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

[Tra-El]

Cavill and Levi have been teasing each other on social media. Maybe that's a subtle clue. Or maybe I'm grasping at straws.

I've noticed that same thing so I'll go and reach for those same straws with you because...why not lol.

 

[STARMAN]

I've noticed that same thing so I'll go and reach for those same straws with you because...why not lol.

 

[Superchan]

I hope so, but a huge cameo like Batman being in Skwad was leaked, how can they keep the flying bald man hidden from us, especially shooting on location/outside? I want a mos2 man, I really do.

Holly s**t, lex is in Shazam??!!!

The problem ( as I see it ) in making a successful superman film, is that the directors try to reinvent the wheel.
They want to make him "cool", and in doing so, they ignore his basic traits and what has made him popular for 80 years.
Superman is not mopey, emo, sad, unsure, use whatever adjective you want to use.

Superman is hopeful, inspires, loves to use his powers, is proud, but he doesn't think the small stuff is beneath him, ie, purse snatches, car jackers etc,etc.

Give superman a proper villain, like brainiac.
Give his Clark plenty to do at the dp also.
We want to see him as much as we do Superman.

Nicely said. As for Brainiac well as much as I love the character but I want them to fit the villain into the story and not just put brainiac in there and try and fit the story around him just cos they want to have brainiac on screen.

In Snyder's defense, he did give CK stuff to do in BvS...........but then he cut it all out in favor of the useless batmax, the dessert and senate bombing scenes! I guess he was more interested in setting up his upcoming JL movie and giving Lois Lame something to do over developing one of his central characters and the result was a colossal failure.

 

[Tra-El]

WB mandated "Moar Batman!11!!" so most of Clark's stuff was bound to get cut. Snyder had some good stuff in there but by that time, WB was heywire.

 

[GreenKToo]

It's Germans, but id love to see a superman film set in the 1950's and have Brainiac as the villain.

 

[DerekLake]

From what? The general audience didn't know what to expect. It's not like there's as much of a cinematic or television history for Captain America.

So I’m not sure what happened, but it looks as though my comment has been deleted/moved, so to be safe, I’m putting my response in spoiler tags.

Spoiler

As a comic book character, Captain America’s core basis is quite cheesy and outdated as a symbol of patriotism. The Russos could have done what Snyder did in attempt to fix the character by trying to “grow up” Superman.

They didn’t. In fact, much in line with Marvel’s existing comics, they followed that character’s development as someone whose values no longer seemed to hold sway in a more complex, darker world. And I realize what I’m saying, and I’m sure you’ll point to MOS and BvS as doing the same thing. Here’s the thing, though. The way Captain America reacts to the world around him is in line with how he acts both in the comics and in the first film. I don’t think that’s the case for Superman in BvS.

I’ve said this before in our conversations, but as I see it, the main problem in BvS is Superman’s characterization as someone who is withdrawn and distant from humanity (both inwardly and outwardly). I think that made sense for his origin story in MOS, but for BvS it really seems to comprise a missing piece of the character, whether that’s simply a case of omission of useful scenes or the broader characterization (I think it’s the latter).

I know we disagree on that, but I think it matters because Superman’s entire story in that film hinges on his withdrawn and generally solitary nature, from the public misunderstanding of him to Finch’s demand to know “what he stands for.” Even at the Daily Planet he seems to exist in his own world — yes, there is a core aspect of the character that, deep down, feels distant from humanity and longs for Krypton, but that generally doesn’t lead to a lack of interaction with others (again, whether mere omission or broader characterization, this Superman has a very small circle of communication).

He’s certainly become withdrawn in the comics (especially when faced with personal failure to save people or do right), but those occasions usually come in the broader context of his overall optimistic and engaged demeanor and belief and practice. To go from his burdened characterization in MOS to his troubled characterization in BvS is to leave out that broader context that actually defines Superman and makes those burdened moments (excuse the imprecise language) so impactful. I am arguing that Superman’s portrayal across the two films, but especially in BvS, needed some more balance.

Multi-sided view? We barely know anything about him. We never meet his parents or see his childhood. He has one friend and one girl he liked that he didn't get to spend enough time with to be anything serious. His world is not comparable in terms of the balance of grounded and fantastical. The fantastical is no where close to what one would expect even in the most grounded of Superman stories. An alien with the immense power Superman has is bound to have a different impact on who he is and the world he inhabits.

Spoiler

I’m not saying that we saw the same extent of Captain America’s relationships with his parents or childhood. What I meant was that on whole, Captain America’s portrayal as someone burdened and unburdened and joyful and sorrowful, etc. was both better displayed (in my opinion) and set within a more balanced context — at the least, I think Winter Soldier’s story provided a better opportunity to showcase those aspects, a more holistic portrayal, compared to BvS. I mentioned this above and will do so below, but we didn’t get to see Superman during his good times, and the way he acted during his bad times seemed to suggest something fundamentally off about how he might have been during his good times.

Yes, Superman is inherently a grander character (and, in my view, more inherently “fantastical”). My point was actually that the attempt to set Superman’s stories within a more “realistic” and ordinary world has been problematic, both because of the tendency to make him realistically despondent at the complexity of problems in the real world, and because such near completely realistic contexts by default force the character to be in the role of a deity (most stories don’t put such a narrative burden on Superman because he exists in a world of many such heroes and aliens and all the rest).

It’s that latter point that I think has made it the hardest to write Superman films, because that’s not the context in which Superman has been developed over the past 30 years. While there is always an element of Superman as a divine figure in his stories and characterization, it typically does not take the shape it does in Superman Returns or BvS because he isn’t the only savior.

It's no good to use erroneous absolutes like completely and only. The world in MoS and BvS was conflicted; there was no consensus. Within that world, there were examples of people like Lois, Hardy, Swanwick, Finch, and even Perry and Alfred who were supportive of Superman or simply had concerns. The world as a whole seemed to embrace Superman with monuments, symbols signaling their desire for his help, puff pieces in newspapers, and supporters outside of the senate hearing. In fact, it was more that Lex, Bruce, and Wallace represented people who were frustrated with the fact that the public seemed to be believing what they saw as a lie about Superman. Superman is burdened and troubled because he has a lot of responsibility, and the public and he are working through the difficult "conversation" that needed to happen to negotiate the power dynamics of their relationship. Meanwhile, Clark has moments of joy, like when he learns about his Kryptonian heritage, flirts with and kisses Lois, starts work as a reporter, surprises Lois with flowers and dinner, and embraces death for a world he believes in. I believe there is a heaviness in these films but not to the extent that your hyperbole describes.

Spoiler

The broader tone and context of BvS’s story is one that is hostile and negative. The conflicted nature of the world is presented as a negative, overbearing weight on Superman. The negative side of that conflict weighs heaviest on him for the vast majority (virtually the entirety) of BvS. The negative manipulations of Lex Luthor, the negative accusations of the media, the negative apathy of Perry, and the negative actions of Batman all weigh heavily on Superman. You can say what you will about his brief joy with Lois, or his tender call with Martha or his heartfelt “conversation” with his dad, but they are set within the broader and overwhelming context of a negative and hostile environment.

And my point is that given that roughly half of MOS was set in a melancholy context that foretold such hostility and negativity and in which an understandably fearful/cautious and definitely lonely and reclusive Clark had to embrace an itinerant lifestyle because he wants to help people, BvS’s overwhelmingly negative context wasn’t the best approach to present the fullest view of the Superman character, especially ahead of the first Justice League film. And, despite Snyder’s intentions, not many people are willing to wait 3-4 films until the film makers present that fuller view.

 

[DerekLake]

The problem ( as I see it ) in making a successful superman film, is that the directors try to reinvent the wheel.
They want to make him "cool", and in doing so, they ignore his basic traits and what has made him popular for 80 years.
Superman is not mopey, emo, sad, unsure, use whatever adjective you want to use.

Superman is hopeful, inspires, loves to use his powers, is proud, but he doesn't think the small stuff is beneath him, ie, purse snatches, car jackers etc,etc.

Give superman a proper villain, like brainiac.
Give his Clark plenty to do at the dp also.
We want to see him as much as we do Superman.

So I’m not going to use the terms “mopey” and “emo,” but I agree with the sentiment. I do think MOS was a creative deviation on his origin story (that still actually tracks with some aspects of his 2004? comic book origins). Personally, I think the biggest thing is that Snyder focused too much on a Superman who is burdened by the world, which seems to reflect a certain view of the world as a whole that doesn’t exactly match up with the way the Superman character typically views the world, which then informs how this Superman engages with the world compared to his comic book counterpart. That is, I think, the core issue here, and I think it has a lot to do with how Zack Snyder views the world (and the types of stories that attract him.)

I really didn't see much reinventing of Superman in Snyder's version. Other than changing some of the mythology to fit Snyder's version, the concept of Superman in Man of Steel was an ambitious; familiar take. Clark showed many shades of a hopeful character in MoS and BvS was supposed to set up a darker world of which Batman came from so it was just slow burning but speaking of someone who followed Superman for awhile and read many of his source material, Cavill's version is familiar and I recognize his world.

Snyder's biggest misstep in BvS was not showing Superman's heroic acts in those 18 months from MoS-BvS. Showing Superman interact with the public more would have done wonders.

I think there’s a fundamental issue with how Snyder presents the world, which doesn’t necessarily line up with how DC comics presents the world. I know factually this isn’t the case in the actual DCEU world, but the BvS story presents the world as if it is all Gotham, with the overwhelming cynicism and hostility of that world. And it forces that view onto Superman, without ever really matching the balance that actually exists in the real world with a balanced display of the DCEU world. And by crafting a story in which Superman is overwhelmed by the negative aspects of the world, it forces Superman to act in certain ways (or to fail to act in certain ways) that are illogical and stretch the limits of the character’s typical boundaries.

I think that might have been bold and interesting save for the fact that Snyder’s transcendent Superman is also largely distant and withdrawn from humanity. That latter aspect, more than acts of heroism, is the missing ingredient here with Superman, and it’s JL tries but fails to properly address in its opening cell footage.

 

[misslane38]

So I’m not sure what happened, but it looks as though my comment has been deleted/moved, so to be safe, I’m putting my response in spoiler tags.

It may have been removed because it, and our mutual discussion, is off-topic; although I'm not sure why mine remains. As such, I don't feel it's appropriate to continue this conversation, and I don't want to waste time responding in the event that something you or I say ends up deleted. Moreover, since I still fundamentally disagree with your analysis, it's probably best we just agree to disagree.

 

[misslane38]

I think there’s a fundamental issue with how Snyder presents the world, which doesn’t necessarily line up with how DC comics presents the world. I know factually this isn’t the case in the actual DCEU world, but the BvS story presents the world as if it is all Gotham, with the overwhelming cynicism and hostility of that world. And it forces that view onto Superman, without ever really matching the balance that actually exists in the real world with a balanced display of the DCEU world. And by crafting a story in which Superman is overwhelmed by the negative aspects of the world, it forces Superman to act in certain ways (or to fail to act in certain ways) that are illogical and stretch the limits of the character’s typical boundaries.

I think that might have been bold and interesting save for the fact that Snyder’s transcendent Superman is also largely distant and withdrawn from humanity. That latter aspect, more than acts of heroism, is the missing ingredient here with Superman, and it’s JL tries but fails to properly address in its opening cell footage.

Again, this is really not the place for this conversation. Maybe the Snyder, BvS, or DCEU threads would be better. To be brief, Superman in these films is tested with realistic, complicated, and difficult challenges only take leaps of faith and remain true to himself and his mission.

 

[STARMAN]

Cavill and his manager Dany Garcia need to be aggressive. Set up meetings, perhaps even bring a creative team with him to make a pitch with those who have power to greenlight. Being proactive is his best chance for MOS 2.

 

[Superchan]

Cavill and his manager Dany Garcia need to be aggressive. Set up meetings, perhaps even bring a creative team with him to make a pitch with those who have power to greenlight. Being proactive is his best chance for MOS 2.

From the sounds of things Henry seems to be quite proactive about getting another superman movie off the ground and best of luck to him, he'd make a wonderful superman if given the proper material.

 

[STARMAN]

Yeah. I heard his comments at CinamaCon. That is what he and his manager need to do.

Just heard additional comments from Henry by AP. Said it depends on everyone getting their ducks in a row. Said he has a lot of ideas. Said he had discussions with certain people. Said an ideal world MOS 2 would be added to the slate.

 

[Micromind]

Yeah. I heard his comments at CinamaCon. That is what he and his manager need to do.

Just heard additional comments from Henry by AP. Said it depends on everyone getting their ducks in a row. Said he has a lot of ideas. Said he had discussions with certain people. Said an ideal world MOS 2 would be added to the slate.

I read that as they (Cavill and his manager) may have approached a few film-makers (this could include Producers and directors) with their idea of a Superman movie, now it depends on whether the said director can successfully pitch the ideas to the Studio Execs and get their project approved.

Let's hope for best.

 

[LoganGambit87]

collider interview with henry

 

[valmont]

collider interview with henry

WB should be ashamed to put this man in that situation.

 

[Arachnerd]

He's perfect. Please give this man his rightful sequel.

 

[Da-Scribe]

Once MI6 comes out and everyone gets that wiggle in their shorts over Henry Cavill, we will hear more about MoS2. That's my guess.

 

[STARMAN]

I like that Cavill is trying to be aggressive. He shouldn't settle for Nick Fury cameos unless it's part of a MOS 2 greenlight. If he got along with Chris McQuarrie then I would recruit him. There are other routes he can go but that might be the easiest.

 

[Mandon Knight]

I still say McQuarrie won't be anywhere near a WB film, given whats happened with moustache-gate.

 

[flickchick85]

McQuarrie would honestly be a dream come true for me. He's been one of my favorite writers/directors in Hollywood for years now, and has perfect action blockbuster sensibilities, imo.

 

[chintai80]

i think the only directors who will wanna take on a MOS sequel are only the ones who love and thrive under extreme challenges.

u know the type - the ones who got a death wish. lol.

 

[Da-Scribe]

I still say McQuarrie won't be anywhere near a WB film, given whats happened with moustache-gate.

The blame falls squarely on WB for that one. Could've just had him come back with a beard, but they decided to ball outta control and gave us what they gave us.

 

[flickchick85]

And it wasn't McQuarrie who wouldn't play ball, it was Paramount.

 

[Mandon Knight]

The blame falls squarely on WB for that one. Could've just had him come back with a beard, but they decided to ball outta control and gave us what they gave us.

I thought part of it, was that Paramount refused ?

 

[STARMAN]

Another reason I like McQuarrie other than his connection with Cavill via MI6 is his background as a writer. He can help organized Cavill's ideas on how to go forward and shape them into a story and together make a pitch.