BvS Batman v Superman - Reviews Thread [TAG SPOILERS] - Part 2

This.

 

This 1000x.

 

Have you actually read a Superman comic before 1985? If you had, you'd realize that Donner's "Stupid powers" for Superman were merely a tame version of what the comics had done.

That was Lester's version of Superman 2, not Donner's. Donner filmed a scene of Zod and Co. getting arrested in the arctic.

Which is based on something...from the comics.

Gene Hackman is a far more credible Lex than Eisenberg, which is saying something. And he actually had clear, understandable motivations.

Ben Affleck, Matt Reeves, Duncan Jones, and Darren Aronofsky were some of the directors allegedly approached to direct MOS.

 

It's also telling that the most popular and acclaimed Superman comic book to come out in the last few decades is All Star Superman, which embraces the most outlandish Silver Age version of the character.

We need unbridled imagination like this on Superman film. Not cliched angst.

 

They also end up back in the Phantom Zone at the end of the actual Donner Cut.

Hackman was also far more entertaining, if nothing else. I really enjoyed his interactions with Zod in particular. Also, Eisenberg doesn't get a scene anywhere near as good as Hackman's big confrontation with Superman in the original film.

Superman: Is that how a warped brain like yours gets its kicks? By planning the death of innocent people?

Lex Luthor: No. By causing the death of innocent people.

 

Exactly. I don't know why Hollywood so often assumes nice guys are passe and don't make for good superheroes. Think of the people who are admired most in real life; they are those who are kind, generous, and devote themselves to helping others, not grimdark psychoes. Why can't Hollywood make a movie about that kind of Superman?

 

Yup. I will take Hackman over Eisenberg's wannabe Heath Ledger anyday of the week.

 

Not all of Hollywood.

Spoiler

 

Wow! This thank you.

 

Yes yes yes.

 

Thanks everyone! That one had been simmering away for a while because I've been so sick of those arguments for a very long time.

BatLobster, I don't really have a good answer for that right now. They're good points, about carving out a specific niches that other heroes may occupy on some level. I think though, that Superman being as well-known and long lasting as he is, that that alone may account for a lot. Shift one or two things a few degrees would make all the difference ie Lois being in on the secret, though I'd have liked at least one movie where they get to have fun with that, and (superficial as it may seem) I think casting Fishburne in terms of both look and his natural gravitas instantly prevents Perry from being viewed as a JRR clone, for instance.

It's a tricky one, but I think it can be done without shifting the essence and tone of the character to extremes, as it feels like is happening now.

 

I almost mentioned him as the exception to the rule. The Captain America series definitely ought to be used as inspiration by future Superman directors.

 

They did, and he's called Captain America.

 

It's all good, it was all kind of rhetorical musings on my part and I'm not sure there's an easy answer for it. I recently re-watched the Raimi trilogy and I guess I was feeling a bit nostalgic for it. They certainly have their really goofy bits, but if I'm being honest the emotional impact of the first two on me was pretty immense at the time and I know that's the case for a lot of people.

I too think, or would at least like to think that there's a "middle way" here that modernizes the character without such an extreme tonal shift. The fact that this is something the comics have struggled with often too speaks to the trickiness. Cause I'm not just talking about a Superman that will please the diehard fans, I'm talking about one that will please them and be a hit with the GA. We haven't seen a Superman get fully embraced by a modern audience in decades. A big part of that might just be bad luck with WB not knowing what to do with the character and hiring the wrong people over the years.

I do think Singer had a much better Superman movie in him, it's just too bad that he felt such a strong need to draw so heavily from the Donner films. If he would've had a chance to make a second film, I think he would've listened to the criticisms and we might've got something a lot better. The plane rescue sequence showed promise, especially if his proposed second movie was going to have more action like he said. Of course we'd have been stuck with the dang kid subplot, though.

 

It's not really all of Hollywood. Marvel doesn't minimize their earnest good-guy heroes.

There seems to be a a significant flaw in the basic creative methods at WB/DC when it comes to superman.

Logically speaking, which approach to re-introducing a classic character to a modern audience sounds like it would work best:

An approach that looks at what made the character popular and highlights that in a modern way?

OR

An approach that assumes the character is no longer loved for what he once was and that he needs altering to be loved again or to be retrofitted with traits that made other very different characters popular?

To me, it's clear that the former makes more sense, especially when superman's core characteristics are considered. If one looks at the times when superman has been most popular and which stories were his biggest hits, there's a trend. The stories embraced the character and highlighted his core traits. I'm not a fan of the Reeve movies overall, but at the center of STM, was a straightforward and conceptually powerful character. A charming good guy and man (alien?) of the people who helped in ways both small and global. In the best comics, Superman is an intergalactic refugee that grew to love humans (and be human, in some ways) by virtue of a wonderful upbringing by the best of humanity and interactions with every day people. It's a timeless tale of hope. A tale like that resonated with people when superman was first created, in 1978, and would still resonate now. I think Cavill himself said something like "every society needs hope" in an interview and it's true. Modern times are as troubled as any in the past when superman was a popular escapist story, so why wouldn't it still strike a cord today? I reckon it would.

It seems that whoever is possessing of this "superman is broken" mentality is missing the point or core of his character altogether and in so doing, failing to realize that the character is timeless. The thing to be taken from something like the Reeve films is superman himself. Sure, there's other things clouding the perception, like an over-the-top villain, outdated effects, some elements inspired by wackier comics that probably wouldn't go over well today (world spinning), but the core is still valid. Instead of working with this core and surrounding it with modern dressings, movies like BvS are either eliminating or severely minimizing key components of the mythos (Daily planet interactions, Clark Kent persona, charming and warm superman that loves what he does) in an attempt to alter the core to what they think modern audiences want. It's a blatant example of throwing out the baby with the bathwater, IMO. If the dressings surrounding the character are outdated, change them, but there's no need to throw out the character altogether and give the audience a watered-down/ashamed version that never lives up to his iconic name. That's certainly not going to please long-time fans and likely won't win any new ones.

Even people unfamiliar with details of superman comics probably know his basic story and some personality traits. The response to BvS and ensuing superman complaints shows us this. People are going to notice that the character labelled superman is lacking because if he weren't lacking, he'd be inspiring strong feelings in the audience, like hope, joy, pride in the human race during stressful times, etc...people will miss this stuff because a superman done right can do this.

Take a look at my signature: "Somewhere in our darkest night, we made up the story of a man who will never let us down…" - Grant Morrison.

That is a powerful message and if we saw a character to match this on screen, the audience would not be left cold...and they know it. The GA may not know what comic a certain scene in from, but they definitely know when a character touted as a symbol of hope is not being used as such.

Imagine if other things were manufactured like superman is being manufactured now with BvS. What if other things were designed and sold by people who think the thing in question is inferior and needs to be masked? Would people looking for an unabashed version of that thing or a reason to start liking it in the first place be won over? Not likely.

It should be no surprise to anyone that a product manufactured by people who believe the product itself is deeply flawed has not been as successful as products by the competition who believe their products are sound at the core. Snyder is essentially trying to tell a compelling story about a character that he doesn't believe is compelling. A recipe for disaster.

 

MrsKent26 you just get it. Truly. I just wish WB would listen.

 

The key to that is the emphasis on her alien nature and the assimilation problems that presents. Even though the tone for that show and the MOS/BVS Superman are polar opposites, I enjoy both because each one gets the "outsider trying to fit in" vibe correct.

 

This I can never agree on. Lex was shown as a child that was beaten by his father ("no one came down from the sky and saved me from daddy's fists every night"), and clearly learnt that this powerful father of his was respected by others but to him was a child beater.
"I learnt a long time ago that you can't be all powerful and all good. And if you're all good you can't be all powerful. You need to be exposed for the fraud you are."

Lex's motivations were clear and real; to impose his view of the world on everyone else - expose the lie that power can be innocent.

Gene Hackman was a goofball who thought he was smart and wanted to prove he was smarter than everyone else. Such moronic motivation.

 

To be fair, it's not just Hollywood. The current comics version of Superman was stripped of literally everything that made him Superman originally, and now he's in such a bad spot that they're either killing or depowering him and bringing back the "old" Superman in his place. I don't mind updating/changing a character in certain ways to adapt with the times, but when you lose the essence of the character, you're literally starting from scratch with them in terms of audience attachment - if he's nothing like the version you love, why would you love him going forward? For some people that's not a problem, but for some others it is.

 

This is a tremendous point. Superman is never going to succeed when the person directing his movies and serving as the DC film czar feels the need to spend half of both MOS and BvS, essentially apologizing for who the character is.

 

Apologizing for who the character is?

What does that even mean?

 

I'm at work at the moment, and there is a calendar in the break area that reads "our real heroes" and there is a construction worker silhouette with his hands in fists on his waist, with a red cape on. You know the stance I'm talking about, because it's HIS stance.

ANYWHERE in the world, when you see a red cape on, that means that s/he is a GOOD hero. Powerful. Selfless. Kind.

All because of Superman.

Except for Snyder's Superman.

 

"an intergalactic refugee that grew to love humans (and be human, in some ways) by virtue of a wonderful upbringing by the best of humanity and interactions with every day people."

This sounds like an awesome premise for a movie.

We should tell someone in Hollywood.

 

The tone is basically the key.

It's why we'll forgive the Supergirl TV show for some of it's obvious flaws because they get that part right and it invokes a feeling of hope and heroism. Her character is one that we don't necessarily need to relate to, but we want to aspire to.

Hell, I love that her actual character is flawed, but she aspires to be what the "S" shield stands for. THAT'S what's missing from recent movie adaptions of Superman.

 

I don't watch the Supergirl show, so I can't comment on that, but this idea of "relating" to a character vs "aspiring" to one is key with superman.

He was well designed by his creators in the sense that he can provide both things naturally, without any added "todayisms" to make him hip.

People can aspire to superman. MOS had the right message even if the execution was off: "They'll stumble and fall, but someday will join you in the sun." People can try to be like superman and even succeed in their own small ways. Imagine meeting or being rescued by him. Perhaps ordinary people would see such a thing and decide to help someone else in the same way. They couldn't save the world, but they could make a difference to the life of one person. Superman would teach the world things like that. The world, while conflicted about him initially, would undoubtedly end up better because of his presence. His kindness would literally shift global attitudes, one person at a time.

People can relate to Clark Kent. He's an everyman. He works a blue-collar job, he crushes on (and perhaps dates) the spunky girl from work, he doesn't make much money but loves his job, he's a bit awkward. Sure, he can take off all that and be superman, but he chooses not to because he loves to be part of the every day because everyday people inspire him.

The common and the fantastic is already there for film-makers to take advantage of. There's no need to try so hard to add newfangled ways to relate him.

Even as superman, he has issues. They aren't issues of the common man, but they're certainly dramatically interesting. How does superman prioritize the different rescues with so many in need? Does he prepare for galactic threats? How does he keep up hope in the most dire of circumstances? How does he integrate into society as an alien? How does he interact with other heroes? Interesting stuff, if you ask me.

MOS/BvS has attempted to explore some of these and kudos to them for the intent, but the execution (especially in BvS) hasn't been one that focuses enough on superman's feelings in these situations.

The Clark Kent persona has sadly been severely minimized, which is why I think that feeling of "no fun" has come about. Although, I'd say "no charm" might be more accurate. There is something very charming about the contrast between the confidence and heroism of superman and the quiet, awkward, yet endearing commonplace earnestness of Clark. In BvS, we're missing that entirely. It's like they gave us Clark, but only enough to check off a box and say they did. There's no effort or love put into that aspect of his life at all. All he gets to do as Clark is scowl some more (!) and argue with Perry. It's not enough to see any contrast or any sense of why superman wants to be there at all. If that isn't dour enough, the superman persona was also robbed of confidence, joy, and personality in general.

I honestly wish I could stop complaining about this, but it seems the superman portrayal in BvS really bothered me.