Are DC films held to a different, higher standard?

[MydnightPhoenix]

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.

QFT
One of the dozens of better ideas I've heard about how his death could go.

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

Didn't Superman throw a bomb into space and it broke them out of the PZ?

 

[MydnightPhoenix]

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.

I'm sorry but I feel that "lesson" is ridiculous and gives the wrong impression. Let it be known I like MOS love BvS and support Snyder, but there should be no way in a frozen h--- that Clark would just stand by and let his father die; his wishes or the people around him be da--ed! It is also negated because Clark continues to go on and save people displaying his powers for years after. Showing him either a) not being able to save his father or b) having to choose between his dad and countless others, would have been a better lesson.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Didn't Superman throw a bomb into space and it broke them out of the PZ?

Yeah, C. Lee explains it a couple of posts above yours.

 

[Patchwork Man]

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.

I like the added Clark/Lois scene in the Donner cut, but I prefer Lester's cut because Donner's omits the best line in the entire movie (I don't have to tell you what that is).

 

[Patchwork Man]

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.

This is the way I've always understood it per Donner's cut, ever since I first saw the film in 1978. Saving Lois was Priority One. Everything else was a bonus.

 

[MydnightPhoenix]

So both Superman 2 and MOS put the blame on Superman for the Kryptonians showing up but they both did it by accident. I haven't seen the Donner cut in awhile so I don't remember if it was Lester or Donner who had Superman end up killing them in a Looney tune manner.

 

[Osiris-Rex]

So both Superman 2 and MOS put the blame on Superman for the Kryptonians showing up but they both did it by accident. I haven't seen the Donner cut in awhile so I don't remember if it was Lester or Donner who had Superman end up killing them in a Looney tune manner.

It must have been Lester because in the Donner cut they just slide down a chute and are alive when they come out at the bottom.
And then they are arrested by the Arctic Police along with Lex Luthor. and all of them are put in a snowmobile type police car, complete
with flashing lights.

 

[BH/HHH]

It must have been Lester because in the Donner cut they just slide down a chute and are alive when they come out at the bottom.
And then they are arrested by the Arctic Police along with Lex Luthor. and all of them are put in a snowmobile type police car, complete
with flashing lights.

Donner did film that scene and it does feature in the tv cut of Superman II that I believe was shown on ABC in the 80s but even in the Donner Cut that was released in 2006 that scene is not included in the finished film. So as far as high Lester and Donner's cuts are concerned General Zod, Usra and Non all fall to their deaths.

 

[Monochron]

That's not what I meant by execution. I mean, how do you execute the narrative and script as written (Clark lets his father die to honor his wishes) better than what Snyder achieved in Man of Steel? If the only way to execute the scene better is to change the scene's plot and purpose, then that's a script problem rather than an execution problem.

But to address your concerns, I would agree with your assessment if the film actually showed that Clark learned that particularly poor lesson from his father's sacrifice. After Jonathan died, Clark didn't let people die. Clark continued to save people, and he even earned a reputation as a guardian angel. As Lois said to Clark at his father's grave right before he told her the story about the tornado, "The only way you could disappear is to stop helping people altogether, and I sense that's not an option for you."

When the world needed Clark to come forward, to reveal he was an alien, Clark surrendered to the government and to Zod. So whatever lesson you seem to believe Jonathan's death taught Clark, it didn't take. This Clark -- this Superman -- charted his own path. Shaping your own destiny was at the heart of Man of Steel. Krypton was destroyed and its people were corrupted by a system of genetic determinism that robbed individuals of free will. Clark was not a carbon copy of what either of his fathers wanted, in the end. He became his own person and his own Superman.

Clark was already in the mindset of saving people, his secret be damned, before Jonathan died. So whether or not Jonathan had been alive he would have given himself to Zod to save the world.

 

[misslane38]

Clark was already in the mindset of saving people, his secret be damned, before Jonathan died. So whether or not Jonathan had been alive he would have given himself to Zod to save the world.

Exactly, which is why a comment like this doesn't make much sense.

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.

Clark was saving people before the tornado killed Jonathan and he saved people afterward, too. He does it in secret, yes, but Lois' thoughts on Clark's superhero career before they met tell us what kind of guy he was:

"How do you find someone who has spent a lifetime covering his tracks? You start with the urban legends that have sprung up in his wake. All of the friends of a friend who claimed to have seen him. For some, he was a guardian angel. For others, a cipher; a ghost who never quite fit in. As you work your way back in time, the stories begin to form a pattern."

She would even later confront Clark himself, saying, "The only way you could disappear for good is to stop helping people altogether, and I sense that's not an option for you."

The situation with Jonathan is unique in that, unlike the strangers Clark saves, Jonathan felt an obligation to protect his son and he used his own agency to make the choice not to be saved in order to protect Clark's secret. In Clark's own recollection, his reason for what happened to his father wasn't because he learned to preserve his secret always. Rather, he says "I let my father die because I trusted him. Because he was convinced that I had to wait. That the world was not ready." Clark not only emphasizes how his decision to let his father die was rooted in his trust and respect of his father's agency, but also emphasizes the idea of waiting and implies that both he and his father understood that there would come a day when he could go public and not that he never should. It's a very special set of circumstances that don't apply to Clark's heroic efforts before his father died or after. He doesn't let people die to save himself throughout his life, so he never learned to prioritize his own self-preservation over the lives of others. Jonathan's death did not teach him that lesson, and consequently the movie does not tarnish the "ideals of Superman," as others have argued while simultaneously misrepresenting the events of Superman: The Movie to ignore how in those films Superman prioritizes his love life over the lives of others despite warnings.

 

[The Joker]

Watching that MOS scene, I see nothing unique about the situation. I see Clark not saving an innocent life he can and should save. Loved one or not, secret identity or not, if an innocent life is in danger and he has the capacity to save them, he saves them. No ifs, ands, or buts. There's no grey area about it.

With Reeve's Superman, whether he has personal feelings or not for Lois doesn't come into the equation because at the end of the day he still saved an innocent's life. In the process he stopped a whole nuclear disaster and saved many more lives. If some others had died, or some big negative connotation had happened as a result of him turning back time then you could say what he did was wrong because he was jeopardizing other people for his own ends. But that didn't happen. Only good came from what he did. No lessons were ignored. The only person in the whole movie who says he shouldn't tamper with human history is his Kryptonian father. The fact that in the scene where he does it 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 right one that is talking sense.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Donner did film that scene and it does feature in the tv cut of Superman II that I believe was shown on ABC in the 80s but even in the Donner Cut that was released in 2006 that scene is not included in the finished film. So as far as high Lester and Donner's cuts are concerned General Zod, Usra and Non all fall to their deaths.

In the Donner Cut, the arrest scene was unnecessary because Superman just rewinds time immediately afterwards, so that they never escaped the Phantom Zone in the first place. The last we see of the trio they are back where they started.

 

[C. Lee]

I like the added Clark/Lois scene in the Donner cut, but I prefer Lester's cut because Donner's omits the best line in the entire movie (I don't have to tell you what that is).

I've read several people say they don't like the Donner cut because of that. I prefer the original line too...but it's omission doesn't make me not like the Donner cut more than the original cut.

So both Superman 2 and MOS put the blame on Superman for the Kryptonians showing up but they both did it by accident. I haven't seen the Donner cut in awhile so I don't remember if it was Lester or Donner who had Superman end up killing them in a Looney tune manner.

Both versions show them just disappearing into a fog at the bottom of the fortress. As BH/HHH said...there was a scene filmed where you see them and Lex being turned over to the police....I wish someone would put out a version with this restored.

Clark

Stop quoting my posts.....stop replying to my posts.....stop trying to make me not like the Reeve movies....stop trying to make me like BvS and MoS....

 

[BH/HHH]

In the Donner Cut, the arrest scene was unnecessary because Superman just rewinds time immediately afterwards, so that they never escaped the Phantom Zone in the first place. The last we see of the trio they are back where they started.

True forgot about that, the three still die in both cuts though, it's just in the Donner cut they're alive again by the end due to what you said.

 

[C. Lee]

In the Donner Cut, the arrest scene was unnecessary because Superman just rewinds time immediately afterwards, so that they never escaped the Phantom Zone in the first place. The last we see of the trio they are back where they started.

Yeah, but if it was included it would stop people from using it's lack of being there as an example of Superman killing people.

 

[Patchwork Man]

Yeah, but if it was included it would stop people from using it's lack of being there as an example of Superman killing people.

The scene's better left out. The notion of the "snow cops" vrooming up to the Fortress to "pick up" the felons is hilarious, especially since Superman could do a much better (and faster) job bagging all four and flying them down — and the location of the Fortress should not be reached that easily by humans — no ballooning, no "Mush! Mush!" by Hackman, Spacey, whomever.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Yeah, but if it was included it would stop people from using it's lack of being there as an example of Superman killing people.

I think it should have been in the Lester Cut, for sure. If nothing else, it shows what happened to Luthor who just disappears from the film otherwise. I wonder if it had something to do with the guild rules. They had to watch how many Donner scenes were in the final Lester Cut in order for Lester to get full directing credit.

 

[The Batman]

Stop quoting my posts.....stop replying to my posts.....stop trying to make me not like the Reeve movies....stop trying to make me like BvS and MoS....

This just might be my new sig.

 

[BH/HHH]

Stop quoting my posts.....stop replying to my posts.....stop trying to make me not like the Reeve movies....stop trying to make me like BvS and MoS....

 

[Big Baws]

I don't like the first two reeves movies, but I respect them and I recognize why other people might like them

On the other hand, I don't get how anyone can like the current DCEU right now. Yeah I know, opinions and all, but these movies could clearly be so much better, movies like Suicide Squad fail to show basic filmaking skills (like editing, for one).

As a huge DC fan, at this point I long for a DCEU movie to just be on the same level as something like Thor 2( the weakest MCU movie).

I thought Suicide Squad was Green lantern levels of bad, the third act actually gave me flashbacks to last summer's Fan4stic movie (ironically, both movies had a giant blue portal shooting out of the sky).

 

[Superchan]

The situation with Jonathan is unique in that, unlike the strangers Clark saves, Jonathan felt an obligation to protect his son and he used his own agency to make the choice not to be saved in order to protect Clark's secret. In Clark's own recollection, his reason for what happened to his father wasn't because he learned to preserve his secret always. Rather, he says "I let my father die because I trusted him. Because he was convinced that I had to wait. That the world was not ready." Clark not only emphasizes how his decision to let his father die was rooted in his trust and respect of his father's agency, but also emphasizes the idea of waiting and implies that both he and his father understood that there would come a day when he could go public and not that he never should. It's a very special set of circumstances that don't apply to Clark's heroic efforts before his father died or after. He doesn't let people die to save himself throughout his life, so he never learned to prioritize his own self-preservation over the lives of others. Jonathan's death did not teach him that lesson, and consequently the movie does not tarnish the "ideals of Superman," as others have argued while simultaneously misrepresenting the events of Superman: The Movie to ignore how in those films Superman prioritizes his love life over the lives of others despite warnings.

You know for me personally the tornado scene is one of the most laughable scenes in cinema history, right up there with Donner's reverse the time ending and the dancing/emo peter parker in spiderman III. Infact my brother was watching the movie with me and after that scene he laughed out loud and then just up and left the theater.
I think Goyer's heart was in the right place, he was trying to convey a father who loves his son so much that he was willing to give his life just so his son could a life, it was a lovely sentiment that was also sadly executed in an asinine way, where clark came off looking like a complete tool bag and a pathetic excuse for a human being (so to speak).

 

[misslane38]

You know for me personally the tornado scene is one of the most laughable scenes in cinema history, right up there with Donner's reverse the time ending and the dancing/emo peter parker in spiderman III. Infact my brother was watching the movie with me and after that scene he laughed out loud and then just up and left the theater.

Really? I've watched the scene on several separate occasions with friends and family, and I can't recall a single time that Jonathan's sacrifice instigated any other reaction other than interest or empathy.

I think Goyer's heart was in the right place, he was trying to convey a father who loves his son so much that he was willing to give his life just so his son could a life, it was a lovely sentiment that was also sadly executed in an asinine way, where clark came off looking like a complete tool bag and a pathetic excuse for a human being (so to speak).

Clark is a "tool" and "pathetic" because he chose to respect his father's wishes? I would agree with you if Clark had shown no interest in saving his father and no anguish about respecting his father's sacrifice, but that didn't happen. Snyder, Cavill, and Goyer all worked together to craft a scene that makes it clear that Clark's instinct was to save his father and it tore him up to hold back, but he did what his father wanted because he chose to trust him.

 

[BH/HHH]

The tornado scene makes my well up everytime I see it, I have said before I dont think that scene is perfect but that's in the editing for the scene rather than the idea behind it.

 

[The Joker]

The tornado scene evokes feelings from me, too; disappointment at how badly they screwed up Superman.

 

[Mjölnir]

You know for me personally the tornado scene is one of the most laughable scenes in cinema history, right up there with Donner's reverse the time ending and the dancing/emo peter parker in spiderman III. Infact my brother was watching the movie with me and after that scene he laughed out loud and then just up and left the theater.
I think Goyer's heart was in the right place, he was trying to convey a father who loves his son so much that he was willing to give his life just so his son could a life, it was a lovely sentiment that was also sadly executed in an asinine way, where clark came off looking like a complete tool bag and a pathetic excuse for a human being (so to speak).

I agree, for me that's the worst scene in the movie, for many reasons. It's also not helped by that he lets his father die because Jonathan wants him to keep his secret, but we're also shown that later in life Clark just craps on that sacrifice by doing something so petty like destroying a guy's truck in a complete supernatural way, just because he was an *******. All things relating to that scene is just making Clark a far worse person than I think he should be.