Are DC films held to a different, higher standard?

[Luke234]

Mos and BVS- best superman ever.

 

[Luke234]

Not speaking for DC fans who may have differing opinions but people outside DC fandom LOATHE superman and some even within it.

 

[Erzengel]

Not speaking for DC fans who may have differing opinions but people outside DC fandom LOATHE superman and some even within it.

Superman 1 and 2 while dated are still heard in high regard. "If" people loathe Superman then it's not the fault of the character, it's the failure of the people trying to create it.

Side note:

http://variety.com/2016/film/news/best-batman-superman-pool-1201738480/

Variety is not necessarily a geek site but

Reeve leads Cavill 48.7% to 34.5%.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Superman 1 and 2 while dated are still heard in high regard. "If" people loathe Superman then it's not the fault of the character, it's the failure of the people trying to create it.

Bad films will do that, as they are what most members of the general audience see. They reach far more people than comic books do. Back in the late 90s, Batman was the butt of jokes too. On the Marvel side, Fantastic Four is viewed like that right now.

On the other side of the equation, great movies can turn characters nobody has ever heard of into A-listers overnight.

 

[MbJ]

Not speaking for DC fans who may have differing opinions but people outside DC fandom LOATHE superman and some even within it.

Probably because he destroyed a city and then made out with someone on its ashes.

 

[misslane38]

Probably because he destroyed a city and then made out with someone on its ashes.

He saved the world, including that city, and he kissed the woman who helped him do it when he believed the worst was over. It's funny that the people who loathe DCEU Superman hate him because they believe him and his universe to be dark and cynical, but there's nothing more dark and cynical than twisting saving the world and drawing close to those you love into something damning.

 

[MbJ]

He saved the world, including that city, and he kissed the woman who helped him do it when he believed the worst was over. It's funny that the people who loathe DCEU Superman hate him because they believe him and his universe to be dark and cynical, but there's nothing more dark and cynical than twisting saving the world and drawing close to those you love into something damning.

Oh, no, I definitely get what they were going for. The execution just ended up looking really awkward and silly, which is why so many people make fun of it. It's like the "Martha!" scene. I get what they were going for and I'm sure on paper it looked great. Just in execution...not so much.

 

[Predator jp]

Oh, no, I definitely get what they were going for. The execution just ended up looking really awkward and silly, which is why so many people make fun of it. It's like the "Martha!" scene. I get what they were going for and I'm sure on paper it looked great. Just in execution...not so much.

and Pa's death scene as well.
which is a shame, those two movies had really great ideas but undermined by poor executions.

 

[misslane38]

Oh, no, I definitely get what they were going for. The execution just ended up looking really awkward and silly, which is why so many people make fun of it. It's like the "Martha!" scene. I get what they were going for and I'm sure on paper it looked great. Just in execution...not so much.

But the jokes about the "Martha" scenes are equally as silly and reductive. I don't buy into ad populum arguments that argue that any scene that is mocked by "so many people" is an objectively poorly executed scene.

For example, there is absolutely no way that the destruction of Metropolis is Superman's fault. Did fighting Zod cause a lot of damage in the city? Yes, of course it did. Is Superman to blame for that destruction. No, absolutely not. Could he have done a better job minimizing damage? Probably, but if he was doing the best that he could do, then it's not his fault.

I also don't know how people can watch dozens if not hundreds of action-based superhero and disaster films, heck even watch their local news during tragic events like terrorist attacks or natural disasters, and not relate to the idea of finding comfort and relief in the arms of a loved one when the danger is passed. There is not a single alternative way, in my opinion, to execute the idea of uniting with someone you love after a difficult and tragic event than what we saw in Man of Steel.

In other words, what is the proper way to execute the same concepts in a way that would be palatable and resistant to mockery?

and Pa's death scene as well.
which is a shame, those two movies had really great ideas but undermined by poor executions.

How was the idea of the death of Jonathan Kent undermined by its execution?

 

[Predator jp]

How was the idea of the death of Jonathan Kent undermined by its execution?

been there done that and i don't wanna repeat myself.
i respect your opinion and have no intention of convincing you to change your opinion, so let's just skip all the hassle and agree to disagree.

 

[MbJ]

I don't buy into ad populum arguments that argue that any scene that is mocked by "so many people" is an objectively poorly executed scene.

And that's fine. But people are still gonna do it. That's what I asked earlier. You said something about something not being bad just because a lot of people dislike it because everything is subjective, but I'm still not sure what exactly is the end result of that argument. Are people just not supposed to say they don't like something because someone else does?

For example, there is absolutely no way that the destruction of Metropolis is Superman's fault.

That was obvious comedic hyperbole on my part. He obviously bears a lot of the blame (which could have been lessened had Snyder let go of his punching ***** for 5 seconds to show Clark trying to rescue people, but I digress) but I don't think anyone honestly believes the entire thing was his fault.

In other words, what is the proper way to execute the same concepts in a way that would be palatable and resistant to mockery?

Move the kiss scene to a later point in the movie?

 

[TeeKay]

Oh, no, I definitely get what they were going for. The execution just ended up looking really awkward and silly, which is why so many people make fun of it. It's like the "Martha!" scene. I get what they were going for and I'm sure on paper it looked great. Just in execution...not so much.

WHY DID YOU SAY THAT NAME?!!

 

[misslane38]

WHY DID YOU SAY THAT NAME?!!

You state this like it is somehow objectively terrible, but there's nothing about it that stands out as badly written or executed. Screaming out a line from a film isn't a critique, it's a meme or a funny catchphrase that is utterly devoid of meaning or context.

 

[Flint Marko]

You state this like it is somehow objectively terrible

No, he didn't.

 

[BestGirl]

But the jokes about the "Martha" scenes are equally as silly and reductive. I don't buy into ad populum arguments that argue that any scene that is mocked by "so many people" is an objectively poorly executed scene.

For example, there is absolutely no way that the destruction of Metropolis is Superman's fault. Did fighting Zod cause a lot of damage in the city? Yes, of course it did. Is Superman to blame for that destruction. No, absolutely not. Could he have done a better job minimizing damage? Probably, but if he was doing the best that he could do, then it's not his fault.

I also don't know how people can watch dozens if not hundreds of action-based superhero and disaster films, heck even watch their local news during tragic events like terrorist attacks or natural disasters, and not relate to the idea of finding comfort and relief in the arms of a loved one when the danger is passed. There is not a single alternative way, in my opinion, to execute the idea of uniting with someone you love after a difficult and tragic event than what we saw in Man of Steel.

In other words, what is the proper way to execute the same concepts in a way that would be palatable and resistant to mockery?

IIRC, I don't think people objected to Superman kissing Lois, just that he did it so soon after the Battle for Metropolis. Presumably thousands were in need of his help and he ought to have been able to hear them screaming with his superhearing, yet he stopped for a romantic kiss. It's very weird.

 

[Timebomb]

IIRC, I don't think people objected to Superman kissing Lois, just that he did it so soon after the Battle for Metropolis. Presumably thousands were in need of his help and he ought to have been able to hear them screaming with his superhearing, yet he stopped for a romantic kiss. It's very weird.

Very weird and IMO points to the type of thought or lack there of that was put into these movies. There are some great concepts and then here comes a scene like this.

 

[Luke234]

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

 

[akfj]

This is a discussion forum, not a fan forum. There is no criteria that states that you have to be a fan to discuss a particular topic. You only need to have an interest in the topic.

 

[Osiris-Rex]

Mos and BVS- best superman ever.

They may have been good action movies (even that is debatable)
But the Superman character was just a generic grim/dark action hero that punched people. Nothing that set him apart from any other grim/dark hero like Batman, Daredevil, Arrow.
I can understand the appeal of a character that punches people in a movie where lots of stuff gets destroyed.
But Superman is supposed to be more than a character in a video game. So no, he's not the best Superman ever when people like George Reeves,
Christopher Reeve, and Dean Cain have played him. From just the trailers even Tyler Hoechlin looks to be a better Superman.

 

[Visualiza]

This is a discussion forum, not a fan forum. There is no criteria that states that you have to be a fan to discuss a particular topic. You only need to have an interest in the topic.

Taking this a step further, a fan doesn't need to be a stan. Many of us are critical because of the high standards that have been set for our favorite characters. Fandom isn't analogous to zealotry, or at least it shouldn't be. Still, I think we all know that, as this line of thinking only comes up when the more dogmatic fans among us have no answers or arguments to dispute what others have said. Easier to discredit someone rather than confronting their opinions charitably.

 

[The Joker]

This is a discussion forum, not a fan forum. There is no criteria that states that you have to be a fan to discuss a particular topic. You only need to have an interest in the topic.

Taking this a step further, a fan doesn't need to be a stan. Many of us are critical because of the high standards that have been set for our favorite characters. Fandom isn't analogous to zealotry, or at least it shouldn't be. Still, I think we all know that, as this line of thinking only comes up when the more dogmatic fans among us have no answers or arguments to dispute what others have said. Easier to discredit someone rather than confronting their opinions charitably.

Thank you

 

[misslane38]

They may have been good action movies (even that is debatable)
But the Superman character was just a generic grim/dark action hero that punched people. Nothing that set him apart from any other grim/dark hero like Batman, Daredevil, Arrow.
I can understand the appeal of a character that punches people in a movie where lots of stuff gets destroyed.
But Superman is supposed to be more than a character in a video game. So no, he's not the best Superman ever when people like George Reeves,
Christopher Reeve, and Dean Cain have played him. From just the trailers even Tyler Hoechlin looks to be a better Superman.

What set Superman apart was the fact that in addition to punching people, he also stopped punches, like the punch Doomsday was going to land on Lex Luthor. Superman was set apart by his human life with a happy relationship and a job as a journalist that he used to champion civil liberties over the abuse of power. Superman set himself apart by being hated for no other reason than the fact that he was an "other" from another planet who challenged humanity's perception of its place in the universe. Superman set himself apart by not wearing a mask, and by being willing to show up to publicly defend himself when call upon by the American government. He set himself apart by forgiving a man who was going to kill him, and then ultimately giving up his life to save everyone.

It seems you have chosen to define what makes a good Superman as someone who casts himself as a warm-hearted jokester with an exaggerated false identity. There's fun and joy in that, to be sure, but that alone does not make a Superman. I would challenge any of those incarnations of the Man of Steel to maintain their upbeat dispositions as novice superheroes who are framed, hunted, and despised by humanity. The worlds and contexts George Reeves, Christopher Reeve, Dean Cain, and Tyler Hoechlin inhabit are not analogous. Their worlds often aren't even intended to represent anything close to the real world. If you plucked Christopher Reeve out his universe and placed his Superman in the DCEU, for example, you would have a Superman who barely speaks to his mother, doesn't actually care about his job at all, and is convinced that heroes are destined to be alone. How would he cope with the slings and arrows of Lex Luthor, Wallace Keefe, Batman, and Sentator Finch? How would he cope with a world that fears and worships him more than it sees him as a friend?

"These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value." --Thomas Paine, THE CRISIS

This Superman stands apart from other heroes due to the magnitude of the challenges and obstacles he had to overcome as a young hero. He coped by continuing to do good, continuing to use his vocation as a journalist to affect change, continuing to love, continuing to try to take advantage of opportunities to talk to his critics, and continuing to seek out the advice and counsel of his parents. He didn't smile often and nearly did give up when it truly seemed he was doing more harm than good, but he persevered. He came back willing to admit he had been wrong to warn Batman rather than speak to him. He came back to choose Earth and choose love. He came back to sacrifice his own life to protect his enemies, critics, and all humanity from an abomination that feeds on violence and aggression.

 

[C. Lee]

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

Because it is a DICUSSION forum. That means people DISCUSS what they LIKE and what they DISLIKE about a movie, TV show, Comic, et......

 

[C. Lee]

How was the idea of the death of Jonathan Kent undermined by its execution?

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.

 

[misslane38]

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.

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.