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

[Superchan]

He is saying goodbye to Whedon.


Seriously, what people have against DCEU ? Maybe part of the reason is because Snyder started it.

Earlier, I used to think that many fans are just anti-DC (well, some are..) but now I think that they can't stand DCEU because Snyder was the Architect of phase-1.

That and some fans are totally against the actors Snyder has cast in DCEU (namely Eisenberg as Lex, Leto as Joker, Ezra as Flash, Gadot as WW, Affleck as Bats) smh.

And, DCEU's poor performance with critics isn't helping DCEU at all.

Because to most the whole thing felt rushed and poorly executed and not because people have a personal vendetta against Snyder or are anti DC. The general audience who make up about 99.9% of the total number of people who end up watching these films don't know or care about Snyder or whether a character is DC or Marvel, they just want to watch a good movie and they didn't get that so after the crap they got from MOS, SKwad and especially BvS they've had enough and decided to vote with their wallets and the result was the epic flop that was JL.

 

[Da-Scribe]

Fair enough. I’ll leave it alone.

Sorry, that came off really short and I didn't mean it to. But I think you get what I meant. I respect your view point.

 

[GothamBat]

 

[Micromind]

The existence of a statute in hero's park certainly suggests that he wasn't THAT divisive prior to the issues confronted in BVS.

Though I do think a figure like Superman is always going to be somewhat controversial, and the film drives that home pretty well. Eventually there was controversy that built up.

He is a hero to the people of Earth, but he is still controversial. And that's just realistic.

Yeah, Superman would be a controversial figure. Even your "friendly neighborhood Spider-Man" in Marvel Comics / movies is considered to be a menace by Daily Bugle and some people of NY, there's no way that Superman would get universal acceptance and praise.

Some fans don't want Superman to be figure of controversy and want him to be universally loved as he was shown in Donner's movies, but that train has passed.

 

[Nemeres]

About Nairomi... that an incident in a small African country would stir that much of a rift in the perception of Superman feels a bit on the thin side to me, when not much is made over MOS's 3rd act events, or any doubts over his allegiance or what have you. When the trailers hinted at it, it made perfect sense, and that was the expectation. Realistically, that's probably where controversy of the kind that holds up would've come from. Look at Syria, where most people care only passingly about casualties reported, and even less if the villain (here, warlord) in question were to actually end up dead/captured. After 9/11 there was big resistance to building a mosque close to Ground Zero. Even when a hero is a clear hero (see: Sully/Hudson River incident) there's scrutiny about what constitutes justifiable risk or loss of life. Here they put the alien front and center in the monument meant to honor those dead… and it takes an incident in faraway Africa for Congress to put their foot down and for Supes to acknowledge that he owes accountability. It felt timid, like they wanted to leave MOS well enough alone but also address it somehow.

 

[misslane38]

About Nairomi... that an incident in a small African country would stir that much of a rift in the perception of Superman feels a bit on the thin side to me, when not much is made over MOS's 3rd act events, or any doubts over his allegiance or what have you. When the trailers hinted at it, it made perfect sense, and that was the expectation. Realistically, that's probably where controversy of the kind that holds up would've come from. Look at Syria, where most people care only passingly about casualties reported, and even less if the villain (here, warlord) in question were to actually end up dead/captured. After 9/11 there was big resistance to building a mosque close to Ground Zero. Even when a hero is a clear hero (see: Sully/Hudson River incident) there's scrutiny about what constitutes justifiable risk or loss of life. Here they put the alien front and center in the monument meant to honor those dead… and it takes an incident in faraway Africa for Congress to put their foot down and for Supes to acknowledge that he owes accountability. It felt timid, like they wanted to leave MOS well enough alone but also address it somehow.

Wow. So, you totally forgot that most of the movie is about Bruce Wayne's and Wallace Keefe's reaction to what happened in MOS? No way did the movie leave MOS "well enough alone" with those two arcs happening in tandem. Not to mention that the US Government (e.g. Swanwick, Hardy) were working with Superman as allies on the plan to stop Zod, which was a global threat. Nairomi is an international incident that calls into question, as Finch says, "state level" interventions taken on Superman's part. And the reason the Nairomi incident became such a big deal was because of its implications. People saw that Superman could just go into a place with his own mission and cause consequences both for the people of the region and for US foreign policy. It's a story that's played out in comics, too, like Greg Rucka's "Unconventional Warfare" storyline that had Lois attacked in Umec to ensnare Superman, a very well-liked Superman, in conflict. In addition, I believe the Senator that Luthor pays off (the cherry Jolly Rancher guy) is on the committee, and therefore is likely pushing it to be more significant. Finally, it's clear that Senator June Finch, who spearheaded the committee investigating what happened, was a principled and determined individual. So, it's not a question of whether or not other people cared, but whether Finch was someone who cared and cared enough to get other people to care too.

 

[Aurakles]

The difference between Zods attack and the Nairomi incident is that one is an alien attack and the other is human politics.
Everyone agreed Zod had to be stopped, there was nobody on Earth who wanted Zod to win, and having Superman intervene to stop him is something that few have a problem with. Fighting Zod is like fighting a natural disaster, it's protecting the status quo and doesn't interfere with human affairs, human politics.
When Superman gets involved in a civil war it's very different. Some people supported General Amajagh, some were against him, taking action against him is going to concern a lot of people who would have been against Zod. Some people want General Amajagh in power, no one wanted Zod in power.
Getting involved the internal politics of Nairomi also creates precedent for Superman to become involved in the internal politics of other nations.
If Nairomi, why not Syria, or North Korea, or Venezuela or the US?
The Nairomi incident awakens fears that Superman won't let humanity decide it's own destiny. The fear that he will decide what is right and use his might to enforce it.

In the fight against Zod, Superman could be seen as a part of the US armed forces, working with them in a agreed plan to defend the US from an attack on their own soil.

In Nairomi, Superman is essentially working as his own state, a new superpower in world geopolitics, a nation with power greater than any other that is willing to intervene in other countries affairs.

It's alien vs alien compared with alien vs humans.lien compared with alien vs humans.

 

[Micromind]

The difference between Zods attack and the Nairomi incident is that one is an alien attack and the other is human politics.
Everyone agreed Zod had to be stopped, there was nobody on Earth who wanted Zod to win, and having Superman intervene to stop him is something that few have a problem with. Fighting Zod is like fighting a natural disaster, it's protecting the status quo and doesn't interfere with human affairs, human politics.
When Superman gets involved in a civil war it's very different. Some people supported General Amajagh, some were against him, taking action against him is going to concern a lot of people who would have been against Zod. Some people want General Amajagh in power, no one wanted Zod in power.
Getting involved the internal politics of Nairomi also creates precedent for Superman to become involved in the internal politics of other nations.
If Nairomi, why not Syria, or North Korea, or Venezuela or the US?
The Nairomi incident awakens fears that Superman won't let humanity decide it's own destiny. The fear that he will decide what is right and use his might to enforce it.

In the fight against Zod, Superman could be seen as a part of the US armed forces, working with them in a agreed plan to defend the US from an attack on their own soil.

In Nairomi, Superman is essentially working as his own state, a new superpower in world geopolitics, a nation with power greater than any other that is willing to intervene in other countries affairs.

It's alien vs alien compared with alien vs humans.lien compared with alien vs humans.

Exactly.

 

[idiot09]

The difference between Zods attack and the Nairomi incident is that one is an alien attack and the other is human politics.
Everyone agreed Zod had to be stopped, there was nobody on Earth who wanted Zod to win, and having Superman intervene to stop him is something that few have a problem with. Fighting Zod is like fighting a natural disaster, it's protecting the status quo and doesn't interfere with human affairs, human politics.
When Superman gets involved in a civil war it's very different. Some people supported General Amajagh, some were against him, taking action against him is going to concern a lot of people who would have been against Zod. Some people want General Amajagh in power, no one wanted Zod in power.
Getting involved the internal politics of Nairomi also creates precedent for Superman to become involved in the internal politics of other nations.
If Nairomi, why not Syria, or North Korea, or Venezuela or the US?
The Nairomi incident awakens fears that Superman won't let humanity decide it's own destiny. The fear that he will decide what is right and use his might to enforce it.

In the fight against Zod, Superman could be seen as a part of the US armed forces, working with them in a agreed plan to defend the US from an attack on their own soil.

In Nairomi, Superman is essentially working as his own state, a new superpower in world geopolitics, a nation with power greater than any other that is willing to intervene in other countries affairs.

It's alien vs alien compared with alien vs humans.lien compared with alien vs humans.

Very well put. Its like in Red Son, when Superman works for the soviet union against America's interests..one begins to think "wait we cant have a figure like him doing something political". This exposes the reader's hypocritical thinking because we never have a problem with Superman standing for "the american way", because america is always good right? That's why Superman said in BvS he doesnt want to be identified as american anymore. He probably didnt want to get involved in anything political, but the problem is anything and everything in today's world is political.

 

[Aurakles]

Not just in todays world, "Nothing was ever simple".

 

[Nemeres]

Wow. So, you totally forgot that most of the movie is about Bruce Wayne's and Wallace Keefe's reaction to what happened in MOS? No way did the movie leave MOS "well enough alone" with those two arcs happening in tandem. Not to mention that the US Government (e.g. Swanwick, Hardy) were working with Superman as allies on the plan to stop Zod, which was a global threat. Nairomi is an international incident that calls into question, as Finch says, "state level" interventions taken on Superman's part. And the reason the Nairomi incident became such a big deal was because of its implications. People saw that Superman could just go into a place with his own mission and cause consequences both for the people of the region and for US foreign policy. It's a story that's played out in comics, too, like Greg Rucka's "Unconventional Warfare" storyline that had Lois attacked in Umec to ensnare Superman, a very well-liked Superman, in conflict. In addition, I believe the Senator that Luthor pays off (the cherry Jolly Rancher guy) is on the committee, and therefore is likely pushing it to be more significant. Finally, it's clear that Senator June Finch, who spearheaded the committee investigating what happened, was a principled and determined individual. So, it's not a question of whether or not other people cared, but whether Finch was someone who cared and cared enough to get other people to care too.

It's nothing to wow about. I don't think a blurry incident in an African village would ever out-controversy or earn more political scrutiny than the devastation of a city in American soil. It's a simple sentiment.

 

[misslane38]

It's nothing to wow about. I don't think a blurry incident in an African village would ever out-controversy or earn more political scrutiny than the devastation of a city in American soil. It's a simple sentiment.

No, you claimed that "not much is made over MOS's 3rd act events, or any doubts over his allegiance or what have you," and it felt like "they wanted to leave MOS well enough alone but also address it somehow." They didn't just use the Niaromi incident to address the issues you speak of. BvS included the Nairomi incident AND Wallace/Bruce to address both incidents and the related issues they brought up. It's just not accurate to say that the filmmakers went into BvS with the intent to ignore or dismiss MoS. They dealt with it and with the new implications of a different kind of event, like what happened in Nairomi.

Indeed, as I and others have pointed out, there are obvious differences between what happened in Metropolis and what happened in Nairomi most important of which is the global scale of the threat and Superman's collaboration with US authorities. Not to mention that BvS shows us that the two senators on the committee investigating Nairomi, and making it a point of controversy as a result, include one who is bought off by Luthor who has a vested interest in inflaming things and June Finch who is someone who not only would know the difference between the context and dynamics involved Metropolis and Nairomi, but would also care enough to make Nairomi something others should care about too.

 

[DerekLake]

Very well put. Its like in Red Son, when Superman works for the soviet union against America's interests..one begins to think "wait we cant have a figure like him doing something political". This exposes the reader's hypocritical thinking because we never have a problem with Superman standing for "the american way", because america is always good right? That's why Superman said in BvS he doesnt want to be identified as american anymore. He probably didnt want to get involved in anything political, but the problem is anything and everything in today's world is political.

You mean the comic story right? BvS doesn’t really address Superman’s American identity beyond the rebel general (in fact, surprisingly, not even the pundits bring it up, except for Jon Stewart if I recall).

No, you claimed that "not much is made over MOS's 3rd act events, or any doubts over his allegiance or what have you," and it felt like "they wanted to leave MOS well enough alone but also address it somehow." They didn't just use the Niaromi incident to address the issues you speak of. BvS included the Nairomi incident AND Wallace/Bruce to address both incidents and the related issues they brought up. It's just not accurate to say that the filmmakers went into BvS with the intent to ignore or dismiss MoS. They dealt with it and with the new implications of a different kind of event, like what happened in Nairomi.

Indeed, as I and others have pointed out, there are obvious differences between what happened in Metropolis and what happened in Nairomi most important of which is the global scale of the threat and Superman's collaboration with US authorities. Not to mention that BvS shows us that the two senators on the committee investigating Nairomi, and making it a point of controversy as a result, include one who is bought off by Luthor who has a vested interest in inflaming things and June Finch who is someone who not only would know the difference between the context and dynamics involved Metropolis and Nairomi, but would also care enough to make Nairomi something others should care about too.

There is a difference, but the film arguably does actually devote more time to addressing the Black Zero Event than it does Nairomi. Nairomi is an inciting incident and the ostensible incident behind the Congressional hearing. The problem, though, is that the film doesn’t actually get around to addressing/resolving the actual question of Superman’s “state-level interventions” because the entire incident is revealed to be a setup and manufactured controversy.

Personally, I don’t think it was best to try to tackle both in one film, because though they are related, they are actually distinct issues for Superman. Since the core story really does concern the events of MOS, I think it would have been better to create a local Metropolis or Gotham incident that results in loss of life/destruction and use that to question whether having a destructive alien around and allowing him to get involved in human affairs is a good thing, especially when bad things seem to follow him. And it would have been better to leave the “state-level interventions” question to a separate film, one that might have had more room to develop within an international/state-level context. The way I see it, the BZE/Bruce/Wally stuff were enough to serve as a great Batman vs Superman and MOS 2 film. At the same time, the Nairomi/Congress stuff would have been a great vehicle to explore what it means for Superman to be “American” and to operate in a political world. But I don’t think there was enough room in BvS to really explore both as fully as they could have been.

 

[idiot09]

You mean the comic story right? BvS doesn’t really address Superman’s American identity beyond the rebel general (in fact, surprisingly, not even the pundits bring it up, except for Jon Stewart if I recall).

No no, I meant in the movie, John Stewart brings that up. I really like that bit. Also reminds me I have to re-read Red Son. Its been too long.

You know a lot of people say BvS didnt do this, or didnt do that. But for me, it did all of those things...but probably it needed to do more of those, to satisfy others. The problem I think is BvS juggled so many things, characters and ideas, it couldnt do it all. Thats why my biggest complaint/wish over BvS was that it was half and hours longer, so it can flesh out its storyline more. If they had filmed and added the prequel comics stuff to the movie, I can guarantee the movie would have been MUCH better received, and would have been SO MUCH better. And I already love it so much.

 

[DerekLake]

No no, I meant in the movie, John Stewart brings that up. I really like that bit. Also reminds me I have to re-read Red Son. Its been too long.

You know a lot of people say BvS didnt do this, or didnt do that. But for me, it did all of those things...but probably it needed to do more of those, to satisfy others. The problem I think is BvS juggled so many things, characters and ideas, it couldnt do it all. Thats why my biggest complaint/wish over BvS was that it was half and hours longer, so it can flesh out its storyline more. If they had filmed and added the prequel comics stuff to the movie, I can guarantee the movie would have been MUCH better received, and would have been SO MUCH better. And I already love it so much.

Ok, right.

I definitely agree that it perhaps did one or two too many things, but I don’t know if 1.5 extra hours would have helped. I think the story could only accommodate so much. There really are too many things going on, with Clark and Bruce each dealing with at least two things going on, plus other subplots with Lex and Lois and Finch. If the film had focused on two sides of one overarching conflict — say, the titular one — with Lois as the sole side plot, then I think the film would have been even better. Focusing on Metropolis and Gotham to me was much more interesting anyway than also doing Nairomi and DC, and the latter could have been great for a follow-up Superman solo film.

I do agree that the prequel comic stuff should have featured more prominently in the film, particularly the ones where Bruce, Lex and Lois deal with the aftermath of the Black Zero Event. I loved that, and it actually sort of helped to flesh them out. For example, I think it tackled Batman’s new brutality a lot better than the branding did, and I think it showed Lex as a CEO with significant influence in Metropolis, which I think was actually missing from BvS.

 

[DerekLake]

I think one of the things that has kept these films from working narratively for me is an actual “why” to Superman. What does Clark actually want to do and why does he do it? This is a film about the ramifications of Superman’s existence and his actions in our messy, complex world. At the heart of that exploration, Clark’s motivations have to be the thing that resolves his internal and the external conflict. We even get a hint that Clark doesn’t actually know why he is doing this. And yet by the end, we still didn’t get a good answer to why Clark does what he does. “His parents taught him” or “that’s just who he is” aren’t actually good answers. The former doesn’t actually dig deep enough, and the latter is what people who don’t actually know a person would say.

I remember back during the press rounds for MOS, and both Snyder and Goyer were talking about Clark’s helping people and creating a conflict between Clark helping people and hiding his powers, and they seemed to suggest that Clark does what he does because he’s Superman and it’s what he’s supposed to do. Even in MOS, Lois tells Clark that he can’t stop helping people, but nothing about his upbringing ever gives us a clue as to why he can’t stop, almost as if it’s programmed into him. That thing, the thing that’s supposed to drive Clark to help people is also the thing that should have been tested in BvS and reaffirmed in JL — and note: it can’t simply be Martha and Lois. But since it’s missing, his journey can never actually be completed.

One thing I hope is that if we get another Cavill Superman film, the writers will at least have an idea for the core thing that motivates Clark, even if it isn’t stated.

 

[misslane38]

There is a difference, but the film arguably does actually devote more time to addressing the Black Zero Event than it does Nairomi. Nairomi is an inciting incident and the ostensible incident behind the Congressional hearing. The problem, though, is that the film doesn’t actually get around to addressing/resolving the actual question of Superman’s “state-level interventions” because the entire incident is revealed to be a setup and manufactured controversy.

It does, Derek. It does get around to addressing the state-level interventions thing. The first part of addressing it is June Finch's requirement that people be held accountable, which for her meant joining the conversation. Superman's decision to participate in the hearing, whether he spoke or not, communicated that he would submit himself to that kind of scrutiny and questioning. He would show Kahina that he does answer to someone other than himself. If something similar were to happen in the future, the precedent is set for his engagement.

The other part of addressing it is to understand that revealing that it's manufactured is irrelevant. The problem still exists. Superman can be manipulated into doing something, and it has consequences. His decisions have consequences. While the U.S. government might have various checks and balances that, if something similar were to happen to one of them, would ensure a more prudent approach, Superman doesn't. For instance, when Zoe Bartlett gets kidnapped on The West Wing, her father the president resigns his power over to the Speaker of the House and various departments manage the crisis with the understanding that the President is too emotionally compromised to handle the delicate situation properly.

Personally, I don’t think it was best to try to tackle both in one film, because though they are related, they are actually distinct issues for Superman/

I disagree. Tackling them together draws one's attention to the broader issue that links the two, and illuminates the relationship between macro and micro issues. Clark's call to Martha about Jonathan staying in Kansas where things were simple or his speech about how newspaper articles are a way to highlight issues and voices that matter and more all speak to how the global is personal. This is my world. You are my world.

 

[misslane38]

There really are too many things going on, with Clark and Bruce each dealing with at least two things going on, plus other subplots with Lex and Lois and Finch. If the film had focused on two sides of one overarching conflict — say, the titular one — with Lois as the sole side plot, then I think the film would have been even better. Focusing on Metropolis and Gotham to me was much more interesting anyway than also doing Nairomi and DC, and the latter could have been great for a follow-up Superman solo film.

I disagree. For a revenge tragedy/existential narrative, it is most closely analogous to Shakespeare's Hamlet, which itself is chock full of parallel and intersecting subplots. There's Ophelia and the love story, Laertes as the avenger foil conspiring to poison Hamlet for the death of his father and sister, Fortinbras as the Prince foil invading Denmark, Claudius as the murderer and master conspirator, and Hamlet's revenge mission tinged with existential inertia.

It's also self-aware. There's a heavy wink towards the nature of the play when we get to the play-within-a-play story. Polonius describes the players as capable of the following dramatic forms: "tragedy, comedy, history, pastoral, pastoral-comical, historical-pastoral, tragical-historical, tragical-comical-historical-pastoral, scene individable, or poem unlimited." Just like BvS, Hamlet is political, psychological, philosophical, existential, and everything in between.

Each subplot or thread of the story feeds into the broader conflict. All of the stories are reflections of the same story. Superman, Lex, Lois, Finch, Keefe, Kahina, and Bruce are all tied to the Nairomi/BZE hearings in the Senate. Lex uses these incidents to turn public opinion against Superman and create the perfect catalyst to flip a switch in Bruce. Lex used the Nairomi incident to attempt to acquire kryptonite, and when he doesn't get it, he imports it illegally, which Bruce is tracking and is eventually led to intercept. Batman's actions to gain access to this kryptonite, including branding criminals as a form of torture for information, is what puts Batman on Clark's radar. Clark choices to pursue Batman rather than the Kahina and Keefe stories because those victims had an international stage. Superman put them in the spotlight. Batman's victims remained in the shadows.

There is no way to tell this sort of story in the simplistic way you prescribe. The intersection of power and politics at the highest levels demands specificity and complexity. If you strip away any part of the story, there isn't enough left to fuel the engine of the narrative. All of the puzzle pieces have to work together to give a truly full picture of the complexity of the issues the existence a powerful alien Superman would generate.

 

[misslane38]

I think one of the things that has kept these films from working narratively for me is an actual “why” to Superman. What does Clark actually want to do and why does he do it? This is a film about the ramifications of Superman’s existence and his actions in our messy, complex world. At the heart of that exploration, Clark’s motivations have to be the thing that resolves his internal and the external conflict. We even get a hint that Clark doesn’t actually know why he is doing this. And yet by the end, we still didn’t get a good answer to why Clark does what he does. “His parents taught him” or “that’s just who he is” aren’t actually good answers. The former doesn’t actually dig deep enough, and the latter is what people who don’t actually know a person would say.

All of the why questions were answered in MoS. Jonathan spoke about one day when Clark would see his differences as a blessing. Clark talks about wanting his life to have purpose. A blessing is something that is perceived of as a gift. The idea is that Clark's differences, his powers, are a gift he can give in the service of others. It's the "reason" that he was sent to Earth, as Jonathan hints at when he's a teenager and Jor-El confirms when he's an adult. In BvS, we get more of a sense of this when Clark worries that his gifts are no longer that blessing. That dream doesn't seem real anymore when people die in the Capitol bombing because of his presence there; so he wonders if he's doing more harm than good.

Even Clark's conversation with Jonathan focuses on the why of it all. Specifically, why continue to do good if you don't get the results you want? This is the heart of Superman's existential arc in this film filled with existential arcs. Does one do good to receive the "hero cake," as Jonathan did as a child, or does one do it even though it can mean carrying the burden of the nightmares of all the things one can't control or fix? In choosing to embrace his mission as Superman following this test, Superman affirms his purpose.

I remember back during the press rounds for MOS, and both Snyder and Goyer were talking about Clark’s helping people and creating a conflict between Clark helping people and hiding his powers, and they seemed to suggest that Clark does what he does because he’s Superman and it’s what he’s supposed to do. Even in MOS, Lois tells Clark that he can’t stop helping people, but nothing about his upbringing ever gives us a clue as to why he can’t stop, almost as if it’s programmed into him.

It's not implied that it's something programmed into him any more than it is for Reeve Superman; although with him his journey and motivations are even more opaque given the narrative cheat of the Fortress transformation. Clark is raised by kind and loving parents whose own choice to adopt him exemplifies grace: instead of being afraid, they chose to view this strange baby that fell from the sky as a blessing. They, in turn, raise him to make sense of his differences and cope with them by framing them as follows:

One day you're going to think of [these changes you're going through] as a blessing. [...] Somewhere out there you've got another father too, who gave you another name. And he sent you here for a reason, Clark. And even if it takes you the rest of your life, you owe it to yourself to find out what that reason is.

In other words, doing good for the world gives not only Clark's differences, his powers, meaning, but it gives his whole existence meaning. Speaking to Jor-El, as Jonathan predicted, only clarified the specific dreams and goals his biological parents had, but from an early age Clark was taught, as many Christians and likely people of other faiths are also taught, that whatever god they pray to created them with a purpose. Clark begins to want to seek his purpose as a teenager: "I'm tired of safe. I just want to do something useful with my life."

I highly recommend reading Mark Waid's essay "The Real Truth about Superman: And the Rest of Us Too" because it aligns almost perfectly with what I and the films have expressed about Superman's motivations. Here's an example. After years of loving and working on the character, Waid writes that "the one question I could not answer [was] why does [Superman] do what he does?" The essay follows several of his trains of thought, but he ultimately concludes "When [Superman] lives as who he really is, in full authenticity to his nature and gifts, and then brings his distinctive strengths into the service of others, he takes his rightful place in the larger community, in which he now genuinely belongs and can feel fulfilled. [...] In helping others, Superman helps himself. In helping himself, he helps others." He adds, "Kal-El knows instinctively that it is only when he puts his gifts to use that he truly feels alive and engaged."

That thing, the thing that’s supposed to drive Clark to help people is also the thing that should have been tested in BvS and reaffirmed in JL — and note: it can’t simply be Martha and Lois. But since it’s missing, his journey can never actually be completed.

It was, Derek, hence the whole "Must there be a Superman?" question that Clark is forced to reckon with in the face of the existential threat that all of the controversy and specifically the carnage of the Capitol created. The movie doesn't suggest it's Lois and Martha, especially Martha. The Lois idea I can kind of understand, because of the "You are my world" thing, but Martha is not a part of that. As for the Lois aspect, all that means is Lois gives Clark faith that there is good in the world. She's his Superman. Again, it's a way to make or reconcile the general and the specific, the macro and the micro, the abstract and the concrete.

 

[Aurakles]

To me, the why has always been very simple; he doesn't like seeing people suffer.
Superman helps people for the same reason we give to charities, hold the door open for a stranger or try to console a crying child.
Superman is compassionate, he sympathises with people, when he see's someone in trouble, he helps.

It's something most people feel, Superman is just able to do it on a larger scale than anyone else.

Clark puts on the suit and takes on the role of Superman, because he sees it as a way of helping people without having to constantly change his identity, a way of helping people out in the open.

In BVS Clark questions whether wearing the cape is doing more harm than good, he wants to help people, but he begins to thinks that acting as Superman in public is causing more death and suffering than he was preventing.

He always wants to help others, because that's how most people work. Supermans questions are over the best way to do that, what is the best method of helping people. It's something he struggles with because it's something we all struggle with, a lot of politics is just disagreeing about the best method of helping people.

 

[Micromind]

To me, the why has always been very simple; he doesn't like seeing people suffer.
Superman helps people for the same reason we give to charities, hold the door open for a stranger or try to console a crying child.
Superman is compassionate, he sympathises with people, when he see's someone in trouble, he helps.

It's something most people feel, Superman is just able to do it on a larger scale than anyone else.

Clark puts on the suit and takes on the role of Superman, because he sees it as a way of helping people without having to constantly change his identity, a way of helping people out in the open.

In BVS Clark questions whether wearing the cape is doing more harm than good, he wants to help people, but he begins to thinks that acting as Superman in public is causing more death and suffering than he was preventing.

He always wants to help others, because that's how most people work. Supermans questions are over the best way to do that, what is the best method of helping people. It's something he struggles with because it's something we all struggle with, a lot of politics is just disagreeing about the best method of helping people.

Superman's moral dilemma on who he can save. As the woman says -

"To look him in his eye and ask him how he decides which lives count and which ones do not."

This dilemma was given the political flavor as they thought -

When a savior character actually comes to Earth we want him to abide by our rules ? We have to understand that this is a paradigm shift, we have to start thinking beyond politics are there any moral constraints on this person ?

We have International laws on this Earth, every act is a political act.

Engaging in these state level interventions should give us all pause.

Are you as a Senator personally comfortable saying to a grieving parent Superman could have saved your child but on principle
we did not want him to act ?

I love that they asked these hard questions, this shows how much harder Superman's job actually is as despite having Superpowers, he is not Omnipresent or omnipotent. He cannot save everyone.


[YT]Kk4MhKpZ12I[/YT]

 

[DerekLake]

It does, Derek. It does get around to addressing the state-level interventions thing. The first part of addressing it is June Finch's requirement that people be held accountable, which for her meant joining the conversation. Superman's decision to participate in the hearing, whether he spoke or not, communicated that he would submit himself to that kind of scrutiny and questioning...

I disagree. Tackling them together draws one's attention to the broader issue that links the two, and illuminates the relationship between macro and micro issues. Clark's call to Martha about Jonathan staying in Kansas where things were simple or his speech about how newspaper articles are a way to highlight issues and voices that matter and more all speak to how the global is personal. This is my world. You are my world.

For a revenge tragedy/existential narrative, it is most closely analogous to Shakespeare's Hamlet, which itself is chock full of parallel and intersecting subplots...

Each subplot or thread of the story feeds into the broader conflict. All of the stories are reflections of the same story. Superman, Lex, Lois, Finch, Keefe, Kahina, and Bruce are all tied to the Nairomi/BZE hearings in the Senate. Lex uses these incidents to turn public opinion against Superman and create the perfect catalyst to flip a switch in Bruce. Lex used the Nairomi incident to attempt to acquire kryptonite, and when he doesn't get it, he imports it illegally, which Bruce is tracking and is eventually led to intercept. Batman's actions to gain access to this kryptonite, including branding criminals as a form of torture for information, is what puts Batman on Clark's radar. Clark choices to pursue Batman rather than the Kahina and Keefe stories because those victims had an international stage. Superman put them in the spotlight. Batman's victims remained in the shadows.

There is no way to tell this sort of story in the simplistic way you prescribe. The intersection of power and politics at the highest levels demands specificity and complexity. If you strip away any part of the story, there isn't enough left to fuel the engine of the narrative. All of the puzzle pieces have to work together to give a truly full picture of the complexity of the issues the existence a powerful alien Superman would generate.

I hope you don’t mind if I address these two together as they are somewhat related. As for the interventions, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that the question of state-level interventions is resolved simply by Superman showing up to the hearings, yet if I recall, the main point of Finch’s words about conversation was that Superman should not act unilaterally, but rather by the consent of the governed, namely, the American people. As far as I can tell, Superman never resolves to do that, and neither Finch nor others give him leave to act unilaterally. They don’t even have that conversation. It is not resolved.

As for the broader topic, Hamlet is performed on average between 3-4 hours, of mostly straight dialogue. Batman v Superman is 2.5 hours with extended montages, action scenes and other fillers. That BvS tries to do the same magnitude of work as Hamlet proves my point. It was too much for one film.

Perhaps more importantly, I’d argue that a film shouldn’t need to give a full picture of the real complex issues the existence of a powerful alien would generate. For one, BvS doesn’t give a full picture. It doesn’t address what dependence on an alien might do to the effectiveness of law enforcement or first responders. It doesn’t address what wars might crop up from an American alien simply violating another country’s airspace. It doesn’t deal with the ramifications of a European-looking alien intervening in Africa or Asia. It doesn’t deal with how a farm boy from small town America might find the big city. It doesn’t deal with all the issues a vigilante brings, extra brutality or not. There is a lot BvS doesn’t address, nor should it. It is a film, not a treatise. And this type of film’s first job is to entertain, and then perhaps also to have a clear message that resonates with the audience.

I think this is very important for a film like Justice League and future films, which don’t try to do this sort of broad, expansive thing. It is bad film making to make a story that requires more attention than a general audience is willing or able to give. That’s not knowing your audience or the medium with which you are working. These are not novels or plays; they are films that make their money in movie theater screenings, shown to people who have the time and interest to watch movies based on superhero characters.

 

[Longshot777]

Because to most the whole thing felt rushed and poorly executed and not because people have a personal vendetta against Snyder or are anti DC. The general audience who make up about 99.9% of the total number of people who end up watching these films don't know or care about Snyder or whether a character is DC or Marvel, they just want to watch a good movie and they didn't get that so after the crap they got from MOS, SKwad and especially BvS they've had enough and decided to vote with their wallets and the result was the epic flop that was JL.

Well MOS made more money than Ironman 1 and WW which sets up JL was a way better movie and made more money than the 1st Captain America which sets up Avengers 1.

JL flopped because WB butchered Snyder's vision making it 25 minutes shorter than Avengers and the trailers without Superman was the nail on the coffin.

Avengers trailer showed Captain America who has his own movie, Thor with his own movie, and Ironman who has 2 movies all in the same movie with the Hulk.

While the JL trailer showed WW and Batman with some new superheroes and that's it!!!

Superman who started this universe was no where to be found in the trailer!!!

So the Avengers trailer already was ahead at that point.

WB dropped the ball big time.

 

[Flint Marko]

I don't think Superman's absence in the marketing made much of a difference.

 

[DerekLake]

All of the why questions were answered in MoS. Jonathan spoke about one day when Clark would see his differences as a blessing. Clark talks about wanting his life to have purpose. A blessing is something that is perceived of as a gift. The idea is that Clark's differences, his powers, are a gift he can give in the service of others. It's the "reason" that he was sent to Earth, as Jonathan hints at when he's a teenager and Jor-El confirms when he's an adult. In BvS, we get more of a sense of this when Clark worries that his gifts are no longer that blessing. That dream doesn't seem real anymore when people die in the Capitol bombing because of his presence there; so he wonders if he's doing more harm than good.

Even Clark's conversation with Jonathan focuses on the why of it all. Specifically, why continue to do good if you don't get the results you want? This is the heart of Superman's existential arc in this film filled with existential arcs. Does one do good to receive the "hero cake," as Jonathan did as a child, or does one do it even though it can mean carrying the burden of the nightmares of all the things one can't control or fix? In choosing to embrace his mission as Superman following this test, Superman affirms his purpose.

It's not implied that it's something programmed into him any more than it is for Reeve Superman; although with him his journey and motivations are even more opaque given the narrative cheat of the Fortress transformation. Clark is raised by kind and loving parents whose own choice to adopt him exemplifies grace: instead of being afraid, they chose to view this strange baby that fell from the sky as a blessing. They, in turn, raise him to make sense of his differences and cope with them by framing them as follows:

One day you're going to think of [these changes you're going through] as a blessing. [...] Somewhere out there you've got another father too, who gave you another name. And he sent you here for a reason, Clark. And even if it takes you the rest of your life, you owe it to yourself to find out what that reason is.

In other words, doing good for the world gives not only Clark's differences, his powers, meaning, but it gives his whole existence meaning. Speaking to Jor-El, as Jonathan predicted, only clarified the specific dreams and goals his biological parents had, but from an early age Clark was taught, as many Christians and likely people of other faiths are also taught, that whatever god they pray to created them with a purpose. Clark begins to want to seek his purpose as a teenager: "I'm tired of safe. I just want to do something useful with my life."

I highly recommend reading Mark Waid's essay "The Real Truth about Superman: And the Rest of Us Too" because it aligns almost perfectly with what I and the films have expressed about Superman's motivations. Here's an example. After years of loving and working on the character, Waid writes that "the one question I could not answer [was] why does [Superman] do what he does?" The essay follows several of his trains of thought, but he ultimately concludes "When [Superman] lives as who he really is, in full authenticity to his nature and gifts, and then brings his distinctive strengths into the service of others, he takes his rightful place in the larger community, in which he now genuinely belongs and can feel fulfilled. [...] In helping others, Superman helps himself. In helping himself, he helps others." He adds, "Kal-El knows instinctively that it is only when he puts his gifts to use that he truly feels alive and engaged."

It was, Derek, hence the whole "Must there be a Superman?" question that Clark is forced to reckon with in the face of the existential threat that all of the controversy and specifically the carnage of the Capitol created. The movie doesn't suggest it's Lois and Martha, especially Martha. The Lois idea I can kind of understand, because of the "You are my world" thing, but Martha is not a part of that. As for the Lois aspect, all that means is Lois gives Clark faith that there is good in the world. She's his Superman. Again, it's a way to make or reconcile the general and the specific, the macro and the micro, the abstract and the concrete.

None of what you wrote actually gets at what I mean. I understand all that, but it’s not what I’m talking about. That helping people fulfills Clark isn’t actually answering the core question of why Clark 1) wants to save people in danger, and 2) why he does that as Superman.

To answer that first question, we’d have to look at where Clark gets the idea to help people. Unfortunately it doesn’t come from Jonathan, because all we see is him cautioning Clark against performing such saves. When he does impart wisdom to Clark, it’s just about being someone with “good character,” and when Clark wants to leave and do something “exciting,” Jonathan suggests that feeding people via farming is just as helpful as other things.

None of that gets at it, though, because what drives Clark has to come from his upbringing, both what he is taught and what he experiences. And what we see of both only really tells him 1) using his powers publicly is bad and leads to people fearing you, and 2) he should exercise restraint by refusing to retaliate. But neither of those actually gets at why he wants to help people full time.

After all, for most of his life, he doesn’t help people with as much frequency as he does as Superman. He rescues his classmates from the same predicament he is in, he rescues workers from an oil rig nearby, and he tries to intervene to rescue a colleague from harassment. Those are all perfectly normal, but it doesn’t actually explain why he wants to do that full time. Neither Jonathan’s statements nor Jor-El’s injunction suggest that Clark should be the ultimate first responder, and more importantly, they don’t get at why he chooses to do so as Superman when he could just as easily wear a mask (or better yet, forego the disguise altogether). It’s not as though he anticipates future enemies at the end of MOS, after all.

Something of what I am getting at would be something like this: a kid grows up with several wildfires in California, and so resolves to help people avoid a similar tragedy by becoming a fire marshal or some other professional who helps people in such situations. Or, a teenager grew up with a father who lent a helping hand to everyone young and small, rich and poor, and saw how his compassion helped keep the town together during difficult times, and therefore she followed in his footsteps. Or, a 10-year-old boy is orphaned when his parents are gunned down in front of him and resolves to keep other people from facing similar tragedy. Or, a teenager’s uncle is killed when he selfishly refuses to use his abilities to stop a crime, leading him to help others even at great cost to his interests.

I mention all these because it’s these core motivations that test a hero and that become the reason why they don’t give up when faced with overwhelming odds. In The Dark Knight, Bruce fights for the “soul of Gotham” and chooses to preserve a lie about Harvey Dent in part because he himself faced a similar test in Batman Begins. And when Joker tests him, he resists because of his own experience.

As far as I can tell, Zack’s Superman has lacked these sorts of central, experiential motivations to truly define him. The conversations of both MOS and BvS has more to do with whether the world was ready and the impact on the world than they had to do with what Clark himself perceived about himself and the world around him. It’s not as if MOS doesn’t present some experiences that might have informed him. Clark faces bullying at every stage of his upbringing. And when the tornado strikes, Jonathan jumps in to lead and help people find safety. Those, combined with his powers and more comprehensive lessons or behaviors from Jonathan, could have led him specifically not simply to choose to rescue people full-time, but rather to use his powers to defend the helpless and powerless while showing tremendous restraint (a great potential conflict for Superman). Instead, though MOS presents Clark with the ultimate bully (Zod), Clark’s journey and role as Superman essentially come down to whether Clark can trust humanity or Zod. And when crafting a montage showing Superman’s acts, Snyder only shows scenes of Clark rescuing people from natural and man-made disasters, but nothing of him fighting for the defenseless (which is most of what is shown to us in his upbringing). And when Clark is faced with opposition from Congress and Lex and the media, nothing from his actual formative experiences consciously informs his decisions either to leave or return (only his parents’ warnings about a hostile world).

I don’t think it’s too much for films to make those motivations as clear as possible. It’s part of good character development. And it’s one of the reasons why I strongly believe that MOS needed to be told chronologically.

To me, the why has always been very simple; he doesn't like seeing people suffer.
Superman helps people for the same reason we give to charities, hold the door open for a stranger or try to console a crying child.
Superman is compassionate, he sympathises with people, when he see's someone in trouble, he helps.

It's something most people feel, Superman is just able to do it on a larger scale than anyone else.

Clark puts on the suit and takes on the role of Superman, because he sees it as a way of helping people without having to constantly change his identity, a way of helping people out in the open.

In BVS Clark questions whether wearing the cape is doing more harm than good, he wants to help people, but he begins to thinks that acting as Superman in public is causing more death and suffering than he was preventing.

He always wants to help others, because that's how most people work. Supermans questions are over the best way to do that, what is the best method of helping people. It's something he struggles with because it's something we all struggle with, a lot of politics is just disagreeing about the best method of helping people.

I can put it very simply — many people are compassionate and charitable, but relatively few become firefighters, police officers, social workers and nurses. Saying a person is compassionate is not enough to explain why they choose to do something. Why does Clark do what he does on a near full-time basis? That question hasn’t been answered, and until a writer does, I don’t think we’ll have as good a character as we can get.