Justice League Henry Cavill IS Clark Kent/Superman - - - - - - - Part 16

[GothamBat]

 

[misslane38]

I notice most of your examples are from Man of Steel. I wouldn’t call most of those “genuine” connections or bonds, unless I’m misunderstanding your use of the phrase. They are mostly interactions/acquaintances as they are presented to us (especially Lana, Pete, Chrissy and Father Leone). There is not enough there to say that Clark actually bonds with any of the Smallville group. I do agree that Clark does bond with Lois, Swanwick, Hardy and Hamilton.

Why does it matter where the examples come from? The discussion is about his character overall and not just in one movie, because the original impetus for this whole conversation was Henry Cavill's shaving video which got some to say they wish that personality was part of his portrayal of Clark/Superman. The point was made that the dual identity should be a stark contrast between a Superman who acts like a celebrity and a humble Clark Kent. My response (this response of mine is what prompted your discussion with me) was that the modern interpretation of Superman has the personality difference be a lot less severe. On the one hand, Superman can be warm and friendly without acting like a TV spokesperson or a mall Santa. He shouldn't act like Cavill was in the video, because that was Cavill creating a highly constructed skit to amuse and probably to get attention; just because it was funny doesn't mean it was genuine and not self-promotional.

So, when I talk about Superman connecting with people in a genuine way, I don't mean he makes friends for life or forms friendships. What I mean is that he isn't fake with people. To me, wanting Superman to act like Cavill did in the video and to act like a celebrity is asking for him to be fake as Superman, and wanting Clark to be more nerdy and meek is asking him to be fake with others too. The quality of humility was highlighted as only a Clark quality, so that Superman is left to aggrandize himself. I don't support that. To me, the dual identity has evolved in the last few decades to allow for Superman and Clark to be more aligned and be reflections of the same core personality. He's also been allowed to connect more with people, like Lois, instead of having to keep her at a distance with lies and games. So, when I look at the interactions in Man of Steel and Batman v Superman, I see someone who doesn't put on a "persona" for anyone and who is warm, humble, and kind overall.

For example, I see the connection with Pete as genuine because time was spent developing their relationship on screen. First, Pete bullies Clark. Then, Clark saves him, and Pete visits the Kent farm with his mother. When Clark gets bullied again, Pete is there to offer a helping hand. We also see Pete and Clark share an understanding look when Clark is fighting Faora in Smallville, and Pete is there to comfort Martha at Clark's funeral in BvS. With Father Leone, it's not so much friendship but the nature of his interaction that evoked Superman to me. He showed his faith in humanity just by opening up to Father Leone about who he was and valuing his counsel, and he spoke to Father Leone in a warm and dignified way. Chrissy, the waitress, is someone who Clark smiles at and who is comfortable calling Clark "sweetie." They probably didn't know each other very long, but it's clear that Clark does behave in a friendly fashion with people. Some of these interactions grow into something more, like what happened with Lois, Swanwick, etc., but each of these interactions, including smaller moments like with the girl in Juarez or the EMT at the Capitol, and connections reveal this man and superhero to be someone with a good heart who is able to positively impact or connect with people to varying degrees.

Regardless, in BvS, two years later, he has no such connections of any level that we see besides Lois and Martha (his relationship with Perry is so antagonistic it can hardly be called an actual genuine connection). And that omission is my point. You may disagree, but I think it’s a big part of why Superman is considered the greatest hero. He’s not just the most powerful, most self-sacrificing hero; he makes “genuine connections” beyond the sort of general friendliness of someone like Flash or Spider-Man. And in a story like this, I think they should have showed him trying to make those bonds at least.

This makes little sense to me based on my experience with the character. No version of Clark I know has ever had a close relationship with Perry; they're almost always antagonistic. He also doesn't have that many real friends outside of the Trinity and, as the New 52 explored, Jimmy Olsen. However, Cavill's Superman was on his way to bonding with the League, and that came to fruition in JL. I think the only thing that's missing is Jimmy, but unfortunately even those projects that do feature that relationship often portray it as superficial. Many consider Reeve's Superman the ideal version, yet by his second movie he has far fewer connections to speak of. In fact, this version of the character, like most of the later Post-Crisis takes, has been allowed to actually reveal the truth of himself to Lois and actually progress in their relationship. We've also seen him develop relationships with former bullies, like Pete and Bruce. That's why, to me, it feels like splitting hairs and an overreaction to diagnose this Superman with some kind of social or personality deficit and prescribe that he start acting like a celebrity as Superman to compensate.

And I guess my point is that for a story that is supposed to take place two years after MOS, it certainly seems as though Clark hasn’t grown as a character or person at all in the interim. He is still just as closed off as he was before he first put on the suit.

I have a different view. First of all, Clark's closed-off quality from his early years was because he couldn't share his super or alien side with the world. So, just the fact that he is acting as Superman is a huge step for the character, and dealing with the biggest hurdle of that debut by showing up to speak to Finch's committee and committing to remaining Superman and remaining hopeful after a disaster like the Capitol bombing is growth. Similarly, the reveal, that his relationship with Lois has grown serious instead of backsliding into the detachment and distance that characterizes other takes on their relationship's progression is also growth. In this narrative, Clark's growth isn't meant to be measured in terms of how much cameraderie he builds with co-workers. The fact that he's settled into journalism and the Daily Planet enough to take on assignments, speak up at staff meetings, question people from fellow press to interview subjects, and stand up for his stories all show him embracing his civilian side more deeply than most Clark Kents can say at a similar stage in their lives.

 

[misslane38]

We clearly disagree on what an active and passionate pursuit of a story looks like. I don’t think a few questions in moments of relative convenience (a sports or library assignment), a survey of previous articles and one jaunt across the bay actually comprise a passionate pursuit of a story. Oh, Clark certainly expresses deep passion about the subject, but what he does — or rather, what the film makers have him do — doesn’t quite rise to that level. Again, it’s a matter of omission, and it’s why I compared it to Lois’s short screen time of investigation in MOS. That film conveyed the sense that Lois undertook a painstakingly thorough search for Clark. Even if mostly montage, we still get a good sense that she actually puts her heart into it. With Clark, what we are shown and the timing in which we are shown it don’t convey the same.

Yeah, we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. When characters in the story are calling you out on being too active and passionate about your pursuit of a story, and when such a packed movie includes at least three scenes where the character in question goes out of his way to defy orders, seek out answers, and confront people (like Batman in the streets), and you insist that it's not enough than you are continuing your pattern of hair splitting in defiance of incontrovertible evidence.

It would not be self-serving for Clark to pursue his investigation a bit more thoroughly (e.g., in a more hands on, people-focused manner). Nor would it necessarily be self-serving for him to try to clear his name or, more importantly, try to figure out what actually happened (especially since he thinks Lois might be putting herself in danger by doing so). But since you think Clark was sufficiently active, and since it seems that you think he shouldn’t have been too active, tell me this: in the main plot (that is, the Congress plot), what is it that Clark wants, and how does he try to achieve it?

It would be self-serving if there was another choice. Again, Clark tells Perry that when a story is covered, you're choosing who's worth it. If he chooses to help himself instead of the people of Gotham, he is conveying that he thinks he is more important. It would be especially grievous considering he can't clear his name. He is guilty in the sense that his choice to save Lois cost people's lives. He didn't kill anyone, but his decision to rush in had consequences. Meanwhile, Lois is investigating what happened in Nairomi, and she is better suited for the job. She has the connections that allow her to get forensic evidence information and access to politicians in Washington. Even though he's concerned, and expresses it, he's able to overcome that and let Lois (not that he had power over her) do what she's best at. In the Congress plot, Clark wants to answer to people. Early on, the media coverage has Kahina say that she thinks he answers to no one, not even to god. We next see him trying to speak with her, and after that we see him choosing to answer to Finch's committee. Essentially, it's another version of his scenes in MoS where he agrees to wear handcuffs to enter the military base. To use the terms of the film itself, he engages in a conversation where he allows people to speak, he listens, then he engages.

Because if you take out most of Clark’s B-plot (the article-reading and his one Gotham interview) and leave only the “chance” encounters (his early apartment conversation, library encounter, and received photographs), then you are still left with the same sequence of events, with no actual change. Lex orchestrates certainly events to convince Clark that Batman is a murderous vigilante, then compels him to fight Batman to the death by kidnapping his mom. Whether he reads the articles or goes to Gotham again, the events still play out the same. Clark’s “active” plot doesn’t actually impact the story.

Reading is research, so why you're acting like that is something passive in the journalism profession boggles the mind. When Clark chooses to go to the GCPD and speaks to the widow outside of the police station, then confronts Batman in the streets, he is being active. When Superman's disapproval of Batman's actions ultimately resonates with Batman to the extent that he ceases to do the primary thing Clark was investigating and chastising him for -- the branding -- by not branding Lex in prison, then it most definitely had an impact.

Also, I just want to make a note about your first point here. Isn’t “the idea that one should just press forward without considering how it might impact others or without listening” exactly what Martha encourages Clark to do before he goes off to the Capitol?

No. She just tells Clark he doesn't "owe" people anything. Meaning, he shouldn't do things just because he feels obligated or let people define him. Ultimately, Clark chooses what he feels is best, and that's to talk to Finch's committee and engage in that conversation as an "act" of "good" as Finch defines it.

I’d argue it’s actually the photos of Santos’s death that lead Clark to confront Batman (he receives those at the same time Bruce finally discovers the White Portuguese if I recall). It’s hard to prove the negative, but it’s Lex’s words on the roof that lead Clark to apologize to Bruce (he doesn’t ask for help at this time), and it’s arguably Batman’s use of force that leads him to use force in kind. Nothing about Clark’s investigation a) tells him anything new about Batman, or b) changes his first impression of Batman.

Exactly. You can't prove the negative. All of Clark's investigating had been building up to that moment, and the exact way he chose to engage Batman on the street speaks to the widow's warning: he only understands fists. He apologizes to Bruce because he learns that one of the catalysts for him to ecalate his actions (e.g. forecefully confronting Batman in the streets and warning him not to ever shine his light in the sky again) was a misdirect Luthor planted. When he goes to Batman, who provokes by defying the order to shine his signal in the sky, Clark apologizes and begins to ask for help ("Bruce. Please, I was wrong. You have to listen to me. Lex wants us...You don't understand. There's no time!"), and we know he goes there explicitly to do that because that's what he tells Lois he will do ("I have to go to Gotham to convince him to help me.").

The point of Clark's investigation into Batman was to get him to stop hurting people and to change his ways. In the process, he learned that Bruce Wayne was Batman and that he was mentally in a place where he responded more to words than actions. Moreover, by putting Batman under scrutiny in a way that Bruce understood that Superman had a problem with him, and by engaging with Bruce as Bruce (he calls him that when he first faces him in the fight and potentially uses the name "Martha" to get through to him), we see that the investigation has affected him. So when Superman reaches out to Batman, resorts to force to get Batman to "stand down" knowing the fight was futile, and then Batman chooses not to brand Luthor, it's clear that the investigation had an effect on both characters and achieved Clark's original goal.

I think you are also reading a lot into Clark’s internal deliberations and dilemmas. BvS gives us no indication that Clark is weighing the manner in which he approaches Bruce before the fight (other than, “I have to convince him or kill him”), or that his last minute mention of Martha was part of a strategic approach to get through to Bruce.

Wow. So, an example of Clark weighing his options of how to engage with Batman isn't an example of him weighing his options? I've only ever suggested that mentioning "Martha" might (key word "might") have been Clark's way of using knowledge he'd gained about Bruce after learning Bruce's identity. Mainly, I think Clark said "Martha" because he was trying to put distance between himself and this innocent person that needed to be saved, since Batman clearly didn't care about Superman's mother before that moment. Fortunately, the name "Martha" had special sway over Bruce, so that learning she was Clark's mother while seeing Lois protecting her beloved with her body worked together to stop him. Either way, Superman initially approaches Batman by calling him "Bruce," and I think that's important.

Just as nothing gives us any indication that Clark decides to pursue Batman instead of the controversy because he realizes that locating Kahina would be a self-serving and duplicative course of action, or that the way Clark shows up at the Capitol represents a specific way of responding to Finch’s summons, “according to her standards,” that best communicates that he is good (what was the alternative way, and how does the film communicate that Clark chooses this particular way?).

Again, though, you can't prove negatives any more than correlation equals causation. I can't say for sure that Clark pursued Batman because he realized the alternative would be self-serving, but seeing him change course within seconds after hearing Kahina was gone but Batman was on a rampage suggests to me, along with his comment to Perry later about how choices about stories one covers reveal what you value which itself is an echo of what Kahina said in a TV interview she wanted to tell Superman to his face, sufficiently satisfy me that this was the intent of the scenes and that my inferences are correct. Likewise, when Finch goes on national television and says that she invites Superman to speak to the committee, and that in doing so he would be revealing good quality of character, since good is a conversation, then he decides to speak, then I am confident that it's exactly what the film was communicating.

The sequence of events is telling. First Finch says, "How do we determine what's good? In a democracy, good is a conversation not a unilateral decision. So, I urge Superman, to come to this hearth of the people tomorrow. To see those who have suffered. The world needs to know what happened in that desert. And to know what he stands for. How far will he take his power. Does he act by our will, or by his own." Then, Clark goes to talk things over with Martha who further emphasizes the idea that only he has the power to define himself, and then the next scene with Superman is his arrival at the Capitol to speak. According to Finch's own words, Superman engaging in that conversation by speaking to her committee is him demonstrating goodness. Before she dies, her opening remarks emphasize this further: "Let me say at the outset that I am grateful to our witness for coming before us today. This is how a democracy works. We talk to each other. [...] Today is a day for truth. Because only by speaking...Only by working... together, can we...can we create a free and a...." The alternative, according to Finch, is to stay silent.

The entire plot, structure, and conceit of Batman v Superman is that it's a court case. It's right there in the title where Batman is the stand-in for the film's anti-Superman sentiment. The film is more or less presented like a scenario whereby a prosecution gets to present its case, including calling its witnesses like Kahina, Wallace, and Superman, before the defense. Superman is asked to be a witness for Finch's committee, and by following the laws and procedures of the country, he fulfills the ideal of what's good and converses as a participant in a free and democratic society. Luthor, however, cannot allow Superman to present his truth and his defense, and so he sabotages the process.

And anyway, few of these represent real choices for this character. Given the reaction to MOS (and the core character), Superman choosing to kill Batman was always off the table. Clark not going to the Capitol is a classic case where a character is given a choice to make a decision or stay the same. The plot requires Clark to go to the Capitol to move the story forward, so it’s not a meaningful choice. And choosing between trying to clear his name and pursuing justice in Gotham might have been a compelling choice, but that is not a decision Clark actually mulls. He just quite simply forgets about Kahina the moment he learns about Batman. If anything, he dismisses its importance at first and then warns Lois not to put herself in danger by digging up snakes.

Again, wow. The movie sets up several important choices for Superman to make and even has repeated dialogue emphasizing the importance of choices, and Superman then makes decisions about what to do after considering his options, and instead of acknowledging them, you just dismiss them as fake because it suits you. If one way you choose to do that is to assume that killing was off the table, when the film tells you nothing of the sort and even the opposite, then that's your warped assumptions coloring the film and not the film itself. Going so far as to imply that Superman has no real choices ever in any film because the films would require him to always do the heroic thing and films require plots to move forward is just silly. That's not an argument.

I don’t think I’ve forgotten any key parts, in fact I’ve tried to go back and make sure I’m recounting the Ultimate Edition’s order of events and not the Theatrical Cut’s order (i.e., TC has Clark learn about Santos and Batman on TV, rather than learning about Batman first in Gotham).

You have (e.g. Clark visiting GCPD), just like you provided BS screentime estimates about the flashbacks in MoS for another discussion we had in another thread. Even when you don't forget things, you do like you do above and admit a scene exists only to deny its content. Given these bizarre rhetorical approaches, and the obvious fact that we're unlikely to see eye to eye on this, it's probably best to agree to disagree or save this thread from derailing and shift our conversation to private messages. I hope you can respect that.

 

[Tra-El]

Yeah, since Rock is shooting for a commercial, and since both Cavill and Rock have same manager, Henry too, could be shooting similar commercial.

If it was indeed a guest appearance in Shazam, I doubt his manager would be giving it away on twitter with a pic. lol.

Edit: Looking at the pic again, you can clearly see some girls with sports shoes, looks to me some commercial for a sports brand, rather than a set for Shazam !

Just like everything else..that's a kick in the nuts. But what else is new. I got to get better at letting the smoke clear before believing it.

God damnit.

 

[Da-Scribe]

Just like everything else..that's a kick in the nuts. But what else is new. I got to get better at letting the smoke clear before believing it.

God damnit.

While I'm not convinced this has anything to with Shazam, I don't think sport shoes are indicative of anything either. Those girls look to be working behind camera.

Could be anything at this point. We'll just have to wait and see buddy.

 

[The Guard]

And anyway, few of these represent real choices for this character. Given the reaction to MOS (and the core character), Superman choosing to kill Batman was always off the table. Clark not going to the Capitol is a classic case where a character is given a choice to make a decision or stay the same. The plot requires Clark to go to the Capitol to move the story forward, so it’s not a meaningful choice. And choosing between trying to clear his name and pursuing justice in Gotham might have been a compelling choice, but that is not a decision Clark actually mulls. He just quite simply forgets about Kahina the moment he learns about Batman. If anything, he dismisses its importance at first and then warns Lois not to put herself in danger by digging up snakes.

Just want to address this one bit.

You say that none of these are "real choices", and earlier mentioned that the choices have no impact on the story. Except that Clark does make an importance choice in the film. It moves not only the plot, but the character's development, forward. Because Superman's character and how he changes is part of the story of BVS. The entirety of BVS is not just about the villain's and Batman's plot, but also about Superman assessing his role in the world and coming to terms with what is most important to him. Similarly, Superman showing up at the Capitol is not just about Luthor's bomb.

Consider: The film starts off with Clark very clearly refusing to consider humanity's viewpoint, and telling Lois that he doesn't care about what others think. He is, at the outset, acting unilaterally without input. His concern about Lois digging up snakes is partially his belief in humanity and naivety over his role in the world, and represents an incomplete picture of his role in world affairs. Lois forms a foil of sorts in this exploration, she understands the importance of clearing his name. He initially does not.

The choice he makes to show up when summoned and listen to humanity's concerns is a choice that reflects very important character development, as his considerations have now widened to include humanity's concerns and beliefs about him. It will inform much of what he does as the film progresses, because he does care about what humanity thinks about him. He "quits" because of his change in his mindset, representing a major change from where he started the film.

Also thematically, I don't think it's an accident that Clark's investigation into Batman involves someone imposing their will on others...which is what Clark was essentially accused of doing, and initially refused to reevaluate. It's about this point in the film that he himself starts to have a change of heart about his own methods.

Ok, one more bit:

As for killing being off the table for Superman; it doesn't matter. Superman is not really the aggressor or the antagonist in the final sequence. Batman is.

The conflict in the final sequence between them is not really about whether Superman will kill Batman (he literally says early on that if he wanted to, he would)...it's that Batman will kill Superman. Because Batman has rather clearly shown that he is willing to do so. It's not all that different than the average hero being threatened by an enraged "villain".

 

[misslane38]

Just want to address this one bit.

You say that none of these are "real choices", and earlier mentioned that the choices have no impact on the story. Except that Clark does make an importance choice in the film. It moves not only the plot, but the character's development, forward. Because Superman's character and how he changes is part of the story of BVS. The entirety of BVS is not just about the villain's and Batman's plot, but also about Superman assessing his role in the world and coming to terms with what is most important to him. Similarly, Superman showing up at the Capitol is not just about Luthor's bomb.

Consider: The film starts off with Clark very clearly refusing to consider humanity's viewpoint, and telling Lois that he doesn't care about what others think. He is, at the outset, acting unilaterally without input. His concern about Lois digging up snakes is partially his belief in humanity and naivety over his role in the world, and represents an incomplete picture of his role in world affairs. Lois forms a foil of sorts in this exploration, she understands the importance of clearing his name. He initially does not.

The choice he makes to show up when summoned and listen to humanity's concerns is a choice that reflects very important character development, as his considerations have now widened to include humanity's concerns and beliefs about him. It will inform much of what he does as the film progresses, because he does care about what humanity thinks about him. He "quits" because of his change in his mindset, representing a major change from where he started the film.

Also thematically, I don't think it's an accident that Clark's investigation into Batman involves someone imposing their will on others...which is what Clark was essentially accused of doing, and initially refused to reevaluate. It's about this point in the film that he himself starts to have a change of heart about his own methods.

I'm sorry, but I completely disagree with this. Clark doesn't tell Lois he doesn't care because he doesn't care about humanity's concerns. He says he doesn't care specifically within the context of how he feels about Lois. The exact flow of conversation is as follows:

Lois: They held hearings about what happened. They're saying that...
Clark: I don't care. I don't care what they're saying. The woman I love could have been blown up or shot...Think of what could have happened.
Lois: Well, think about what did happen.

He's saying he doesn't care, because it wouldn't change how he acted. He's not saying he doesn't care in general or that he believes he can impose his will on others (another erroneous claim you make). Then, the next morning while Clark makes himself breakfast, he watches Kahina on the news and she talks about how she would like to tell Superman that her family had dreams too and that she feels in choosing to rush in to the scene, he was careless about her family's lives. His first instinct, then, is to seek out Kahina to try and speak with her, and he did this before Lois even shows that she's working on the bullet story. When he can't find Kahina, and learns about the people of Gotham living in fear of Batman, he realizes that those people don't have the voice that Kahina does; so he decides that he will be their champion.

The follow up scene at the Daily Planet has Clark first pitch his article about Batman to Perry, then Lois interrupts to pitch her story. When Clark expresses concern about Lois' investigation, he doesn't do it as a way to communicate that he doesn't care about defending himself or his name. He just wants to say he is worried, and he probably does it because he doesn't want Lois to feel obligated to put herself in danger for his sake. Still, he doesn't protest. I also take issue with your characterization of Lois. She isn't doing the investigation for Superman's sake. Like she tells Swanwick, what happened keeps her awake at night. She feels responsible, and that makes sense. As the warlord said, "ignorance isn't innocence." Lois pursues the story because, like the other characters in the movie, she experienced a moment of powerlessness, and for her knowledge and truth is where she finds her power.

Superman also doesn't "quit." He takes a moment to reflect after the Capitol, and he doesn't do it because he's concerned about what people think. He's concerned that he's become such a lightning rod that now people are getting hurt just because they're in his presence. They're being used as pawns. Superman is meant to be a force for good and hope, and if his presence is doing more harm than good, then he has to seriously consider whether he should keep going despite the nightmares. He does.

 

[The Guard]

I'm sorry, but I completely disagree with this. Clark doesn't tell Lois he doesn't care because he doesn't care about humanity's concerns. He says he doesn't care specifically within the context of how he feels about Lois.

He's saying he doesn't care, because it wouldn't change how he acted. He's not saying he doesn't care in general or that he believes he can impose his will on others (another erroneous claim you make).

I think we're splitting hairs here. He says he doesn't care. I don't think the writer chose those words randomly. We are meant to understand that this is not a priority for him at that point.

I don't mean that he doesn't care at all, but he's clearly less interested in what the world thinks than in what he wants and values (Lois' safety). It's the beginning of his character arc in the film. She calls him out on it, because he's not seeing the big picture.

I didn't say he believes he can impose his will on others. I said that's what the media/world essentially accuses him of doing.

I also take issue with your characterization of Lois. She isn't doing the investigation for Superman's sake.

I never said that she investigates only to clear his name. I merely said that she understands the importance of doing so. The conversation is in the context of Superman's character arc. I'm not endeavouring to sum up Lois as a character here.

Superman also doesn't "quit."

Which is why I put the word in quotations. I am well aware he doesn't quit. I was using shorthand because I didn't feel like summarizing the sequence.

 

[DerekLake]

Why does it matter where the examples come from? The discussion is about his character overall and not just in one movie, because the original impetus for this whole conversation was Henry Cavill's shaving video which got some to say they wish that personality was part of his portrayal of Clark/Superman.

{snip}

You have (e.g. Clark visiting GCPD), just like you provided BS screentime estimates about the flashbacks in MoS for another discussion we had in another thread. Even when you don't forget things, you do like you do above and admit a scene exists only to deny its content. Given these bizarre rhetorical approaches, and the obvious fact that we're unlikely to see eye to eye on this, it's probably best to agree to disagree or save this thread from derailing and shift our conversation to private messages. I hope you can respect that.

My response was to offer some reasons why some of us would so prefer a version of Superman who seems to enjoy life, and why some would consider BvS’s Superman to be a bit too much the opposite of that (even with the things he faces in the film).

Fair point on the other discussion (but I stand by my broader point, even though I estimated wrongly). I’m more than willing to accept where I’ve not accurately recalled a scene.

I did draft a full response to your reply but I realize this is rather tangential to Justice League. I am more than happy to leave this where it is or take this private.

 

[BH/HHH]

Or maybe he might be Clark Kent right now and not in the suit.

My thoughts exactly

 

[Vaibow]

This isn't Clark Kent/Superman related. Not sure why people think it is.

 

[Tra-El]

It's definitely a photoshoot wearing sunglasses and suits. Ohwell. I'm glad Henry looks good and is expanding his brand.

 

[Willi Berg]

Priorities

 

[GothamBat]

Apparently Doomsday’s spike was so hot that it cauterized Superman’s chest wound. Hence, there was no blood.

 

[Micromind]

Spike through his "S" shield means Hope destroyed.

 

[GothamBat]

 

[GothamBat]

Majestic AF

 

[Tra-El]

Majestic AF

I loved that scene. I held my breath and could feel the tension. Cavill's body language and presence was so larger than life in that scene. That's the energy, yet calmness Superman should give off. Great work from Zack and the crew there.

 

[harlequinade]

I finally saw that instagram video about shaving his mustache and laughed so hard when in the montage of pics of Henry's mustache they smuggled in the shot from JL

 

[WoodyROM]

I loved that scene. I held my breath and could feel the tension. Cavill's body language and presence was so larger than life in that scene. That's the energy, yet calmness Superman should give off. Great work from Zack and the crew there.

Absolutely. I think others have said this here, but the fact that a dude wearing blue and red tights is walking into a courtroom and yet it's not even in the slightest ridiculous speaks volumes. I just believe he's Supes, and as you said, feel the tension of every moment. Truly wonderful sequence, piss and all

 

[GothamBat]

Right? Zack has a knack for diffusing any and all ridiculousness that would otherwise be present with Superheroes wearing their supercostumes in a real life setting. In fact, he completely succeeds not just at making them look natural and respectable in the scene, but he takes it further and makes what should look ridiculous, incredibly kick-ass.

 

[Superchan]

Majestic AF

Muscles fake AF also.

 

[Polux]

Majestic AF

 

[HellYeah]

Majestic AF

that a man or God?

 

[All-Father]

This guy definitely deserves at least another Superman movie!