Are DC films held to a different, higher standard?

[BestGirl]

Jonathan's death scene would've played better if Clark had been prevented from saving Jonathan somehow. Say, if he had to choose between rescuing Jonathan and a large number of local citizens. The lesson that he isn't all powerful could then have been preserved, while still making Clark an active and heroic figure.

 

[misslane38]

Jonathan's death scene would've played better if Clark had been prevented from saving Jonathan somehow. Say, if he had to choose between rescuing Jonathan and a large number of local citizens. The lesson that he isn't all powerful could then have been preserved, while still making Clark an active and heroic figure.

But that's not changing the execution of the scene; your idea means changing the scene itself because the scene wasn't about learning the lesson that he isn't all powerful. The purpose of the scene is to show that Clark does not save his father because he believed the world wasn't ready. Clark honoring his father's wishes in that moment is about him showing his father that he trusted him in that moment. Later, Clark will make his own judgment calls about when and where to act. He doesn't stop saving people, but he doesn't come forward either. That only happens when Zod emerges to threaten Earth.

In other words, the film explores the idea of how Clark navigates the difficult challenge of when to reveal himself. Jonathan trusts Clark to make those choices for himself, and when Clark does make those choices, he chooses to save others and to become Superman. Superman learns that he isn't all powerful when none of his extraordinary powers help him to save an innocent family without killing Zod. It's not a lesson that has the same emotional kick to it, but it is the same lesson.

ETA: Thinking about the lesson that Superman is supposed to learn from his father's death (i.e. he's not all powerful), I can't say that the lesson was one Reeve's Superman learned. After losing his father to a heart attack, he later turns back time in direct opposition to Jor-El's warning about interfering with human history to save Lois Lane from dying during the nuclear-induced earthquake.

 

[The Joker]

In my opinion....the death of Pa Kent is an important part in the maturing of the Clark character....but showing Clark letting Pa die without lifting a finger to help him made it a pointless death to me. Pa dying of a heart attack in the Chris Reeve movie shows the superpowerful Clark that there are some things he has no control over, he learns that some times he can't totally save the day, but must try his best to do so in the hopes of doing so. Letting Pa die by being ripped apart in a tornado in MoS teaches Clark it is better to let people (even beloved family members) die than risk having others find out he is an alien. It teaches him that his own personal preservation is greater than anything else. To me, that is poor execution of the ideals of Superman.

Hear hear

 

[misslane38]

Hear hear

Reeve's Clark doesn't learn that lesson at all, though. He still goes ahead and uses his powers to save Lois Lane at the end of the film. He abuses his power for the sole purpose of saving one woman when he could have used those same powers to save potentially many more lives. It's a lesson that rings hollow, in other words, because it is contradicted in the very same film.

 

[The Joker]

Reeve's Clark doesn't learn that lesson at all, though. He still goes ahead and uses his powers to save Lois Lane at the end of the film. He abuses his power for the sole purpose of saving one woman when he could have used those same powers to save potentially many more lives. It's a lesson that rings hollow, in other words, because it is contradicted in the very same film.

Saving someone's life is not an abuse of powers, nor is it preventing him from saving other people. Saving Lois was not him letting people die for his own self preservation.

Jonathan's death scene would've played better if Clark had been prevented from saving Jonathan somehow. Say, if he had to choose between rescuing Jonathan and a large number of local citizens. The lesson that he isn't all powerful could then have been preserved, while still making Clark an active and heroic figure.

Exactly.

 

[TeeKay]

 

[The Joker]

LMAO

 

[Predator jp]

one guy in the comment section pretty much nailed it.

So...why didn't Clark just get the dog in the movie? Cuz that way, even if the tornado hit him, he'd be perfectly fine and everyone who knew he survived would have dismissed it as crazy good luck.

risking your life to save the dog is stupid to begin with.
the scene just made Pa look dumb and that's poor execution in my book.
Snyder's intention is irrelevant to my point.

 

[Rorschach2012]

I hold DC to a higher standard because I like their characters better. It's not like I think DC is undoubtedly superior or anything, I just grew up with the DCAU and reading DC. So yeah I hold them to a higher standard, because I have something so great to compare the movies to.

 

[misslane38]

Saving someone's life is not an abuse of powers, nor is it preventing him from saving other people. Saving Lois was not him letting people die for his own self preservation.

It is an abuse of power according to the film itself. As Superman rotates the Earth on its axis to save Lois, we hear this: "You are forbidden to interfere in human history" juxtaposed with Jonathan Kent speaking to his son before he died. Here's the full scene:

[YT]TjgsnWtBQm0?t=29s[/YT]

SUPERMAN SCREAMS his anguish, and eyes shut rockets up into the sky. The echo of his scream lingers as he goes.

EXT. SKY - DAY

SUPERMAN flies up the CLOUD LAYERS. CAMERA ANGLE switches to rear of SUPERMAN

JOR-EL'S VOICE: My son.

SUPERMAN stops, mid-flight. Lightning flashes. CLOSE ON SUPERMAN as he looks around in confusion.

JOR-EL'S VOICE: It is forbidden for you to interfere in human history.
JONATHAN KENT'S VOICE: One thing I do know son and that is you are here for a reason.
JOR-EL'S VOICE: It is forbidden for you...

SUPERMAN looks down.

YOUNG CLARK'S VOICE: (echoes of "It is forbidden...") All those things I can do. All those powers. And I couldn't even save him.

JOR-EL'S VOICE: It is forbidden...

SUPERMAN makes up his mind and flies up and onwards as lightning flashes again.

JOR-EL'S VOICE: It is forbidden...forbidden...forbidden...

Indeed, the idea of a superhero using his powers to change fate has often been used to teach the hero about the abuse of power. On Smallville, Clark reboots time to save Lana Lang from dying in a car accident, and his father dies to restore the balance. DC's "Flashpoint" storyline that is also set to play out in DCTV's The Flash this season also explores the problematic nature of interfering with destiny and time for selfish reasons. Because altering time and fate only to save those the hero loves is selfish and it is playing God.

 

[The Joker]

It is an abuse of power according to the film itself. As Superman rotates the Earth on its axis to save Lois, we hear this: "You are forbidden to interfere in human history" juxtaposed with Jonathan Kent speaking to his son before he died. Here's the full scene:

[YT]TjgsnWtBQm0?t=29s[/YT]

Indeed, the idea of a superhero using his powers to change fate has often been used to teach the hero about the abuse of power. On Smallville, Clark reboots time to save Lana Lang from dying in a car accident, and his father dies to restore the balance. DC's "Flashpoint" storyline that is also set to play out in DCTV's The Flash this season also explores the problematic nature of interfering with destiny and time for selfish reasons. Because altering time and fate only to save those the hero loves is selfish and it is playing God.

Its not an abuse of power according to the movie. It is forbidden to change human history strictly according to his Kryptonian father. The fact they juxtapose that with Pa Kent, his human father, telling him he is on earth for a reason, and his own voice saying 'All these powers and I couldn't save him' is his realization that this is one of the reasons he is on earth and he can use his powers to save someone he cares about this time. He is defying one father and listening to another. The one that is talking sense.

Nothing to do with abusing his powers, or being selfish to save someone he cares about. Because the outcome of his actions had no negative connotations. He saved lives, and prevented a disaster. Nobody died because of what he did.

Unlike in MOS, where someone died for his own self preservation.

 

[MbJ]

I can't figure why anyone spends a lot of time on a FAN forum and bashes a movie.

Because I want the characters I love to be done justice on film. I'm not gonna pretend I love everything that's done with a character even when I think it's terrible.

 

[C. Lee]

Its not an abuse of power according to the movie. It is forbidden to change human history strictly according to his Kryptonian father. The fact they juxtapose that with Pa Kent, his human father, telling him he is on earth for a reason, and his own voice saying 'All these powers and I couldn't save him' is his realization that this is one of the reasons he is on earth and he can use his powers to save someone he cares about this time. He is defying one father and listening to another. The one that is talking sense.

Nothing to do with abusing his powers, or being selfish to save someone he cares about. Because the outcome of his actions had no negative connotations. He saved lives, and prevented a disaster. Nobody died because of what he did.

Unlike in MOS, where someone died for his own self preservation.

Also....people mention how he turned back time to save Lois....but they forget to say that by turning back time he has also stopped the missile from exploding and the earthquake from happening. In saving her he also saves thousands from immediate death and millions from possible future death from nuclear radiation poisoning.

 

[misslane38]

Superman: The Movie is very clear about the nature of Superman's decision to turn back time. There is no ambiguity: it's a selfish choice. Jonathan's words that Clark was on earth for "a reason" aren't what echoes at the end. It's the "forbidden" admonition from Jor-El. It doesn't matter if others are saved. Is that even made explicit? I don't believe it is having just rewatched the scene. Lois even gets out of her car, after Superman saves her with the time travel, talking about destruction that still happened elsewhere. Superman doesn't make the choice to turn back time with saving others as his goal. He wasn't doing that before he even found Lois. No, if his motivation was to save others, it calls into question why he does it then and not other times. The bottom line is he turns back time to please himself. He wants the woman he loves back and he wants to free himself from the guilt of not having been able to save her. He was abusing his power. Was it to do something that had positive results? Yes. But it was an abuse of power, and it was selfish.

Don't believe me? Read these analyses.

Enter the Superheroes (page 16)

Another perspective:

The ending is infamously the largest logical fallacy in the plot that Superman has. It’s, of course, impossible to turn back time by changing the earth’s rotation. Regardless of the visual representation, Superman has gone back through time in the comics and considering this film came out just 10 short years after his adventures with Streaky the Super-Cat, I’d say it could be a lot worse. In fact this ending is thematically interesting. Superman is in mid-flight when the voices of his fathers pop into his head, Jor-El repeating over and over that it is forbidden and Pa Kent affirming that Clark is here for a greater purpose. Clark pushes on, turns back time, and saves Lois. This is a selfish act, the only one. The one moment where Clark uses his powers for himself, not for others. This isn’t simply courting Lois Lane, this is actually changing the world. Because he can. And he wants to. Just this once. It’s one final confirmation that Superman may be from another planet, but he is human. He can be blinded by love. He can disobey his parents. Just like the rest of us.

And another:

Looking up at the heavens, he unleashes an epic scream and flies into the air. The face of his father appears, reminding him “It is forbidden for you to interfere with human history.” Superman, uncaring, flies into space and turns back time. You can feel the anger, the intensity of that scene. It’s incredible.

To use that device a second time not only cheapens that scene, but negates everything Superman’s had to do in the course of Superman II. The sacrifice of giving up his powers, the shame of asking for them back, and the horrible realization that his father has to die a second time in order for him to be Superman once more. It makes Superman look petty, as though he can erase his mistakes by simply turning back time. It lends some kind of arrogance to the proceedings that I find distasteful. By including this ending and keeping the scene where Clark returns to the diner to beat up a bully, Superman looks kind of mean. I really didn’t like that.

Superman's conflict over selfishness and selflessness is a core conflict and theme throughout the Reeve films. He gives up his powers so he can make love to Lois -- powers that he could have used to save humanity for decades to come. When he gets his powers back, he doesn't save bullies. He attacks them at the diner where he had been humiliated before. He repeatedly disrespects Lois' agency by erasing her memories. Reeve's Superman is deeply flawed and those films deserve to be examined objectively rather than through the rosy haze of nostalgia.

 

[fancyarcher]

I don't think most of the public really cares about the companies making the superhero films. To them they're all practically the same.

Also, people don't really hold DC to a higher standard, it's just that if WB / DC made objectively better films, then some people wouldn't be so critical of them.

 

[fancyarcher]

However I like how I'm seeing change

I really like how in a Variety piece a while back right after BVS came out http://variety.com/2016/film/opinion/batman-v-superman-warner-bros-superhero-suit-1201749164/

Said that JL was going to be a more "straightforward crowd pleaser" and be more in tune with Snyder's kinetic visuals rather than existentialism with superheroes.

Deb Snyder even came out and said that "we realized people didn't want to see thier heroes deconstructed"

Honestly that just seems like an excuse because the film was poorly received.

If BVS was doing any deconstruction, as far as I can tell, it just wasn't doing a very good job at it.

 

[C. Lee]

Hilarious....if I spent as much time trying to tell you you were wrong for liking MoS or BvS as you do to tell me I am wrong for liking the Reeve movies I would be called every name in the book. But then I forgot....You are the person who has annointed themselves the JUDGER OF WHO IS OR ISN'T A SUPERMAN FAN.

I had forgot that I had decided not to waste any of my time discussing anything with you again. I shall now give myself 3 demerits for forgetting that.

 

[TheVileOne]

If you guys want to see a GOOD deconstruction of the superhero genre and superhero tropes sometime, watch One-Punch Man.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

If you guys want to see a GOOD deconstruction of the superhero genre and superhero tropes sometime, watch One-Punch Man.

I second this.

 

[The Joker]

Also....people mention how he turned back time to save Lois....but they forget to say that by turning back time he has also stopped the missile from exploding and the earthquake from happening. In saving her he also saves thousands from immediate death and millions from possible future death from nuclear radiation poisoning.

Exactly. Its very cut and dry. His action was entirely positive.

 

[misslane38]

Hilarious....if I spent as much time trying to tell you you were wrong for liking MoS or BvS as you do to tell me I am wrong for liking the Reeve movies I would be called every name in the book. But then I forgot....You are the person who has annointed themselves the JUDGER OF WHO IS OR ISN'T A SUPERMAN FAN.

I had forgot that I had decided not to waste any of my time discussing anything with you again. I shall now give myself 3 demerits for forgetting that.

No, what's hilarious is you throwing a tantrum like this one when the facts of the film clash with the point you were laboring to make. Look, I didn't say that you couldn't like the Reeve films or even that I dislike them. In fact, I love them. I love them for what they are and not what they are not. I find Superman's complex and imperfect character compelling; he's earned my admiration and my criticism. Yet, overall I adore him and the films in which he appears. Loving them and him doesn't mean misrepresenting or ignoring the ways in which he was deliberately written as a flawed character who made mistakes, was selfish at times, and was human.

Exactly. Its very cut and dry. His action was entirely positive.

No, they weren't. Just because lives are saved doesn't negate the motivation or the sense of whether or not he abuses his powers for selfish gain, playing god. According to the movie, Superman stopped the one bomb by sending it to space (where it released Zod) and the other still went off, causing destruction that Lois herself notes when she emerges from the car Superman's time traveling saved her from becoming her coffin. Superman's motivations were selfish. He didn't turn back time with the knowledge or intent to do anything than save Lois Lane, and based on what the film shows, that is all he accomplished.

The point is that if it's only a positive to turn back time to save people, then Superman should be doing it all the time. Why doesn't he? The film tells us it's because he's not personally invested in the outcome (the woman he loves has to be in jeopardy) and because he understands that it's wrong on some level. It is playing god. There are multiple sources and the film's lines themselves that emphasize that what Superman did was problematic despite the sympathetic reason he had and the positive result (saving Lois).

 

[TheVileOne]

It wasn't an entirely positive if that's what caused Zod and his crew to break free from the Phantom Zone. just saying.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

It wasn't an entirely positive if that's what caused Zod and his crew to break free from the Phantom Zone. just saying.

Going by the theatrical cuts, it wasn't. Zod was freed after an unrelated terrorist attack in Paris.

 

[C. Lee]

Going by the theatrical cuts, it wasn't. Zod was freed after an unrelated terrorist attack in Paris.

Yeah, it's a convoluted story. The original script had him tossing the missile into space, and it then exploding and releasing Zod and crew at the end of the first movie. Then that was scrapped and for the second movie they rewrote in the Paris scene where the nuclear bomb on the Eiffel Tower was thrown into space and releases Zod. Then....on DVD they released the SUPERMAN II: the Donner cut where they tried to make it as close to the original script as possible, so now we see Superman throwing the missile from the first movie into space and releasing Zod with the Paris scenes totally removed.

 

[Timebomb]

one guy in the comment section pretty much nailed it.



risking your life to save the dog is stupid to begin with.
the scene just made Pa look dumb and that's poor execution in my book.
Snyder's intention is irrelevant to my point.

One of the few things Snyder did right was killing off this version of Pa Kent and then I remember he gave me this version in the first place. Damn you Snyder!