BvS Henry Cavill IS Superman - - - - - - - - - - - Part 25

[Baneis8feettall]

Superman pulling the tanker was a great shot.

Why it looks so fake?

 

[BH/HHH]

Why it looks so fake?

Aura borealis just looks like that

 

[AndrewGilkison]

The movie got so bogged down in trying to convey the weight and responsibility of Superman being Superman and trying to get Batman and Superman to fight each other that it forgot that there is fun to be had in Superman being Superman. The movie needed more scenes like that one scene in Man of Steel where Clark is flying for the first time and you see how much he's enjoying it. While being Superman is hard it shouldn't be a joyless life.

The film also focuses so much on beating up on Superman throughout the movie that it forgets to build him back up. That is why the ending doesn't have the emotional punch that it should have, because the movie doesn't really give us a reason to care about Superman as a character or get behind him (and actually goes out of its way to give us reasons NOT to root for Superman most of the movie).

 

[Baneis8feettall]

Aura borealis just looks like that

I ment Cavill & ship.

 

[Vaibow]

There are people on that tanker.

This iteration is just too focused on the 'moral dilemma of a god', it doesn't know or care to depict one who accepts their place in the world.

i did not even realize that.... had we seen a close up of the people on, the context would have made a lot more sense.

 

[BH/HHH]

I ment Cavill & ship.

Well Cavill's actually stood there so he's not fake, the ship is obviously CGI but my point was if you look at photos of Aura borealis it makes everything around it look fake so its actually an image of what it would most likely look like.

 

[Loki882]

The Aura borealis looks fine, quite nice even. But oh my lord is that some BAD CGI with the ship/ocean/rest of the background.

 

[Loki882]

I thought the montage was beautiful in terms of message and imagery, but I still wish we could see a couple rescue scenes in which supes has actual dialogue with people. Not a whole speech or anything, but a short exchange perhaps to reassure someone.



He came off more oblivious than jerkish in that scene, IMO. He just turns up and admonishes batman, but doesn't have the sense to look at what he actually flew into, which is a skirmish over a substance that could kill him.



That scene was amazing. Perfectly acted by Cavill.

See for me it came across as, obligation. Like Snyder threw in some shots of Supes saving le not because he wanted to, but because he felt like he HAD to. Same with Supes, he comes across as doing it out of obligation, not because he truly enjoys helping people. And the movie makes the repeated mistake or not letting him speak or defend himself when it should.

And I don't blame Henry, he did as good a job as possible given the sub-par material that he had to work with.

 

[MrsKent26]

See for me it came across as, obligation. Like Snyder threw in some shots of Supes saving le not because he wanted to, but because he felt like he HAD to. Same with Supes, he comes across as doing it out of obligation, not because he truly enjoys helping people. And the movie makes the repeated mistake or not letting him speak or defend himself when it should.

And I don't blame Henry, he did as good a job as possible given the sub-par material that he had to work with.

I didn't really get that sense of obligation from the montage, but I did feel it from Superman at other points. The montage just made me wish Snyder/Terrio/whoever could write some dialogue for superman during these scenes, which would go a long way to show that he enjoys what he does. He was just so...passive most of the time and I don't think a position like Superman (savior of Earth, etc) is something that can be done passively.

 

[Matt.S99]

I personally found this arc for Superman happened too early. It felt more like an arc that should happen in the "middle" of the cinematic universe.
We are basically just being introduced to this character. His story and especially his death happened way too soon, in my opinion.

 

[Rapunzel]

^ Mrs. K, I think you're dead on about the passivity issue. And I think it's a lesson Clark learns. Hence the big active decision to

Spoiler

give up his life.

 

[phillyboy]

I absolutely hate the direction they've taken for Superman. He is the eternal optimist, a beacon of hope. Truth, justice & the American way. I read a comment that Snyder doesn't know how to portray a character like that in this day & age. The answer- Captain America. Steve Rogers is that eternal optimist, even when he is questioning his morals & what he believes in. For example- his speech at the end of Winter Soldier, when mentioning he'd be willing to lay down his life for what is right "but I'm willing to bet I'm not the only one.

As for Ma Kent. Dang. No wonder Clark is so damn depressing- "you don't owe this world a thing". Really? I guess we were spoiled with his inspirational parents from Smallville (tv show). While I'm at it, another this that grind my gears- the knightmare sequence. We are lead to believe this is a potential future. Maybe I'm getting old & comics aren't what they used to be- but I find it hard to believe Superman would turn into a murderous, pyschopathic dictator just because Lois Lane died. Is he that temperamental? It's one thing to morn or be pissed, but to want the see the world burn? I would like to think superman is above that. Yes, he turned back time in the Donner movie because of Lois, but that's a little different to going on a killing spree. He didn't even kill Luthor, who caused it.

This was Snyders perfect opportunity, in a world full of darkness to have a character that is the light. Like a certain MCU character said, with everything that's going on in the world "maybe we need some old fashioned". Instead, he thought f@#* it, I'll just turn him into batman- too hard to give us a hero we aspire to be like, despite Marvel producing 4 movies with said character (note: this isn't a marvel vs dc rant. Hell, I even think Brandon Routh's superman was a better portrayal- not perfect, but better).

End of rant.

 

[Plaidchuck]

Actually one of the most recent successful comics by DC is an elseworld.where Superman becomes a dictator when the joker.kills Lois Lane.

 

[Loki882]

Yeah trying to

Spoiler

Cram Death of Superman into the last act of an already overstuffed film, with a Superman who already lacks concrete characterization, was a really bad move. It didn't have NEARLY the effect that it should have.

We also could have had an interesting ideological debate with Sen. Holly Hunter (probably the best written character in the movie BTW), but Snyder and co don't let him say anything there (despite it being the perfect time for freaking Superman to give a speech/defend himself and his POV). And then she gets blown up, what a waste of potential.

 

[Wildcard]

Well, again, the point there was that Superman handled nothing like Superman should. He wasn't meant to give some impactful speech. That's not really the point of the scene, especially when you see him later express his regret to Lois for not noticing the whole situation wasn't right.

I do like that he doesn't just start off perfect, that there's some inner conflict & his role is more a burden than it is natural at this point.

So I think when he comes back he'll now handle instances like that a lot better.

 

[Verick808]

I absolutely hate the direction they've taken for Superman. He is the eternal optimist, a beacon of hope. Truth, justice & the American way. I read a comment that Snyder doesn't know how to portray a character like that in this day & age. The answer- Captain America. Steve Rogers is that eternal optimist, even when he is questioning his morals & what he believes in. For example- his speech at the end of Winter Soldier, when mentioning he'd be willing to lay down his life for what is right "but I'm willing to bet I'm not the only one.

As for Ma Kent. Dang. No wonder Clark is so damn depressing- "you don't owe this world a thing". Really? I guess we were spoiled with his inspirational parents from Smallville (tv show). While I'm at it, another this that grind my gears- the knightmare sequence. We are lead to believe this is a potential future. Maybe I'm getting old & comics aren't what they used to be- but I find it hard to believe Superman would turn into a murderous, pyschopathic dictator just because Lois Lane died. Is he that temperamental? It's one thing to morn or be pissed, but to want the see the world burn? I would like to think superman is above that. Yes, he turned back time in the Donner movie because of Lois, but that's a little different to going on a killing spree. He didn't even kill Luthor, who caused it.

This was Snyders perfect opportunity, in a world full of darkness to have a character that is the light. Like a certain MCU character said, with everything that's going on in the world "maybe we need some old fashioned". Instead, he thought f@#* it, I'll just turn him into batman- too hard to give us a hero we aspire to be like, despite Marvel producing 4 movies with said character (note: this isn't a marvel vs dc rant. Hell, I even think Brandon Routh's superman was a better portrayal- not perfect, but better).

End of rant.

Superman was shown as a hero you can aspire to be. He tried to do the right thing at every turn. He was mocked for it. Feared for it. Hated for it.

Spoiler

Ultimately, he died doing it.

And Clark's parents in smallville weren't perfect either. They didn't want him putting himself in so much danger all the time. Protecting Clark's secret was one of Jonathan Kent's highest priorities. May or may not sound familiar to you.

 

[Rapunzel]

Lol at Superman is an eternal optimist. Really? There's a zillion depictions of Superman beaten down by the evils of the world. Injustice Superman, Justice Lord Superman, even the Donner Superman was an a-hole who felt sex was more important than protecting the human race, and abandoned humanity for years.

This Superman is totally optimistic. If he wasn't, he

Spoiler

wouldn't have faced the senate (he had to optimistically think it would be a good idea). Nor would he have spared Lex (twice), tried to reason with Bruce, and believed in Bruce's change of heart and trusted him to save Martha. He also wouldn't have accepted WW's help as a stranger, or decided that his world was good enough to be worth dying for.

If you think this Supes wasn't optimistic, you need to look up the word.

 

[Rapunzel]

Superman was shown as a hero you can aspire to be. He tried to do the right thing at every turn. He was mocked for it. Feared for it. Hated for it.

Spoiler

Ultimately, he died doing it.

And Clark's parents in smallville weren't perfect either. They didn't want him putting himself in so much danger all the time. Protecting Clark's secret was one of Jonathan Kent's highest priorities. May or may not sound familiar to you.

You know what? I think it's kinda genius that these Kents are so paranoid and sorta selfish. It shows how innate Superman's goodness is. He doesn't need to be raised by perfect parents-- he is Superman naturally. Think about it-- Clark's alturism, especially as a kid, is all the more impressive considering his parents have raised him to be scared.

 

[Bruce Malone]

I personally found this arc for Superman happened too early. It felt more like an arc that should happen in the "middle" of the cinematic universe.
We are basically just being introduced to this character. His story and especially his death happened way too soon, in my opinion.

Everyone did.

He had one film where it took more than half of the film to become Superman and he's already "killed off" in the next film.

He needed his "middle film".

 

[Verick808]

Everyone did.

He had one film where it took more than half of the film to become Superman and he's already "killed off" in the next film.

He needed his "middle film".

I don't mind that he died here. Just that it was rushed and Wonder Woman was crammed in there. I understand why they did it, didn't make it a better movie though. From what I know she was originally supposed to be a cameo but her role was extended.
It wasn't so much the film had too many characters so much as the story Snyder wanted to tell couldn't be told with this many characters. Snyder wanted to go deep into the characters and he just didn't have the time for it because he had to give Lois something to do in the film, had to lay the background for the Justice League, needed to fit Wonder Woman some place into the film. Then he needed Lex to do Lex things. It was too much.
Cut everything involving Lois and Africa. It was pointless. Sometimes it's okay for a.woman to just be the love interest. Remove Wonder Woman. I know she was a highlight but she was a highlight because so much of the film sucked. If they really wanted her in they should have opted for an after credits scene. No shame in that.
With all that cut we should have gotten more dialogue between Batman and Superman. Both before and after the fight. A less convoluted battle between Superman and Doomsday. It was sloppy and covered up what was supposed to be a defining moment for Clark. In the comics he was already an icon when he died beloved by almost the entire country. The film was supposed to use Superman's sacrifice as both an inspirational moment and a moment of personal growth for Superman. It was supposed to pretty much be the moment when Superman matured into a more confident and at peace Superman. But it just didn't come through. It was buried beneath cgi and Christ imagery. It was there, just not as impactful as it needed to be.

 

[MrsKent26]

^ Mrs. K, I think you're dead on about the passivity issue. And I think it's a lesson Clark learns. Hence the big active decision to

Spoiler

give up his life.

As selfless as that was, it would have been much more effective had we known superman better by witnessing him practice proactive actions before that moment.

Actually one of the most recent successful comics by DC is an elseworld.where Superman becomes a dictator when the joker.kills Lois Lane.

I'm nervous that they're going to adapt that terrible story in some way for JL.

 

[Rapunzel]

^Yeah, I'm worried about them going the injustice route too....if that's the plan, then WB should definitely force a change.

 

[Loki882]

The thing is, I thought that MOS was supposed to be about "him becoming Superman?" It's part of the reason why I liked it, it's basically Superman Begins. But now apparently, we needed a SECOND film to do that as well, and I doubt if he'll be fully-formed even in JL.

So are we going to get to see him actually, you know, BE SUPERMAN at some point? Because Henry deserves it and I'd love to see him get a shot at playing that character.

 

[Rapunzel]

I think he decided to go with a birth, death, resurrection cycle....to emphasize the Jesus analogy. If that holds, he should be the triumphant savior in JL.

 

[Sawyer]

The thing is, I thought that MOS was supposed to be about "him becoming Superman?" It's part of the reason why I liked it, it's basically Superman Begins. But now apparently, we needed a SECOND film to do that as well, and I doubt if he'll be fully-formed even in JL.

So are we going to get to see him actually, you know, BE SUPERMAN at some point? Because Henry deserves it and I'd love to see him get a shot at playing that character.

Pre- actually watching BVS, I liked the idea of them addressing what went on with all the destruction at the end of MOS and using that as a jumping off point for a conflict with Batman, but seeing the end result of them just f***ing dwelling on anything and everything he does really put me off it. I honestly pray that JL or Affleck's solo Bat-film avoid even touching on that character killing criminals in BVS at all. Just make him not kill in the future, it doesn't need to actually be touched on.

And my hope is that post-death and resurrection Superman is fully-formed Supes. No dwelling, no detachment, less introspective behavior.