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

[DerekLake]

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.

I think JL flopped because no one was interested in the new characters or the story presented by the marketing. One, the trailers showed the same things over and over, but nothing about it was exciting in the least. Two, none of the new heroes felt compelling enough. Not even Batman or Wonder Woman (the things that made her stand out in WW’s marketing were entirely missing here). And I don’t think Snyder’s originally-intended grimmer story (back when it would be a 2-parter) would have helped. The audience wanted and expected something I don’t think WB or Snyder could have delivered.

I can obviously only truly speak for myself, so I will just say that I think from the characters to the story, JL really needed to be something else. And I think a big part of this also has to do with the fact that, since MOS, a growing portion of the GA just hasn’t been all that interested in the larger narrative of the DCEU.

 

[Micromind]

The trailers looked uninteresting, the visuals failed to get people excited. That's the most important thing.


People look at story, characters afterwards, if the visuals, the CGI effects look bad then people don't want to waste their time anymore.


Contrast this with the trailers of Man of Steel, Suicide Squad (the trailers looked good, even though the movie wasn't.) and to some extent BvS and WW.


JL's trailers were the worst.

 

[kguillou]

Yeah the trailers werent selling people on anything. Whenever the trailers would play at the theater my crowds were silent. Nobody seemed interested.

 

[Jekecy]

I can obviously only truly speak for myself, so I will just say that I think from the characters to the story, JL really needed to be something else. And I think a big part of this also has to do with the fact that, since MOS, a growing portion of the GA just hasn’t been all that interested in the larger narrative of the DCEU.

It’s the key factor if you ask me. No matter what can be said of JL’s marketing, that alone could not have affected the low opening weekend turnout. Not when these are the 2nd and 3rd appearances of the most famous superheroes.

It’s clear MOS and BvS soured people on these interpretations and the non-existent goodwill could lean on benefit of the doubt from audiences to come anyway. Imagine if the likes of Avengers 4, Black Panther 2, or Deadpool 2, had absolutely horrid marketing. Would that put a dent on the huge numbers they’re inevitably going to do? Probably not.

 

[misslane38]

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.

In the entire history of Superman as a character, the issue of Superman's agency in state-level interventions is never resolved. The only time it ever has been are stories like Injustice or The Dark Knight Returns that leave Superman at two poles of the debate. Injustice resolves it by making Superman dictator; The Dark Knight Returns resolves it by making him a tool of the state. Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice resolves it by not resolving it. In other words, since there is no resolution that does not place Superman within the two aforementioned extremes, the only solution is to engage Superman in a conversation with the state. So that ultimately what is good and acceptable can be adjudicated on a case-by-case basis, and there is a precedent for Superman to answer for his actions.

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.

It does not prove your point. Many versions of Hamlet, including the 1948 Academy Award winning Olivier adaptation, are within a single digit difference in runtime compared to the theatrical release of BvS. The ultimate edition of BvS, which runs at 3 hours and 3 minutes is actually longer than most productions of Hamlet. The only adaptations of the Hamlet that run longer than BvS are those that include all of the material from every scene and folio version of the play. Hamlet relies on dialogue more than BvS because it is a play to be performed on a stage. It needs the dialogue to fill the imaginations of the audience. Film is different. You can say more with less on film because it is a visual medium that can convey a lot of information with visuals, music, and performance.

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 BvS actually does address the majority of your above suggestions. For example, first responders push Superman away from the aftermath of the Capitol bombing. The Nairomi incident prompts the U.S. Senate to not just consider state level interventions like Nairomi but expands to ask "Must there be a Superman?" It deals with a farm boy in the big city through Clark's conflict with Perry White. Perry repeatedly shuts down Clark's requests to do the Batman story with pretty overt references to Clark's humble heartland background. The entire question of vigilantes is covered through the committee hearings and Clark's investigation into Batman's reign of terror in Gotham.

Superhero films can entertain while also exploring complex issues. The two aren't mutually exclusive. This is explicitly addressed in BvS:

Clark: How come dad never left Kansas?
Martha: He just...you know how he was. What do I need to travel for? I'm already there.
Clark: I just wish it were more simple.
Martha: My baby boy, nothing was ever simple.

If the only way Superman can entertain is if the world in which he exists is a fantasy world, then what is the point of him? What kind of symbol of hope can only be a symbol of hope if the world in which he exists is already a hopeful place? BvS presents the world as it is, in all of its complexity, and asks the audience to see the truth of it and conclude as the film does with its clear message embodied in Bruce's most memorable lines that bookend the film:

There was a time above...a time before...there were perfect things...diamond absolutes. But things fall...things on earth. And what falls...is fallen.

Men are still good. We fight. We kill. We betray one another. But we can rebuild. We can do better. We will. We have to.

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.

I will never subscribe to the idea that superhero storytelling should be limited because you think so little of audiences. I do think there is a distinction between literary and non-literary storytelling (see: C.S. Lewis's "An Experiment in Criticism"), and it's fine to have a preference for one over the other, especially for a given genre, but to argue that your way is the only way is selfish and myopic.

 

[Longshot777]

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

I don't know, but just imagine the Avengers trailer showing Fury and Black Widow recruiting Cap, Thor, and Hulk while Ironman is no where at all since in Ironman 2, Fury told him he don't want him on the team.

It won't be an Avengers trailer without Ironman.

That's what WB did to the JL trailer by omitting Superman.

The Bluray trailer when it showed Superman and team as a whole made a better complete trailer BUT at that point it's just way tooooo late.

 

[DerekLake]

It’s the key factor if you ask me. No matter what can be said of JL’s marketing, that alone could not have affected the low opening weekend turnout. Not when these are the 2nd and 3rd appearances of the most famous superheroes.

It’s clear MOS and BvS soured people on these interpretations and the non-existent goodwill could lean on benefit of the doubt from audiences to come anyway. Imagine if the likes of Avengers 4, Black Panther 2, or Deadpool 2, had absolutely horrid marketing. Would that put a dent on the huge numbers they’re inevitably going to do? Probably not.

Just to be clear, I was very much interested in MOS and it’s approach, but I think BvS showed me that I perhaps wasn’t as interested in the film makers taking that concept all the way, because at some point the film works against the concept of Superman existing entirely. But as far as JL is concerned, it seems to me that a great portion of the people who turned out for BvS weren’t all that satisfied with its narrative, and they weren’t drawn back by JL’s marketing. And I think that’s because 1) it wasn’t what many expected or liked; 2) it was a mere continuation of BvS; and 3) the characters weren’t really authentic, at least not as Terrio wrote them.

Two examples I give: Barry Allen was quirky and meant to be somewhat comically endearing, but for whatever reason, showing his “second favorite chair/oversimplification” scene over and over again just didn’t sell the character very well. Why should audiences care? Likewise, Arthur’s “alriiight” and general surfer dude persona didn’t do the trick either. Why not?

In the entire history of Superman as a character, the issue of Superman's agency in state-level interventions is never resolved. The only time it ever has been are stories like Injustice or The Dark Knight Returns that leave Superman at two poles of the debate. Injustice resolves it by making Superman dictator; The Dark Knight Returns resolves it by making him a tool of the state. Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice resolves it by not resolving it. In other words, since there is no resolution that does not place Superman within the two aforementioned extremes, the only solution is to engage Superman in a conversation with the state. So that ultimately what is good and acceptable can be adjudicated on a case-by-case basis, and there is a precedent for Superman to answer for his actions.

It does not prove your point. Many versions of Hamlet, including the 1948 Academy Award winning Olivier adaptation, are within a single digit difference in runtime compared to the theatrical release of BvS. The ultimate edition of BvS, which runs at 3 hours and 3 minutes is actually longer than most productions of Hamlet. The only adaptations of the Hamlet that run longer than BvS are those that include all of the material from every scene and folio version of the play. Hamlet relies on dialogue more than BvS because it is a play to be performed on a stage. It needs the dialogue to fill the imaginations of the audience. Film is different. You can say more with less on film because it is a visual medium that can convey a lot of information with visuals, music, and performance.

I think BvS actually does address the majority of your above suggestions. For example, first responders push Superman away from the aftermath of the Capitol bombing. The Nairomi incident prompts the U.S. Senate to not just consider state level interventions like Nairomi but expands to ask "Must there be a Superman?" It deals with a farm boy in the big city through Clark's conflict with Perry White. Perry repeatedly shuts down Clark's requests to do the Batman story with pretty overt references to Clark's humble heartland background. The entire question of vigilantes is covered through the committee hearings and Clark's investigation into Batman's reign of terror in Gotham.

Superhero films can entertain while also exploring complex issues. The two aren't mutually exclusive. This is explicitly addressed in BvS:

Clark: How come dad never left Kansas?
Martha: He just...you know how he was. What do I need to travel for? I'm already there.
Clark: I just wish it were more simple.
Martha: My baby boy, nothing was ever simple.

If the only way Superman can entertain is if the world in which he exists is a fantasy world, then what is the point of him? What kind of symbol of hope can only be a symbol of hope if the world in which he exists is already a hopeful place? BvS presents the world as it is, in all of its complexity, and asks the audience to see the truth of it and conclude as the film does with its clear message embodied in Bruce's most memorable lines that bookend the film:

There was a time above...a time before...there were perfect things...diamond absolutes. But things fall...things on earth. And what falls...is fallen.

Men are still good. We fight. We kill. We betray one another. But we can rebuild. We can do better. We will. We have to.

I will never subscribe to the idea that superhero storytelling should be limited because you think so little of audiences. I do think there is a distinction between literary and non-literary storytelling (see: C.S. Lewis's "An Experiment in Criticism"), and it's fine to have a preference for one over the other, especially for a given genre, but to argue that your way is the only way is selfish and myopic.

1) “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice resolves it by not resolving it.” Then it’s not a resolution. I’m not arguing that it has been resolved in the past, I’m arguing that it isn’t resolved here because the issue is literally left unresolved by the fact that Lex Luthor blew up the Capitol. I’m arguing that it’s left unresolved because the film ditches the point entirely. There is no conclusion to it, not coming to terms with how he must engage with the public or with the state or any of it. The “conversation” you speak of doesn’t even happen; conversations are two-way streets, and we only hear the beginning of the opening of that conversation. It doesn’t even come close. But I won’t belabor that point.

2) My argument is that Batman v Superman does not and should not be required to give a full picture of the ramifications of Superman’s existence in a completely real world. It does not do so ( for example, I saw no discussion of the potential racial/ethnic implications of a “white” alien operating with impunity, or a deeper look at how Superman might actually undermine trust in the state — these are examples, not suggestions). It should not have to do so because we are starting out with a fictional premise: that a humanoid child overdosing on radiation can get superpowers from a yellow star. There is a baseline of the fantastical that we cannot do without.

I am not arguing against films tackling complex issues. I’m arguing against a film trying to tackle a “full picture of the complexity” of such scenarios. I’m arguing against the idea that BvS needed to tackle both the issue of state-level intervention and the aftermath of the Black Zero Event. It did not have to do so because a film about an fantastical alien in a realistic world does not and should not have to capture a full picture of a god-like alien in the real world.

All films are at most narrow snapshots of the world. They cannot and do not capture the full complexity of the world. They cannot, because they are constructs of the minds of a select handful of a certain group of people. Therefore, I don’t think they should aim to capture the all-encompassing picture of the world. If they do, and claim to do so, then it only proves they haven’t done so.

I’ve also said nothing about preferring an already hopeful world. But just as you say that my way is not the only way, so Snyder’s presentation of the world in BvS is not the only way to present the world in “all its complexity.” In fact, I would argue that it did not do so.

I realize I’m getting long-winded, so I’ll try to keep my other responses shorter.

 

[The Guard]

The film doesn't intend to give a complete picture of what would realistically happen if a superhero existed, though. It just presents a few key issues, like most films do.

And there is a resolution to the whole state level intervention thing. The issue comes to a head...humanity's representatives ask Superman to show up and listen to their concerns. And he does. Later in the film, he clearly sets aside a lot of their concerns based on his selfless actions. He ends up with a hero's funeral and the world mourns him and pays tribute to his sacrifice on their behalf.

But prior to that, Superman shows up and is willing to listen. It may not be a satisfactory resolution (no speeches from Superman, etc), but it is a resolution of the issue nonetheless, inasmuch as you can actually resolve an issue like that.

You can't legitimately resolve an issue like this once and for all anymore than you can realistically resolve the fact that some people are going to hate or fear Superman when they find out what he can do. It's an ongoing issue that the character and those in his world will have to deal with as long as he's around. As the film points out, every time he chooses to act or not act, there will be some kind of consequences. There will also always be unforeseen consequences. That's the point the film was trying to drive home. Neverending battle and all that.

 

[_Superman_]

Well Cavill has finally opened up about Justice League and the mustache in the latest issue of Empire.

 

[Da-Scribe]

I think he's hinting at the MoS sequel. We might just have our villain confirmed here...King Stache.

 

[Tra-El]

Good to see Henry opening up, being a good sport and giving us some insight on his experience. Henry seems dumbfounded but still has that sense or professionalism to put it behind him, especially with the "learning process" stuff. He's mentioned that a few times so he's aware things need to get better and can get better.

 

[idiot09]

Surprised HC is being so open about this, and happy he is too. It seems like none of the people involved are happy about what happened. Its very different from what happened after BvS for eg...anyway I'm glad the cast and crew are voicing their displeasure.

 

[GothamBat]

Am I reading the quote wrong or did he jokingly say his very first scene didn't have any mustache removal cg?

If so, that's pretty funny

 

[Tra-El]

MoS2 is definitely happening though and I can't wait for the official announcement. I'm going to be on cloud 10 when that time comes. I saw an interview on Twitter where a woman asked Henry what was going to happen and he said something along the lines of: "I can't say anything right now but there's a ton on the plate to potentially digest. It's just the matter of things getting greenlit soon" with a smile on his face.

MoS2 is coming.

 

[STARMAN]

I saw that snippet too before his charity run. I feel better about MOS 2 now than before.

 

[lukebrodyg]

Am I reading the quote wrong or did he jokingly say his very first scene didn't have any mustache removal cg?

If so, that's pretty funny

I think he was saying it was ridiculous to hide his character in the marketing and yet have him in literally the opening scene.

 

[Herolee10]

I think he was saying it was ridiculous to hide his character in the marketing and yet have him in literally the opening scene.

It made me so happy to hear that even Henry agreed with what I had been saying for nearly a year when it came to the marketing for this film.

I still remember when several posters had labeled me as a troll or as freaking delusional when it came to my concerns back then.

 

[Da-Scribe]

Henry also said it was important to maintain mystery. So there’s that.

 

[Black Narcissus]

MoS2 is definitely happening though and I can't wait for the official announcement. I'm going to be on cloud 10 when that time comes. I saw an interview on Twitter where a woman asked Henry what was going to happen and he said something along the lines of: "I can't say anything right now but there's a ton on the plate to potentially digest. It's just the matter of things getting greenlit soon" with a smile on his face.

MoS2 is coming.

 

[Herolee10]

Henry also said it was important to maintain mystery. So there’s that.

I know and I agree with that, which is why I didn't have much issues (later on at least) with the idea of Warner Bros not revealing too much of Superman's scenes in the promotional trailers. Of course, I don't think any of us could have imagined that the biggest reason why they were holding back on his footage was because they were trying to cover up his mustache from their extensive re-shoots.

But keeping him out of the posters, billboards, and other items was just plain stupid.

Hell, I still remember on how Henry had joined the group for the China Tour. The whole group was on stage and yet they refused to use any images of Superman in the background.

 

[Superchan]

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.

A global icon like superman and Wonderwoman (who is also iconic to a lesser extent) making more than then B listers like Cap and IM isn't exactly something that one should praise Warners for. Also IM was a beloved film that set the MCU in motion while MOS was....shall we be kind and say divisive so looking at the big pic IM was far more successful than MOS.


JL's (relatively) horrible opening was mostly due to to the pile of horse crud (BvS) that came before it. The film's subpar marketing didn't help things either but I truly doubt that superman not being there affected the outcome too much because the majority of the audience didn't like Snyder's version to begin with.
JL ending up as a major flop was thanks to BvS killing it's opening wknd momentum and the film's questionable quality.

 

[Micromind]

If the argument is that the 'build-up' to JL was not like how Marvel did, that is, they made a mistake by not having solo superhero movies before the team-up movie.

Then You cannot argue that not having Superman in advertisements didn't hurt Justice League movie, because Superman and Wonder Woman were the only characters that received solo movies before JL.

Absence of Superman did hurt JL.

 

[flickchick85]

LOTS of things hurt JL. The absence of Superman in the marketing was indeed one of many, but hardly the main thing, imo.

 

[Superchan]

If the argument is that the 'build-up' to JL was not like how Marvel did, that is, they made a mistake by not having solo superhero movies before the team-up movie.

Then You cannot argue that not having Superman in advertisements didn't hurt Justice League movie, because Superman and Wonder Woman were the only characters that received solo movies before JL.

Absence of Superman did hurt JL.

Again IMO JL's weak opening was mostly due to the damage that BvS did to the DCEU's brand and if superman's absence did any damage then it was minuscule at best. Very few actually liked snyder's interpretation of superman and even fewer liked (or cared about) his death.
In any case I'm glad that snyder's DCEU failed miserably and now that he's gone hopefully things will actually improve.

 

[_Superman_]

Surprised HC is being so open about this, and happy he is too. It seems like none of the people involved are happy about what happened. Its very different from what happened after BvS for eg...anyway I'm glad the cast and crew are voicing their displeasure.

If you go by all the reports none of the cast and crew were happy with happened to Justice League. They were happy with the movie they filmed before all the interference. Just like how they were happy with Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice UC and not the TC. It just goes to show you how they truly loved and believed in the direction the series was going and how upset they were when it messed with.