characterization for modern relevance (the alien angle, no triangle for two) is a mistake.
Sad to say but, Marvel pretty much got all the hallmarks that make a great Superman movie with their Captain America series.
They make a moral upstanding superhero look easy.
WB also made a really good Superman movie in the DCEU. It was just called Wonder Woman.
Captain America and Wonder Woman are nothing like Superman, and their stories are nothing close to what a Superman story would be. Assuming that or thinking that is symptomatic of one of the more serious problems facing Superman's fate as character and also goes to show how much easier characters like Steve and Diana have it when they aren't as well-known or understood by the general audience to the point that they have a narrow set of expectations for them.
It is Superman.)
