BvS All Things Superman and Batman: An Open Discussion - Part 6

[Smallville13]

Did you have an issue with these same points in the Christopher Reeve movies? Seemed to me that character was closeted too. Seemed like he wanted to play football and his father wouldn't let him. He even got a talking to for showing off. He is teased pretty much for most of his childhood we see. He never saves anyone and doesn't become a force for good until his 'father' gives him the suit and a purpose….and he murdered three people.

I don't have much fondness or attachment to the Donner films I'm afraid.

 

[Tempest]

Fishing trawler: 'Where the hell'd they find you, Freeborn?'
Military showed extreme prejudice until the end of the Smallville fight.
The priest was clearly scared of Clark.
Pete Ross: 'Dick wad'.

I'm not sure it was really shown how and why Clark really loved everyone. The movie painted a pretty bleak picture there. Mark Waid explains it better than me.

With the fishing trawler, the second in command shoves Clark out of the way to save him. Then they go without hesitation to aid in what appears to be a hopeless rescue endeavor - but they still go.

The military were wary of Superman, but not disrespectful, and they took care of each other when they were injured.

The priest was scared of Clark - but he still listened to Clark, and still offered up advise to try to help him.

Pete Ross helped Clark stand after he had been bullied.

The acts of kindness and goodness weren't always giant, grand gestures of greatness. But Clark appreciated the small kindnesses as well as the big ones. That's why in some ways he's more human than the rest of us; because he finds gratitude and joy in the smaller moments.

Good points. That's the real debate though. How far can you push something from it's source before it becomes something else. Snyder definitely pushed. Superman who before had a happy healthy upbringing with the love of his adopted parents, who taught him to reciprocate that love towards everyone else and make the world a better place. To MOS where he has a closeted upbringing, lived in fear of exposing himself as well as the bottled up angst of letting his father die for this reason, and is generally treated poorly by everyone around him, is given his 'purpose' from Jor-El, and is now a murderer. That is the new Superman.

Yeah, but loner!Clark is indeed found in the comics. So Snyder didn't break that much new ground with this Clark. It's the first time on-screen we've seen a loner Clark, but I liked that Clark had a rough time. It doesn't make him not-Superman. It just makes him a different type of Superman.

In fact, I'm hopeful that this will lead to a less arrogant, less so-innocent-he's-kind-of-stupid Superman. Trust me, I love Classic Superman. But sometimes it's good to change things up. This is a new challenge, a new journey.

Could you explain to me how Zod's death is to be construed as murder, please?

 

[John-An]

So that's why he didn't save him? Some selfish intrinsic reason, nothing to do with the greater good as he understood it or anything of that sort. Just his secret id like some sort of peter parker observing a missile fall into a baseball stadium he's in type of scene...

It's so clear when you compare it to something of entirely different context such as AllStar. The better example would have been to put the all star characterization in the mos scenario....
Cause if we take 2 seconds to put young cavill in the all star scenario, what do you think would happen?

Ultimately it boils down to this, "clark just watching"
Take that same scene and remove jon kent's wishes, once that's done, look at how much clark the kid, really cared about keeping his secret.

Yeah that's a shame some people didn't understand the point of the sacrifice of Pa kent and Clark understanding him but also suffering his lost.
Not to mention that Clark was only a teenager and in those moments people freeze and we see Clark with intentions to save him but seeing the advice of Pa Kent that the world, nocions, believes can change with its presence not to mention all human lifes could change in the good way or in a bad way depending on what had happened that moment..
Not only to protect his mom and to keep his identity to in a future when he's ready he can be the hero we all love...

 

[roach]

I don't have much fondness or attachment to the Donner films I'm afraid.

The point is if there are so many interpretations of Superman's origin…Donner's is different from Birthright and is different from Superman TAS and is different from John's Secret Origins and is different from Smallville and is different from John Byrne's Man of Steel and is different from Siegal and Shuster's origin and is different from the New 52 origin and is different from the George Reeves TV show and is different from the Radio show…..why are we raking this movie over the coals for being different.

 

[John-An]

With the fishing trawler, the second in command shoves Clark out of the way to save him. Then they go without hesitation to aid in what appears to be a hopeless rescue endeavor - but they still go.

The military were wary of Superman, but not disrespectful, and they took care of each other when they were injured.

The priest was scared of Clark - but he still listened to Clark, and still offered up advise to try to help him.

Pete Ross helped Clark stand after he had been bullied.

The acts of kindness and goodness weren't always giant, grand gestures of greatness. But Clark appreciated the small kindnesses as well as the big ones. That's why in some ways he's more human than the rest of us; because he finds gratitude and joy in the smaller moments.



Yeah, but loner!Clark is indeed found in the comics. So Snyder didn't break that much new ground with this Clark. It's the first time on-screen we've seen a loner Clark, but I liked that Clark had a rough time. It doesn't make him not-Superman. It just makes him a different type of Superman.

In fact, I'm hopeful that this will lead to a less arrogant, less so-innocent-he's-kind-of-stupid Superman. Trust me, I love Classic Superman. But sometimes it's good to change things up. This is a new challenge, a new journey.

Could you explain to me how Zod's death is to be construed as murder, please?

Yeah I don't understand this either... I guess many people took too serious the last movies when superman is omnipresent, backs to time and everything happens which in the COMICS NEVER BEEN THAT WAY!!!
I don't see the point saving the family and all the humanity defeating Zod and also saw the reaction of Superman screaming and crying no matter Zod was a villain. while in Superman II he smiles to kill Zod sending him in to the abysm and let Non fall and not to mention letting Lois punching Ursa and sending her to the void but it was funny and that's why it wasn't bad right?

 

[roach]

Yeah I don't understand this either... I guess many people took too serious the last movies when superman is omnipresent, backs to time and everything happens which in the COMICS NEVER BEEN THAT WAY!!!
I don't see the point saving the family and all the humanity defeating Zod and also saw the reaction of Superman screaming and crying no matter Zod was a villain. while in Superman II he smiles to kill Zod sending him in to the abysm and let Non fall and not to mention letting Lois punching Ursa and sending her to the void but it was funny and that's why it wasn't bad right?

and threw Solar Man into a nuclear reactor

 

[John-An]

The point is if there are so many interpretations of Superman's origin…Donner's is different from Birthright and is different from Superman TAS and is different from John's Secret Origins and is different from Smallville and is different from John Byrne's Man of Steel and is different from Siegal and Shuster's origin and is different from the New 52 origin and is different from the George Reeves TV show and is different from the Radio show…..why are we raking this movie over the coals for being different.

Yeah.. the really important matter is that Donner didn't create Superman.. Superman was from the comics and MOS took Comic Superman's essence and refreshing when plasmed into a movie of the 21st Century

 

[Marvin]

Oh SR got the character wrong too.

I'm referring to Jor-El telling Clark 'You will guide them Kal', 'You will give them an ideal to strive toward', 'You can save all of them' and giving him his suit and cape. Whereas before that Clark was unhappily wandering the States.

On that principle you can see how you would no doubt have to toss Donner in that fail pile as well, along with a few other major interpretations(not even of young superman). Either that of you accept that 'killing' is attached to the superman characterization.

As for the Jor El stuff. Seems like Clark always has a meeting with the man and he always leaves this meeting with new purpose.

 

[Rowsdower!]

Yeah.. the really important matter is that Donner didn't create Superman.. Superman was from the comics and MOS took Comic Superman's essence and refreshing when plasmed into a movie of the 21st Century

I like the Donner film (and Superman 2 is overall pretty good) but i don't understand they people who expected MOS to be a carbon copy of what Donner did. I even saw several reviews bemoaning the fact that the John Williams theme wasn't used because "the Bond movies kept the same theme" or some other trivial reason. In trying to determine whether MOS was good or not, I don't think "It wasn't the Donner film" is a valid reason. I can understand people being disappointed if they felt it wasn't as good as the Donner film, but I think some people actually expected it to be the same movie and when they realized it wasn't, they declared it to be a failure.

 

[John-An]

I like the Donner film (and Superman 2 is overall pretty good) but i don't understand they people who expected MOS to be a carbon copy of what Donner did. I even saw several reviews bemoaning the fact that the John Williams theme wasn't used because "the Bond movies kept the same theme" or some other trivial reason. In trying to determine whether MOS was good or not, I don't think "It wasn't the Donner film" is a valid reason. I can understand people being disappointed if they felt it wasn't as good as the Donner film, but I think some people actually expected it to be the same movie and when they realized it wasn't, they declared it to be a failure.

 

[X Knight]

I like the Donner film (and Superman 2 is overall pretty good) but i don't understand they people who expected MOS to be a carbon copy of what Donner did. I even saw several reviews bemoaning the fact that the John Williams theme wasn't used because "the Bond movies kept the same theme" or some other trivial reason. In trying to determine whether MOS was good or not, I don't think "It wasn't the Donner film" is a valid reason. I can understand people being disappointed if they felt it wasn't as good as the Donner film, but I think some people actually expected it to be the same movie and when they realized it wasn't, they declared it to be a failure.

yep.

 

[roach]

Are people forgetting that Superman killed Doomsday?

 

[TheNextNolan22]

Are people forgetting that Superman killed Doomsday?

I did until you mentioned it.

 

[routhman]

With the fishing trawler, the second in command shoves Clark out of the way to save him. Then they go without hesitation to aid in what appears to be a hopeless rescue endeavor - but they still go.

The military were wary of Superman, but not disrespectful, and they took care of each other when they were injured.

The priest was scared of Clark - but he still listened to Clark, and still offered up advise to try to help him.

Pete Ross helped Clark stand after he had been bullied.

The acts of kindness and goodness weren't always giant, grand gestures of greatness. But Clark appreciated the small kindnesses as well as the big ones. That's why in some ways he's more human than the rest of us; because he finds gratitude and joy in the smaller moments.

I really like your assessment of the film here. The bolded statements indicate, to me, a level of emotional maturity in your analysis.

People too often expect to see "giant, grand gestures" in film, because to them, these are necessary for the watchers to "feel something" themselves; everyone laughs or cries when something extraordinarily funny or sad happens on film, but the more muted moments of emotion are often overlooked, unless the director makes a conscious effort to make these moments appear grand (e.g. this summer's The Way Way Back, when the water-park manager helps the kid not feel like an outcast). In The Way Way Back, for example, you can tell by the music and the cinematography and the acting that these small gestures leave big impressions on the child.

Now we have two stances we could take: (1) either Snyder didn't effectively portray how deeply these gestures (Pete helping him stand after being bullied, Pete keeping his secret, humans generally looking out for each other) affected Clark, or (2) Clark wasn't affected in some deep life-altering way (like the kid in The Way Way Back) each time he saw some small nice thing occur, and portraying each as some enormous moment in his development would have been melodramatic. My view is the latter. Clark had plenty of reasons to believe in humanity's goodness without having people lift him on their shoulders and celebrate his existence.

Moreover, while the movie didn't show us every moment of Clark's life, he lived in OUR world, meaning he saw all the great and small kindnesses each of us have seen in our lives (the sense of companionship in NYC after 9/11, the unity of the country after the Boston Marathon bombings, simple friendships, kind gestures). We can't ignore that he's part of our world, that he grew up here--if we were to take that stance, we'd have to take a similar stance on all characters in film and literature. And, simply put, such a stance would be exhausting, because we'd need to see each character's painstaking development from birth to now, in order to answer "why doesn't he hate the world?"

In addition, Jonathan clearly does his best to explain to Clark why people fear him: "People are afraid of what they don't understand" (or something like that). So Clark, while he finds it difficult, doesn't go berserk and rip off the bullies heads... because he's a strange, misunderstood kid (running into closets after seeing through his teacher, saving buses of schoolchildren), and he has been given the tools (from Jonathan) to understand why the bullies might target him.

Finally, the film repeatedly states the limitations of humanity: "...but in time, they will join you in the sun..." So it's not like Clark worships them. He knows that people make mistakes. He knows we're all human.

 

[Tempest]

Are people forgetting that Superman killed Doomsday?

It doesn't count. Because a lot of people didn't like that story. Or something. The same with Superman's previous killings of Zod and Co. Those don't count either.

 

[DChero]

Superman also killed himself in the process. One's an anomaly, two's a trend. Does his thirst for death know no bounds?!

 

[LEVITIKUZ]

Batman: Arkham Origins came out.

Marshall Mathers LP 2 came out.

I'm a Cleveland Browns & Cavs fan.

I have nothing to look forward. When did the first photos of Henry come out because i need to know when the Batfleck suit/photo will come out.

 

[Micromind]

With the fishing trawler, the second in command shoves Clark out of the way to save him.

Then they go without hesitation to aid in what appears to be a hopeless rescue endeavor - but they still go.

That scene confused me, why Clark could not hear that falling box ? What could be the reason to include that particular scene ?

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

I really like your assessment of the film here. The bolded statements indicate, to me, a level of emotional maturity in your analysis.

People too often expect to see "giant, grand gestures" in film, because to them, these are necessary for the watchers to "feel something" themselves; everyone laughs or cries when something extraordinarily funny or sad happens on film, but the more muted moments of emotion are often overlooked, unless the director makes a conscious effort to make these moments appear grand (e.g. this summer's The Way Way Back, when the water-park manager helps the kid not feel like an outcast). In The Way Way Back, for example, you can tell by the music and the cinematography and the acting that these small gestures leave big impressions on the child.

Now we have two stances we could take: (1) either Snyder didn't effectively portray how deeply these gestures (Pete helping him stand after being bullied, Pete keeping his secret, humans generally looking out for each other) affected Clark, or (2) Clark wasn't affected in some deep life-altering way (like the kid in The Way Way Back) each time he saw some small nice thing occur, and portraying each as some enormous moment in his development would have been melodramatic. My view is the latter. Clark had plenty of reasons to believe in humanity's goodness without having people lift him on their shoulders and celebrate his existence.

Moreover, while the movie didn't show us every moment of Clark's life, he lived in OUR world, meaning he saw all the great and small kindnesses each of us have seen in our lives (the sense of companionship in NYC after 9/11, the unity of the country after the Boston Marathon bombings, simple friendships, kind gestures). We can't ignore that he's part of our world, that he grew up here--if we were to take that stance, we'd have to take a similar stance on all characters in film and literature. And, simply put, such a stance would be exhausting, because we'd need to see each character's painstaking development from birth to now, in order to answer "why doesn't he hate the world?"

In addition, Jonathan clearly does his best to explain to Clark why people fear him: "People are afraid of what they don't understand" (or something like that). So Clark, while he finds it difficult, doesn't go berserk and rip off the bullies heads... because he's a strange, misunderstood kid (running into closets after seeing through his teacher, saving buses of schoolchildren), and he has been given the tools (from Jonathan) to understand why the bullies might target him.

Finally, the film repeatedly states the limitations of humanity: "...but in time, they will join you in the sun..." So it's not like Clark worships them. He knows that people make mistakes. He knows we're all human.

"They can be a great people, Kal-el... If they wished it. They only lack the light to show the way. It is for this reason above all... Their capacity for good, that I have sent them you. My only son."

JOR-EL, SUPERMAN:The movie 1978

In MOS we see that, yes, after Clark meets with the Jor-el AI and finds his true origin and gains an appreciation of his true power, and mastery over their full extent that a great mystery of his old life is now solved and he is ready to embark on a new one. What exactly that would be is unknown because, even given the suit we can't know he was going to be some public hero/savior figure. We don't know exactly how he origanally planned to live a life that reconciled what Jor-el had revealed to him and the life lessons he learned being raised by the Kents. He is forced to reveal himself to the world by Zod's arrival. I think it's very telling about MOS Clark's character though that his choice of action is to sacrafice himself for humanity. To all those wringing their hands about Mos Clark not being in line with "their" Superman, I don't know... Sounds like something Superman would do to me.

 

[Krumm]

That scene confused me, why Clark could not hear that falling box ? What could be the reason to include that particular scene ?

I think it's to establish the good in humanity.

 

[Green Goblin]

They should rename this "Open Discussion" the MOS bashing thread.

Because it happens everytime I check here.

 

[ЯɘvlveR]

any new news? FEED ME!

 

[superman2090]

Hey! We could have had a sequel to the craptastic Superman Returns. (I'm just throwing another wrench into this thread).

 

[Krumm]

This is interesting. From Stephen Amell's Facebook page.

 

[Tempest]

Superman also killed himself in the process. One's an anomaly, two's a trend. Does his thirst for death know no bounds?!

Not only that, but he killed Zod and two other Kryptonians. And there's a few other smatterings of deaths that occur in comics I can think of where Superman probably could have worked a little harder to save people.

He's nothing more than a crazed serial killer.

That scene confused me, why Clark could not hear that falling box ? What could be the reason to include that particular scene ?

Mostly to illustrate the goodness in humanity. Why didn't Clark hear it? My guess would be that he may have been focusing too hard on his task. He's probably learned to filter out a lot of the noise he doesn't want to focus on, and he may have just blotted out too much at that point. And he may not have realized what the sound meant. He was pretty new at working the boat, it seems.

I really like these little menial jobs he had too. They did a lot to illustrate how humble Clark is as a person. I'm really, really hoping Snyder and Goyer don't abandon that in the next film.