All Things DCEU News, Discussion, and Speculation - Part 5

[The Batman]

Snyder wasn't able to make the movie he wanted to make? If that were actually true, Superman wouldn't have snapped Zod's neck in MOS.

 

[Black Narcissus]

I mean Justice League was a flop but I mean how would you do it better to further build the DCEU in terms of world building

Make good stand alone flicks from now on and only vaguely mention the Snyder stuff, I don't know. I do hope they are still building towards a Legion of Doom type movie tho. Who knows.

 

[MaceB]

Yes, he said he wanted to do that, but he obviously chose not to do it. He shows restraint and mercy because he is compassionate and because he doesn't want his powers to be discovered.

Yeah, but why. Tony Stark developed into Iron Man after finding out about the damage he does in the middle east. Strange discovers his faults after being told so at the end of the movie by the Grand Master or whatever. He makes a complete arc. Batman does what he does because he was traumatized by his childhood. What's the motivation behind Clark's good nature? We don't know. We don't know if he wants to be athletic, or a scientist, or a farmer like his dad. We don't know if he helps people because he feels bad for them or does he feel a responsibility? Snyder puts all these plot points out there that you mention, but he leaves us to connect the dots on our own.. which leads to conversations like this, where you got something different than I did. Clark goes from being a naturally good person in MOS, to a naturally good person who embraces his powers. Pardon me for not being overwhelmed by that development or thinking Jonathan's words are enough to make understand Clark's character.

I don't see how or why that would have been necessary. Donner's first Superman film is universally lauded, yet his Superman simply is told by Jonathan that he was here for a reason that wasn't scoring touchdowns, he dies, Clark finds the green crystal that leads him to the fortress, the AI Jor-El there indoctrinates him for over a decade and he comes out Superman. MoS goes on a similar, yet richer path that is rooted more in Clark's agency as a character and shows us how he learns and grows.

First, I never said that SM: The Movie has good character development... it doesn't really, though I'd argue it's better than MOS. The primary difference is what the movies were shooting for. Superman The Movie was trying to be an escapist adventure film, so we judged it like that. BvS was trying to be more... a superhero movie and a compelling drama, and it failed to do that because none of the characters really have understandable motivations that logically change over time. Superman just waivers back and forth, but does he really come to an epiphany? Does he really grow? It certainly isn't obvious. Again, we have to do the investigation work ourselves.

Not really. He puts on the costume after Jor-El talks about testing his limits. Practically, this type of testing first related to powers like flight, but more generally speaking making the decision about how to go public was the next test, which Zod's arrival precipitated. In that moment, Superman chooses to take a leap of faith on humanity and turn himself over to them instead of going directly to Zod or hiding. Once he's done that, he proudly explains his suit and mission to Lois and proceeds to embrace both for two years as an active superhero. He only questions himself briefly after the Capitol bombing because it's his existence and presence that is hurting people more than it is helping, based on what he was seeing. So, he pauses for a moment to consider his next move, goes to the mountaintop like Christ on Gethsemane and reaffirms his mission in spite of the "nightmares."

So, Superman questioned his purpose because a bad guy killed a lot of innocent people using him as a scapegoat. Don't you see how that's not a compelling character development? Like, we just went through him dawning the suit in MOS... and now.. because of a very easily anticipated set back, he rethinks? Doesn't seem like he's changed to putting his faith in humanity to me. Seems like he questions his own humanity because of their actions.

They make him wonder that because if Superman is meant to be a force for good, and the result of his presence is that it's hurting more than helping, he has to consider whether Superman, the public superhero, is serving its function.

He wondered if he was meant to be a source for good in MOS. That's what putting on the suit was all about. So now, after he's made his choice... he's now rethinking his choice. That's the opposite of character progress.

He reflects on this and chooses to be Superman anyway, not because of Lois, but because of what she represents: humanity's potential for hope.

This is not at all clear from the movie to me. I feel like you are doing the movie's work for it.

Clark feels different than others but not entirely out of place or without a home. He had parents who adopted him even though he came from a strange ship and kept him even when his body worked differently than other kids' bodies did. When he felt scared about who he was and asked his dad if he could keep pretending to be his son, Jonathan comforts him and says that he doesn't have to pretend because he IS his son no matter where he came from or how difficult it can be. He destroyed property because the man was a bully and an abuser (Reeve Superman actually just hit a guy in Superman II who did roughly the same thing); besides, I believe something like that would be covered by insurance. He still doesn't hurt people.

Again, none of this is utilized. If Clark's primary weakness is his inability to connect with people, then they didn't do a good enough job driving that home. Let's go over some weaknesses of other heros:

Tony - over confident
Captain America - doesn't compromise
Thor - seeks war
Spiderman - young and naive.

All of these characters had clear strengths and weaknesses and the films were about how the characters changed and grew past those weaknesses. With Snyder's DC.. I guess Superman's weakness is his indecision and his inability to connect. Does he ever really get over that and become a stronger person? Was there a moment, where his virtue was really recognized by audiences and people in the movie world? Nope... not really. He seems mostly the same as he ever did. Maybe a small epiphany, but again... the movie basically hides all this in the subtext.

You should know full well that there are steps between the bar confrontation and going public as Superman, so don't create a strawman. After that incident, Clark finds out more at Ellesmere about his Kryptonian heritage.

There's not really any character growth between these two scenes. Yeah, clark learns more about his heritage and puts on the suit, but has any of his problems with humanity and himself been resolved? Nope... it doesn't even seem like that was the movie's goal.

Sure, they do. Each scene from the flashbacks highlights this. As a child, he feels strange and can't control his powers. We hear that his parents don't let him play with other kids (probably because his powers are fickle and they're afraid he'll hurt someone or expose something, like the Kents did on the TV show Smallville). As a teen, he's teased because he's quiet, and as an adult he gets flack from Ludlow at the bar for not fighting back. Once he is Superman, this repeats itself. So, first we get it in microcosm with family and acquaintances, then we get it in macrocosm with the world.

The flashbacks showed that Clark had a hard time connecting, that's true.. But it doesn't show this to be his main battle at all, nor do we leave the movie feeling like he's made a lot of headway in this area. Like you say, he takes a leap of faith, but that's basically it from a growth perspective. Clark goes from an afraid kid who hides his powers to an afraid adult who doesn't hide his powers.... but then thinks about hiding his powers again in the next movie. This harks back to the older days of comic book movies, where the only real conflict was, "should i be a superhero, or shouldn't I." MOS and BvS are never able to get past that, and Superman is sort of in limbo as a result.

Nope. Superman isn't presented as all good in BvS. The movie actually explicitly challenges that by asking if Superman can really exist in a world that expects someone of his power to be like a god and be omniscient and infallible when he isn't those things.

Basically, Superman is presented as all good though, and for no real reason. He's just a good guy, because he was brought up good. We don't know why he wants to be good, or why he feels a responsibility to save people. The movie is content with saying, "he's a good guy, but yeah he's shy." and move on from there. And since Superman basically doesn't grow, except for this leap of faith, he comes across as more all good. His shyness and indecision is painted more as a common man's problems... almost endearing traits that he shouldn't have to get over. He's a good guy already... always was..and he just needs to recognize that about himself. Yawn.

No, I don't have to say that. Your entire above analysis is based on a total lack of knowledge of the chronology, plot, and dialogue of the film. The line, "No one stays good in this world," happens nearly 30 minutes before Superman's last words. They are not referencing anything close to the idea that everyone is bad. Superman is saying no one stays good (e.g. no one is perfect; no one is good all the time). Superman is referring to the fact that "good" isn't a status quo. The film itself argues, "good is a conversation." The idea is that good people may sometimes do bad things. For every character in the film, the message is that this movement away from good doesn't have to be damning. While one may not stay good, one can fall and rise to be good again. "Men are still good. We fight. We kill. We betray one another. But we can rebuild. We can do better. We will. We have to."

I'm aware that it's not his actual last line, but it's basically his last line of substance, except for the "you are my world" scene... which again... I think demonstrates a real confusion at Superman's character arc. Was the problem that he didn't love Lois and wouldn't do anything to protect her before? No. I guess the movie is trying to argue that Superman, at that moment, realizes that Earth is his home, and he has to protect everyone just like he protects Lois, but why? What caused that revelation at that moment? And that's not even the movie's biggest concern, which is about the world's reaction to Supeman, not the other way around.

 

[MaceB]

huh? MOS and BVS were all the movies he wanted to make. He wasn't forced into making them and had everything to do with how they turned out.

Like I said, you can believe what you want, but I don't think the title, Batman vs Superman : Dawn of Justice was what Snyder wanted. I also think Snyder wanted an MOS 2 instead of BvS. I think that hiring Ben and Eisenberg was WB's choice. I think making Justice League so short was WB's choice.

I think they gave him a lot of leeway in MOS, and that turned out to be a mostly okay movie. Unfortunately, fans had a hissy fit, and WB firmly stepped into control in BvS.

I know that Snyder says this isn't true, but I think he's just keeping face for his future employers, personally. I blame WB ten times more than Snyder.

 

[unholyrevenger]

What's the motivation behind Clark's good nature? We don't know.

you don't need a reason or motivation too be a good person.

 

[MaceB]

you don't need a reason or motivation too be a good person.

To be a hero and to put your life on the line every day? To save a bunch of kids that are mean to you, even though its a great risk to you personally? You don't NEED motivations for those things, but if you want to show characters with depth, you better.

 

[The Guard]

you don't need a reason or motivation too be a good person.

Nevermind that learning to be good isn't the character arc presented in the film in the first place, so complaining that we don't see why he's good makes little sense in context, and is a matter of preference VS an issue of execution.

 

[MaceB]

Nevermind that learning to be good isn't the character arc presented in the film in the first place, so complaining that we don't see why he's good makes little sense in context, and is a matter of preference VS an issue of execution.

I disagree. Without relatable motivations, then the character becomes a cutout, and can't have real character growth. In MOS and BvS, Clark is a 2 dimensional character who they are really trying make seem 3 dimensional, but we have no idea what makes him tick. Without knowing why he wants to help people so much, what's the value in learning about this so called leap of faith? What do we care? We don't even know why Superman takes that leap of faith in the first place or why it matters.

 

[The Guard]

I disagree. Without relatable motivations, then the character becomes a cutout, and can't have real character growth. In MOS and BvS, Clark is a 2 dimensional character who they are really trying make seem 3 dimensional, but we have no idea what makes him tick. Without knowing why he wants to help people so much, what's the value in learning that he dawns the cape and then helps people? He's just a cartoon character, flying around, doing good at great personal cost... just... because.

From a young age, Clark wants to help people because he can and has the power to do so, and the films added to his reasoning to help others by making it a way that he honors the wishes of his parentage and a desire to uphold their legacy. He can do things no one else can do, and is good at it. He perceives that he has a responsibility to do so, which also informs the conflict of the films.

His desire to help others and his reasoning for it is not rocket science, and is the clear subtext found throughout much of the story/conflict in MOS, and is also clear in pretty much all of his actions. This is part of the basic human experience, and is not the sort of thing a film should have to explain whole cloth to an audience.

Altruism/heroism is not in itself a particularly deep concept, and never has been. It's what's behind pretty much every hero or superhero character ever conceived, and the films of most hero and superhero characters don't dwell on it alone for a reason.

He does have relatable motivations in both MAN OF STEEL and BVS.

You just don't seem to care for what they chose to focus on in terms of the character, and would apparently have preferred for them to focus on the most generic elements of him as a hero character, instead of what sets him apart from most other heroes.

 

[unholyrevenger]

To be a hero and to put your life on the line every day? To save a bunch of kids that are mean to you, even though its a great risk to you personally? You don't NEED motivations for those things, but if you want to show characters with depth, you better.

Superman saving people who hate him shows you the depth of his character.

 

[Erzengel]

Snyder wasn't able to make the movie he wanted to make? If that were actually true, Superman wouldn't have snapped Zod's neck in MOS.

Snyder was given full reign on BvS. He might of had WB telling him to cut down his 3 hour movie but the movie was still done.

 

[MaceB]

But a character who does good because Reason X is somehow deep? Superman wants to help people because he can. He has the power to do so, and he cares about people. It's the subtext throughout much of MOS, and its clear in pretty much all of his actions.

That basic altruism is not a particularly deep concept, and never has been. It's what's behind pretty much every hero or superhero character ever conceived.

He does have relatable motivations in both MAN OF STEEL and BVS.

You just don't care for what they chose to focus on in terms of the character, and would apparently have preferred for them to focus on the most generic elements of him as a hero character, instead of what sets him apart from most other heroes.

It's not about being ideologically deep. It's about 1) giving the character depth and 2) allowing the character to go some place. If the character doesn't have clear motivations, then his development can't be clear either. The character isn't really having an epiphany... the character is fumbling around from one unrelatable motivation to the next.
Having a character be a good guy, just because he is a good guy is one thing. having a character sacrifice himself day in and day out for others because he's a good guy is something else. No one just wakes up and is like... you know... I'm going to be 100% good because that's who i want to be. No, they want to be the best at their job, or they want to make a difference to their community, or they want to show their parents that they can make good, etc. etc. etc. Just making a character all-good all the time is 2 dimensional and uninteresting.

Altruism is not the basic idea behind every hero, if you are writing the heroes well. Batman is trying to undo his failure to protect his parents. You're right; there are lots of characters who are just all good, just because... but BvS wasn't trying to be a typical action movie.. it was also trying to be a drama. If Snyder just wanted to take us on a roller coaster ride full of adventurism, then I'd be more okay.. but that's not what he did. He asked us to connect with these characters on a person level, while not proving them any real depth or motivation. And without those, there can't be a lot of growth. Think about if this were a cop movie. Would it really be enough for the hero character to take a bullet for his partner, because...well he could so he did. ?

And huh? I want to focus on the most generic parts? I'm basically arguing here that new breath needs to be breathed into the character. Does Superman do what he does because he needs the acceptance of his adopted parents? (the Earth) Does he do it because he feels it's important to carry on his family's dynasty or to represent Krypton? Does he have a hitch on his shoulder because he always pretended to be weak and now he hates bullies who pick on the less unfortunate? I dunno.... take your pick. But saying that Superman is a good guy who does heroic things.. because that's just the way it is.. doesn't make for good drama.

 

[MaceB]

Snyder was given full reign on BvS. He might of had WB telling him to cut down his 3 hour movie but the movie was still done.

Those two things are in direct contradiction of each other. If they told him to cut off 40 minutes of his movie, then he didn't have full reign.

 

[MaceB]

Superman saving people who hate him shows you the depth of his character.

How's that?

 

[misslane38]

I disagree. Without relatable motivations, then the character becomes a cutout, and can't have real character growth. In MOS and BvS, Clark is a 2 dimensional character who they are really trying make seem 3 dimensional, but we have no idea what makes him tick. Without knowing why he wants to help people so much, what's the value in learning about this so called leap of faith? What do we care? We don't even know why Superman takes that leap of faith in the first place or why it matters.

Superman takes that leap of faith because of Lois. He took a leap of faith on her, and the trust part came later. Later on the tarmac, Superman thanks Lois for believing in him, and she replies that it didn't seem to make much of a difference. Superman tells Lois, "It did to me." He takes the leap of faith because of all the humans who have witnessed who he is and have had his back: Pete, Chrissie, Father Leone, etc.

 

[MaceB]

Superman takes that leap of faith because of Lois. He took a leap of faith on her, and the trust part came later. Later on the tarmac, Superman thanks Lois for believing in him, and she replies that it didn't seem to make much a difference. Superman tells Lois, "It did to me." He takes the leap of faith because of all the humans who have witnessed who he is and have had his back: Pete, Chrissie, Father Leone, etc.

The Lois part is very clear. The part about the others.... eh.. you're just kinda doing the film's work for it there.

 

[Erzengel]

Those two things are in direct contradiction of each other. If they told him to cut off 40 minutes of his movie, then he didn't have full reign.

They still let him film his movie the way he wanted. It doesn't seem like the Studio at all came in to tell him, don't do that or that during the filmmaking process.

Regardless if WB made him cut it down, he still cut down his own movie and still had his ultimate cut.

 

[MaceB]

They still let him film his movie the way he wanted. It doesn't seem like the Studio at all came in to tell him, don't do that or that during the filmmaking process.

Regardless if WB made him cut it down, he still cut down his own movie and still had his ultimate cut.

Believe what you want, but I don't think Snyder wanted the BvS title, I don't think he wanted Affleck or an older Ben, I don't think he wanted Eisenberg, and I don't think he wanted Doomsday pigeonholed into the 3rd act of BvS either. Snyder refutes those statements so I don't have a leg to stand on, but I believe it all the same.

If WB told Snyder that he could only make a 2 hour movie, then that is a big condition, and shows how they had more creative control than a lot of people admit, IMO.

 

[misslane38]

The Lois part is very clear. The part about the others.... eh.. you're just kinda doing the film's work for it there.

But he specifically talks over the decision with Father Leone. Leading up to that conversation was the discussion with Jor-El in the scout ship where he discovers the reason he was sent to Earth.

"You're as much a child of Earth now as you are of Krypton. You can embody the best of both worlds. A dream your mother and I dedicated our lives to preserve. The people of Earth are different from us, it's true. But, ultimately, I believe that's a good thing. They won't necessarily make the same mistakes we did. Not if you guide them, Kal. Not if you give them hope. That's what this symbol means. The symbol of the house of El means hope. Embodied within that hope is the fundamental belief in the potential of every person to be a force for good. That's what you can bring them."

Earlier in the film, Jonathan told Clark,

"But you're not just anyone, Clark, and I have to believe that you were...That you were sent here for a reason. All these changes that you're going through, one day...One day you're going to think of them as a blessing. When that day comes, you have to make a choice. A choice of whether to stand proud in front of the human race or not."

Clark returning to the farm in Smallville where his mother says,

"The truth about you is beautiful. We saw that the moment we laid eyes on you. We knew that one day, the whole world would see that."

At this point, he had already spoken to Lois who was going to kill her story to protect his identity. Why did she do that? She had just spent weeks tracking him down, listening to the stories of those he had saved. Lois protects Clark because she sees in him a man who deserves the chance to make his own decisions about his fate. He's not a danger to humanity who needs to be exposed. He's a good man.

When Zod issues his threat to the world, Clark has to decide whether he's going to put his faith in humanity or in Zod. And to make that decision, he exposes his true identity to Father Leone in Smallville. This is the context of that scene and how the scene plays out:

"I know you [wanted to hurt that kid]. I mean part of me even wanted you to, but then what? Make you feel any better? You just have to decide what kind of man you want to grow up to be, Clark. Because whoever that man is, good character or bad, he's gonna change the world."

Right before Clark turns himself in, we flash back to when Whitney Fordman bullies Clark. In that scene, Whitney is like Zod. He lashes out at Clark and goads him, saying "Come on, Kent. Fight back!" At that moment, Clark chooses not to hit back. Jonathan praises Clark for this choice, because it's a sign of good character. Being good to bullies and showing restraint is good. Jonathan advises Clark that he has the power to change the world someday, and it will be his choice whether that change and his character is good or not. Back in the present, Clark is similarly weighing the choice of how to respond to Zod's aggression. In this moment, he reveals his secret to his local pastor, Father Leone. When Clark follows his advice and takes a leap of faith -- something he credits Lois for giving him the confidence to do -- it's implied he is doing it because he sees it as a choice a man of good character would make who hopes to change the world for the better, which is just like his Earth and Kryptonian parents dreamed for him.

Do you see it yet? Do you see how Clark keeps taking small leaps of faith that result in trust? Do you see how these little steps add up to that final big one? Do you see how this path was set from the first moment he took a leap of faith on Pete? He saved Pete, and then Pete was there for him to offer a helping hand. Clark saves Lois in the scout ship, and then Lois was there for him to protect his identity. He saved Chrissie, and then Chrissie was able to tell her story to Lois who relied upon it and many others to make up her mind about whether to trust Clark. Father Leone suggests Clark take a leap of faith and the trust part will come later. His whole life has validated that advice. Even from the beginning, as Martha recounted, a kindly couple from Kansas adopted an alien child because, to them, he was beautiful, and they believed one day the world would see it too.

 

[The Guard]

Yeah, but why. Tony Stark developed into Iron Man after finding out about the damage he does in the middle east. Strange discovers his faults after being told so at the end of the movie by the Grand Master or whatever. He makes a complete arc. Batman does what he does because he was traumatized by his childhood. What's the motivation behind Clark's good nature? We don't know. We don't know if he wants to be athletic, or a scientist, or a farmer like his dad. We don't know if he helps people because he feels bad for them or does he feel a responsibility?

The first two films make it pretty clear that Clark feels a responsibility to help people, not only because of his power and desire to help others, but because of the lessons of his dual parentage.

Clark goes from being a naturally good person in MOS, to a naturally good person who embraces his powers.

The problem is that you're reducing it to "A good man becomes a good man". You are omitting key context in your analysis.

He's not just a good man, he's a good man who has been alienated for much of his life because of what he can do, and the perceptions others have of him as inhuman, and despite deep fears about how humanity will react to him if he comes out of hiding, he chooses to step into the light during their time of need. That's a pretty major psychological step there.

Superman just waivers back and forth, but does he really come to an epiphany? Does he really grow? It certainly isn't obvious. Again, we have to do the investigation work ourselves.

Yes he does. He comes to the epiphany that his mission is important, and that even though others may not appreciate what he does, that he is ultimately willing to sacrifice all that he is and all that he has to protect others, including the life of the person he holds most dear. There are few things that reflect greater emotional growth.

So, Superman questioned his purpose because a bad guy killed a lot of innocent people using him as a scapegoat. Don't you see how that's not a compelling character development?

That's also not what happens. He questions his purpose not because of a single event, but because of a series of building events in which the world questions his purpose, and which culminates in his own failure to notice a threat, and which many die as a result of, causing him to recognize that his very presence creates not just political issues, but danger for others.

Like, we just went through him dawning the suit in MOS... and now.. because of a very easily anticipated set back, he rethinks? Doesn't seem like he's changed to putting his faith in humanity to me. Seems like he questions his own humanity because of their actions.

He's questioning his role on Earth and humanity's ability to accept him, not his own humanity.

He wondered if he was meant to be a source for good in MOS. That's what putting on the suit was all about. So now, after he's made his choice... he's now rethinking his choice. That's the opposite of character progress.

Not really. Because he's self reflecting, considering his previous actions, and also his failures, as well as the input of others, in this case, the world. That's actually emotional progress.

He never actually chooses to stop being Superman. He simply needs some help with the weight of it all.

Again, none of this is utilized. If Clark's primary weakness is his inability to connect with people, then they didn't do a good enough job driving that home. Let's go over some weaknesses of other heros:

The films don’t drive home that Clark is unable to connect with people? He works remote jobs, he keeps to himself, his entire arc is one of alienation and isolation and learning to move past that. Even in BVS, he ends up in a remote, frozen tundra when things get bad. How is the idea of alienation not driven home?

With Snyder's DC.. I guess Superman's weakness is his indecision and his inability to connect.

Superman’s main weakness is his power; his power creates political and social issues that he has to navigate.

Does he ever really get over that and become a stronger person? Was there a moment, where his virtue was really recognized by audiences and people in the movie world? Nope... not really. He seems mostly the same as he ever did. Maybe a small epiphany, but again... the movie basically hides all this in the subtext.

Well, he gets a statue in "Heroes Park" after the events of MOS, and at the end of BVS, there’s an entire memorial service dedicated to his virtue, as well as a hero’s funeral. Batman recognizes his virtue as well, so…

There's not really any character growth between these two scenes. Yeah, clark learns more about his heritage and puts on the suit, but has any of his problems with humanity and himself been resolved? Nope... it doesn't even seem like that was the movie's goal.

He’s clearly working to resolve the problems based on his interaction with the political/military figures in the film. It’s not something that’s going to be resolved overnight, as BVS clearly showcases.

The flashbacks showed that Clark had a hard time connecting, that's true.. But it doesn't show this to be his main battle at all, nor do we leave the movie feeling like he's made a lot of headway in this area.

The entire movie features themes of alienation. We are shown that these are his main struggles from his time as a young child when his powers start to emerge. People think he’s weird and fear or are in awe of him because of what he can do.

We leave the movie with him having connected strongly to someone who chose to see past all that, stepping into the role of a “normal”” person, and Clark all but literally saying “Glad to be part of the world”.

Like you say, he takes a leap of faith, but that's basically it from a growth perspective. Clark goes from an afraid kid who hides his powers to an afraid adult who doesn't hide his powers.... but then thinks about hiding his powers again in the next movie.

He never thinks about hiding his powers...he can't, he's already exposed the world to what he can do. He thinks about what his role should be moving forward, and whether he should continue to operate as humanity's protector.

This harks back to the older days of comic book movies, where the only real conflict was, "should i be a superhero, or shouldn't I." MOS and BvS are never able to get past that, and Superman is sort of in limbo as a result.

Except that this clearly isn’t the only conflict presented in MOS and BVS. Don’t be so reductive.

Basically, Superman is presented as all good though, and for no real reason. He's just a good guy, because he was brought up good. We don't know why he wants to be good, or why he feels a responsibility to save people. The movie is content with saying, "he's a good guy, but yeah he's shy." and move on from there. And since Superman basically doesn't grow, except for this leap of faith, he comes across as more all good. His shyness and indecision is painted more as a common man's problems... almost endearing traits that he shouldn't have to get over. He's a good guy already... always was..and he just needs to recognize that about himself. Yawn.

...no.

A complete misread of the films and their messages.

Again, these movies are clearly not trying to paint Superman as all good.

I'm aware that it's not his actual last line, but it's basically his last line of substance, except for the "you are my world" scene... which again... I think demonstrates a real confusion at Superman's character arc.

Actions matter in film too, not just dialogue.

Was the problem that he didn't love Lois and wouldn't do anything to protect her before? No. I guess the movie is trying to argue that Superman, at that moment, realizes that Earth is his home, and he has to protect everyone just like he protects Lois, but why? What caused that revelation at that moment?

Because he has seen what the world is truly up against, the kind of thing that creates a need for Superman. It’s not just natural disasters and the like, but a man who has created a superpowered monster. The stakes are much higher than they were before.

And that's not even the movie's biggest concern, which is about the world's reaction to Supeman, not the other way around.

That’s because the movie is trying to make us relate to the issue by showing humanity’s perspective.

It's not about being ideologically deep. It's about 1) giving the character depth

It's not about being deep...it's about giving the character depth?

and 2) allowing the character to go some place.

The character does go someplace.

If the character doesn't have clear motivations, then his development can't be clear either. The character isn't really having an epiphany... the character is fumbling around from one unrelatable motivation to the next.

What motivations aren't clear, exactly?

Having a character be a good guy, just because he is a good guy is one thing. having a character sacrifice himself day in and day out for others because he's a good guy is something else. No one just wakes up and is like... you know... I'm going to be 100% good because that's who i want to be. No, they want to be the best at their job, or they want to make a difference to their community, or they want to show their parents that they can make good, etc. etc. etc. Just making a character all-good all the time is 2 dimensional and uninteresting.

Are you implying that they made the character good all the time? Because if so, you missed a major point of the franchise, which is that this version of Superman is flawed. He's not all good all the time.

Altruism is not the basic idea behind every hero, if you are writing the heroes well.

Superheroes? Sure it is. It's absolutely a common basic concept associated with them. Superheroes are generally about helping people. Having selfless concern for their well being.

Batman is trying to undo his failure to protect his parents.

And why is he doing this in the manner he does? Because he doesn't want them to go through what he did. And what is that when you factor in the methods he employs, risking his life to protect other people? That's selfless concern for the well being of others. Altruism.

You're right; there are lots of characters who are just all good, just because... but BvS wasn't trying to be a typical action movie.. it was also trying to be a drama. If Snyder just wanted to take us on a roller coaster ride full of adventurism, then I'd be more okay.. but that's not what he did. He asked us to connect with these characters on a person level, while not proving them any real depth or motivation. And without those, there can't be a lot of growth. Think about if this were a cop movie. Would it really be enough for the hero character to take a bullet for his partner, because...well he could so he did. ?

...what?

And huh? I want to focus on the most generic parts? I'm basically arguing here that new breath needs to be breathed into the character.

And yet you're ignoring the new breath that was, at least cinematically, and complaining about the lack of an explanation for his most generic motivation; being good.

Does Superman do what he does because he needs the acceptance of his adopted parents? (the Earth) Does he do it because he feels it's important to carry on his family's dynasty or to represent Krypton? Does he have a hitch on his shoulder because he always pretended to be weak and now he hates bullies who pick on the less unfortunate? I dunno.... take your pick. But saying that Superman is a good guy who does heroic things.. because that's just the way it is.. doesn't make for good drama.

He clearly has multiple reasons for doing what he does. At no point does the film imply that Superman is a good guy who does heroic things because that's just the way he is. It's fairly clear that he does what he does because of his powers allowing him to do so (hence the constant discussion/portrayal of his powers and good deeds), and because he feels compelled, as if he has a responsibility to do so, and later because it honors the legacy of his parents.

 

[misslane38]

What's the motivation behind Clark's good nature? We don't know. We don't know if he wants to be athletic, or a scientist, or a farmer like his dad. We don't know if he helps people because he feels bad for them or does he feel a responsibility? Snyder puts all these plot points out there that you mention, but he leaves us to connect the dots on our own.. which leads to conversations like this, where you got something different than I did. Clark goes from being a naturally good person in MOS, to a naturally good person who embraces his powers. Pardon me for not being overwhelmed by that development or thinking Jonathan's words are enough to make understand Clark's character.

He doesn't leave you to connect the dots. Jonathan and Martha teach Clark from a young age about faith and goodness. They take a leap of faith on him and love him like their own child, even though he's mysterious and a lot to handle. They could have just left him in the field or turned him in to the government. They could have exploited him to get rich or gain power, but they didn't. As a child, he says he doesn't want to be the sign of providence Pete's mom saw him as. He just wanted to help and wants to keep pretending to be Clark Kent, Jonathan Kent's son. Jonathan cautioned against this, telling Clark that one day he'd see his differences as a blessing. A few years later, at 17, Clark is telling Jonathan that he wants to do something meaningful with his life that goes beyond farming, which Jonathan describes as a form of helping people by way of feeding them.

I think your problem is rooted in thinking Superman's arc is about his goodness. A character arc and character development is about conflict and resolution, choices, change. For this character, for Clark, the arc is about going from someone who isn't sure of his purpose on Earth or how best to engage with the world to someone who does. By the end of the film, he has a better sense of himself, his purpose, and his place in the world because he's made choices to learn more about his heritage, to embrace it, and to be public.

First, I never said that SM: The Movie has good character development... it doesn't really, though I'd argue it's better than MOS. The primary difference is what the movies were shooting for. Superman The Movie was trying to be an escapist adventure film, so we judged it like that.

No, the standards of character development are the same regardless of whether something is designed to be escapist or not. A lot of the Pixar films are escapist and child friendly films, and they have better character development than Superman: The Movie. I guess you could argue it has better character development than MoS, but I'd advise against it, because the facts of the movie don't support that. Specifically in the area you're so concerned about, Superman's goodness, you get no explanation for it and even less for why he becomes Superman.

BvS was trying to be more... a superhero movie and a compelling drama, and it failed to do that because none of the characters really have understandable motivations that logically change over time. Superman just waivers back and forth, but does he really come to an epiphany? Does he really grow? It certainly isn't obvious. Again, we have to do the investigation work ourselves.

The characters do have logical motivations that change logically. They're all in their own way dealing with a sense of powerlessness and a threat to their very way of life. The film sets about challenging each one of them to show how they respond. For Superman, his challenges make him wonder, as June Finch does, "Must there be a Superman?" The explosion at the Capitol building and Martha's kidnapping threaten this the most: the Capitol threatens the existence of Superman and Martha's kidnapping threatens his goodness. Ultimately, he chooses to face the nightmares that come from not being all powerful or all good, and be Superman for the world even if that means dying for it. He also chooses to be good with Batman by finding another way than killing Batman or letting Martha die, as Luthor demanded. Just because you have to "investigate" doesn't mean it's necessary or it isn't there.

So, Superman questioned his purpose because a bad guy killed a lot of innocent people using him as a scapegoat. Don't you see how that's not a compelling character development? Like, we just went through him dawning the suit in MOS... and now.. because of a very easily anticipated set back, he rethinks? Doesn't seem like he's changed to putting his faith in humanity to me. Seems like he questions his own humanity because of their actions.

No, I don't see it as you do. Superman believed that he would be a force for good in the world. He would inspire hope and protect people from harm. If his very existence is acting a lightning rod for people to create terror everywhere he goes, then his very existence is harming people more than it is helping them. Those people died in the Capitol because someone was trying to make a point about him. He may not have been able to prevent it and not been the one to plant the bomb, but he was what motivated the evil act. I don't think this was something that could have been easily anticipated. If Superman can't help people and can't give them hope, how can he be Superman?

That's what Jonathan's story about the hero cake and the Lang farm is all about. He saved his family farm from flood, but in doing so he helped to flood the Lang farm even though he didn't know it at the time and didn't do it intentionally. The idea is that sometimes there are things we can't control, and even when we do something we think is good and right, it could hurt people. For Superman, that's a lot to reckon with. Ultimately, he decides to have hope and to have faith, because if even one person, a person like Lois, can find hope in him, then it's worth it. It was never about him questioning his own humanity. Never.

He wondered if he was meant to be a source for good in MOS. That's what putting on the suit was all about. So now, after he's made his choice... he's now rethinking his choice. That's the opposite of character progress.

No, he didn't wonder if he was a source for good in MoS. He wondered about HOW he could be a force for good. Learning from the Kents about good character and from Jor-El about his family legacy and their hopes, he figured out a way he could be that force for good. But making a decision is different than dealing with its consequences. Some people choose to get married, but after they spend some time as a married couple, and new challenges arise, they have second thoughts. Superman is a hero who has a relationship with the public. Naturally, if that relationship experiences challenges, so will he. He rethinks things in light of new experiences, but ultimately decides to stay true to his convictions.

This is not at all clear from the movie to me. I feel like you are doing the movie's work for it.

Maybe I am for your sake, because your comprehension is so poor, but that doesn't mean that the character isn't developed.

I guess Superman's weakness is his indecision and his inability to connect. Does he ever really get over that and become a stronger person? Was there a moment, where his virtue was really recognized by audiences and people in the movie world? Nope... not really. He seems mostly the same as he ever did. Maybe a small epiphany, but again... the movie basically hides all this in the subtext.

Superman connects with Lois and with the world because he takes chances on them. The same happens with Pete Ross. He's frequently challenged to do what is good, whether that means showing compassion for bullies or building bridges, and he does so. He reaches out and protects those who fear him or bully him, and he does what Finch defines as good, which is to join the conversation or to engage with humanity. If he's the same after all of the tests he's subjected to in BvS, then that is character development. It tells us and him that he is steadfast and that his love is unconditional.

There's not really any character growth between these two scenes. Yeah, clark learns more about his heritage and puts on the suit, but has any of his problems with humanity and himself been resolved? Nope... it doesn't even seem like that was the movie's goal.

Clark never had problems with humanity. He wasn't sure when he and they would be ready for the paradigm shift that his existence would be for them, but as Jonathan predicted, once he learned more about his biological heritage and the reason he was sent to Earth, his path became more clear. Gaining experience and confidence as a hero also helped in all those years as a drifter, but especially meeting Lois and gaining her trust and loyalty. The movie presents Krypton as a place that had limited free will and had stopped being able to evolve and adapt. Kal-El is born to be free from that and to be raised on Earth where he can prevent the same fate from befalling humanity. Zod and Kal are foils where Zod and his cohorts refuse to adapt and are slaves to their biology while Kal chooses to adapt to Earth and gets people like Lois and Colonel Hardy to be on his side through is kindness. The movie ends with Lois welcoming Clark to the planet, and Clark says he's glad to be there. That succinctly sums up the resolution of the intended arc for him and the film as a whole.

The flashbacks showed that Clark had a hard time connecting, that's true.. But it doesn't show this to be his main battle at all, nor do we leave the movie feeling like he's made a lot of headway in this area. Like you say, he takes a leap of faith, but that's basically it from a growth perspective.

I see you're just going to dismiss and minimize anything that goes against your predetermined belief. The film provides multiple examples of a character trait then gives the character a key moment to use his agency to demonstrate his growth in an area, which he does, and yet to you it all means nothing. I can't help you with that.

Basically, Superman is presented as all good though, and for no real reason.

Not going to rehash things here, but once again NO he is not presented as all good. That's your projection, not the film's. The film also gives you a sense of why Clark is a good person, as I've explained above.

I'm aware that it's not his actual last line, but it's basically his last line of substance, except for the "you are my world" scene... which again... I think demonstrates a real confusion at Superman's character arc.

I see, so your approach to arguing your point of view is to take things out of context, forget or dismiss basic facts that don't fit your narrative, and apply double standards. No wonder you're so confused and off-base.

 

[RomanticPenguin]

isn't the man of steel arc clark choosing earth over krypton?

 

[Flint Marko]

You just don't seem to care for what they chose to focus on in terms of the character, and would apparently have preferred for them to focus on the most generic elements of him as a hero character, instead of what sets him apart from most other heroes.

“Dont care for what they did with Cavill’s Superman? Clearly you just wanted something more generic.”

Classic.

 

[LvtLeeTDK]

10 years ago, apart from Spider-Man and X-men, no other Marvel heroes came close to JL's members. Flash, Green Lantern, Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, Cyborg,... JL animated, Bat TAS, Teen Titans,... DC completely dominated on-screen.

It's crazy how the visionary genius Zack Snyder and WB has managed to ruin them.

Now, besides Batman and Superman, every superhero in MCU **** on the rest of JL.

Sad.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

Then it’s abundantly clear that the majority wants to see a more “generic” take on Superman, due to the lukewarm reception the character has had up to this point. General public and a lot of fans were not on board with this take, I don’t think anyone can deny it at this point. Even the actor who actually plays the character has expressed his desire to make something closer to what we all knew. That should tell you something.

Just because someone tried to do something different doesn’t mean that people who didn’t like it just want a more generic take. I’m sure a talented storyteller could come in and make changes that audiences would accept.