BvS Is anyone else not excited about Superman and Batman? I feel nothing but dread. - Part 2

[LaughingMage]

I might add, I love MOS for it's modern, brave thinking and ethos of giving us a Superman for this era and a 'grown up' balance.

I find this interesting because when I saw MOS I really didn't see anything brave or "grown up". In fact, I personally found the tropes to be rather juvenile and conflicted. IMHO, everyhting seemed needlessly over the top which burried every attempt at serious emotion. The Pa Kent death scene being the worst offender when it comes to that. In fact, that's the scene that broke the camel's back at least form me when it comes to my opinion of MOS

 

[Metropolis_Man]

Wow, very well said Mandon Knight. If there were any way for me to describe how I feel about both movies I'd use your exact statement above.

 

[The Endless]

I FEEL NOTHING BUT BREAD!!!!!

 

[The Batman]

Absolutely, and I feel the same way about Batman 89.

Agreed.

Yep. A lot of people like to harp on at how cheesy it is, which makes me realise on a pure storytelling level, it's hard to argue against it being the definitive superman cinematic tale when all you have it nitpicks against the dated 70's elements.

I love that convo between Chris Nolan and Dick Donner, in which Chris just basically praises STM for 20 minutes and explains how he launched his bat-series off the framework of STM.

It really says something when guys like Nolan, Singer, and Raimi all admit to being heavily influenced by Donner when they made their CBM's.

Also, There are plenty of movies that I loved as a child, but dislike now.

The "its nostalgia" excuse is a weak argument. The people who make that argument don't seem to understand that just because they don't like STM, there isn't always some underlying reasoning like "nostalgia" for people who do.

 

[Lencho01]

If there's a film/show out their with the same character that handled some aspect better, comparisons are always going to be made. I've compared MOS to Smallville. I mean, I've even compared ASM to the Spectacular Spidey toon.

 

[The Batman]

Question: For those disappointed with MOS and the Snyderverse so far, what would it take for you to enjoy Snyder's sequel?

 

[Reiter]

Question: For those disappointed with MOS and the Snyderverse so far, what would it take for you to enjoy Snyder's sequel?

I am not horribly disappointed but am not loving it either. So for me:

1. better writing
2. less dark filters and desaturation.
3. less skulls, grey dust and general grimdark
4. more showing of development, less getting preached on => less Goyerisms
5. less zoom in camera work as if it was Cloverfield
6. some humor and comic relief
7. superman not having a stick up his ass and seeing him smile and generally lighten up the place with his presence.
8. hopefully not TDKR batman or other Millerisms. More Morrison and Waid.
9. a better director who can actually tell a story, not just shoot action scenes. The Winter Soldier director, whoever that was. Get him.

 

[Lighthouse]

Question: For those disappointed with MOS and the Snyderverse so far, what would it take for you to enjoy Snyder's sequel?

Consistency with it's themes and messages. Less hamfisted and more meaningful dialogue.(It only occurs to me on repeat viewings just how empty Pa Kent's speeches are to Clark, not including contradictory.) Most importantly, a better balance between playful and serious. Marvel is able to pull this off brilliantly with it's films, even if they don't turn out good. DC films take themselves so goddamn seriously.

Oh, and address, really address the magnitude of destruction in Metropolis. If Superman had just had a moment to contemplate how awful everything was after the battle, I might have been less bothered. Instead, he kisses Lois and they trade romantic banter. It's jarring how out of touch that scene is.

 

[Boy Scout]

1. better writing
2. less dark filters and desaturation.
4. more showing of development, less getting preached on => less Goyerisms
6. some humor and comic relief
7. superman not having a stick up his ass and seeing him smile and generally lighten up the place with his presence.
8. hopefully not TDKR batman or other Millerisms. More Morrison and Waid.

Consistency with it's themes and messages. Less hamfisted and more meaningful dialogue.(It only occurs to me on repeat viewings just how empty Pa Kent's speeches are to Clark, not including contradictory.) Most importantly, a better balance between playful and serious. Marvel is able to pull this off brilliantly with it's films, even if they don't turn out good. DC films take themselves so goddamn seriously.

 

[matt47]

May I ask how Jonathon's speeches are empty and contradicting?
and I felt like there were a few comedic moments..
Like when that trucker tries to push Clark, Clark destroying his truck (Yeah sure it wasn't pure Superman but come on, are you going to tell me you've never lost your temper and broken or punched something?), "Careful with those, they're heavy, "Measuring *****" etc. They were subtle but they were there.

 

[Reiter]

May I ask how Jonathon's speeches are empty and contradicting?
and I felt like there were a few comedic moments..
Like when that trucker tries to push Clark, Clark destroying his truck (Yeah sure it wasn't pure Superman but come on, are you going to tell me you've never lost your temper and broken or punched something?), "Careful with those, they're heavy, "Measuring *****" etc. They were subtle but they were there.

I didnt find it funny, nor an act that superman would do. I especially didnt find it funny because all the flashbacks that we have are miserable memories of his past suffering. Suffering at school, suffering at that bar, suffering when his powers came on, suffering when he saved the kids from drowning and that caused an incident, etc.

It would have been nice to see that loving, apple-pie american upbringing that made him a good man. And i'm not even american when i ask this. Smallville was a piece of crap (and god knows why i stuck with it for half its seasons) but it had the best Jonathan and Martha. When you watched that Jonathan you didnt wonder why his son would end up a hero.

 

[matt47]

I didnt find it funny, nor an act that superman would do. I especially didnt find it funny because all the flashbacks that we have are miserable memories of his past suffering. Suffering at school, suffering at that bar, suffering when his powers came on, suffering when he saved the kids from drowning and that caused an incident, etc.

It would have been nice to see that loving, apple-pie american upbringing that made him a good man. And i'm not even american when i ask this. Smallville was a piece of crap (and god knows why i stuck with it for half its seasons) but it had the best Jonathan and Martha. When you watched that Jonathan you didnt wonder why his son would end up a hero.

You're right, it wasn't an act that Superman would do, but, he wasn't Superman yet, he has a confused man that is trying to find out where he came from, again, have you ever lost control of your emotions?

Those flashbacks were needed to push the story forward and show you what he went through. I felt like the last flashback of young Clark running on his farm playing with his dog while his parents were doing chores was a "apple-pie American" scene.

 

[Boy Scout]

MOS' Jonathan is easily the worst version of the character I've ever seen. He was consistently negative, gave terrible advice, and never expressed any interest in instilling in Clark any feelings towards the human race other than fear and mistrust. I truly believe that Clark became Superman in spite of him, rather than because of him, and I absolutely cannot believe that anyone thinks an acceptable answer to the question of whether or not Clark should have allowed a bus full of children to drown to death is "Maybe." That's not an example of how a simple, yet conflicted father would handle such a delicate situation; that's how a ****ing ******* would handle it. God, I hate this Jonathan.

And shout out to Kevin Costner for being possibly the dryest actor out of the entire cast.

 

[matt47]

It's because he had no clue what he was doing, he even says that he's been making it up as he goes along, I think in that "maybe'' scene he was just thinking about Clarks safety.
and of course he told Clark that people would fear him! It was the truth! If all his life he told Clark, "When you decide to tell the world your an Alien that can kill them all with your eyes I'm sure they'll welcome you with open arms" then Clark goes off and told everyone I think the government would take him away and try to do test on him.
Look at how MoS played out, the world found out about him then everyone wants him to get the F off their planet.
I think Clark became Superman because his father was realistic with him, not telling him that everything would be alright.

 

[georgec]

 

[DA_Champion]

MOS' Jonathan is easily the worst version of the character I've ever seen. He was consistently negative, gave terrible advice, and never expressed any interest in instilling in Clark any feelings towards the human race other than fear and mistrust. I truly believe that Clark became Superman in spite of him, rather than because of him, and I absolutely cannot believe that anyone thinks an acceptable answer to the question of whether or not Clark should have allowed a bus full of children to drown to death is "Maybe." That's not an example of how a simple, yet conflicted father would handle such a delicate situation; that's how a ****ing ******* would handle it. God, I hate this Jonathan.

And shout out to Kevin Costner for being possibly the dryest actor out of the entire cast.

I heard the "maybe" line in one of the previews and I immediately knew that I would like the movie. It symbolised that the movie would take a realistic approach where the character is being challenged rather than being granted automatic victories.

I think it's how a loving father would handle it in the real world. People are selfish when it comes to their kids and don't always know all the answers.

 

[Lencho01]

I think within the context of the film, MOS Pa Kent is why MOS Superman sucks.

 

[Mysteryman]

I FEEL NOTHING BUT BREAD!!!!!

Try Sprouted Rye Bread, its supposed to be good for you .

 

[Lencho01]

Question: For those disappointed with MOS and the Snyderverse so far, what would it take for you to enjoy Snyder's sequel?

Enjoy the sequel on its own merits? Pretty much the opposite of MOS. But, I don't expect that to happen. t:

As I've said before, much like SR, I'm ready for the next new Superman since I don't care for the foundation they've built him on. Any excitement I have for the sequel is just surface level stuff.

 

[dnno1]

MOS' Jonathan is easily the worst version of the character I've ever seen. He was consistently negative, gave terrible advice, and never expressed any interest in instilling in Clark any feelings towards the human race other than fear and mistrust. I truly believe that Clark became Superman in spite of him, rather than because of him, and I absolutely cannot believe that anyone thinks an acceptable answer to the question of whether or not Clark should have allowed a bus full of children to drown to death is "Maybe." That's not an example of how a simple, yet conflicted father would handle such a delicate situation; that's how a ****ing ******* would handle it. God, I hate this Jonathan.

And shout out to Kevin Costner for being possibly the dryest actor out of the entire cast.

Isn't that what one sect of the American population is trying to instill (fear and mistrust of our government)? The grounded truth of the matter is that if the world knew who the young Clark really was, they would thave taken him away for experimentation, and probably put thw Kents in jail for harboring an alien that might have posed a threat to society. All I can think of right now is this scene form a popular film in the 1980's:
[Yt]ACVup4Bqhfw[/MEDIA]

Why wouldn't they impose their fear on young Clark to suppress his abilities?

 

[Reiter]

You're right, it wasn't an act that Superman would do, but, he wasn't Superman yet,

That's such a lame excuse. So he had to get lectured by his spacedad and put on a kryptonian suit to become a good man? Clark is supposed to be a good man even from his childhood. He becomes Superman because he's a good man, not the other way around.

he has a confused man that is trying to find out where he came from,

Irrelevant. A good man is a good man.

again, have you ever lost control of your emotions?

Yes, but that was the typical, cliche scene that every god damn superhero has where some *****e doesnt know who he is and the hero is trying to control himself. We've seen it with Spiderman, Wolverine, Superman and everyone else about a billion times.

The thing is that this isnt Wolverine. He is Superman. He shouldnt even have gotten mad, he should have just smirked knowing he could have punched the guy to ketchup and said something disarmingly clever.

Those flashbacks were needed to push the story forward and show you what he went through.

I know, i know. But that's the Goyer way of doing character development.
Character A gets into hamfisted situation B and hears lecture C, so he matures to D.

They forgot that Superman doesnt have a scarred psych. He's had the childhood every kid would dream of and now he's trying to share.

I felt like the last flashback of young Clark running on his farm playing with his dog while his parents were doing chores was a "apple-pie American" scene.

That one was a great scene, i'll give you that.

 

[Jekecy]

Enjoy the sequel on its own merits? Pretty much the opposite of MOS. But, I don't expect that to happen. t:

As I've said before, much like SR, I'm ready for the next new Superman since I don't care for the foundation they've built him on. Any excitement I have for the sequel is just surface level stuff.

Is that more to do with the film or actual characterization? I feel like even with some of the more controversial elements of MOS, Superman can still come off relatively unscathed going into the next one. They're ripe for a new chapter and I don't think much of the previous baggage will have any lasting effect on his presentation for sequels.

 

[Reiter]

MOS' Jonathan is easily the worst version of the character I've ever seen. He was consistently negative, gave terrible advice, and never expressed any interest in instilling in Clark any feelings towards the human race other than fear and mistrust. I truly believe that Clark became Superman in spite of him, rather than because of him, and I absolutely cannot believe that anyone thinks an acceptable answer to the question of whether or not Clark should have allowed a bus full of children to drown to death is "Maybe." That's not an example of how a simple, yet conflicted father would handle such a delicate situation; that's how a ****ing ******* would handle it. God, I hate this Jonathan.

And shout out to Kevin Costner for being possibly the dryest actor out of the entire cast.

Would this Jonathan ever say "maybe"?

 

[Lencho01]

Is that more to do with the film or actual characterization? I feel like even with some of the more controversial elements of MOS, Superman can still come off relatively unscathed going into the next one. They're ripe for a new chapter and I don't think much of the previous baggage will have any lasting effect on his presentation for sequels.

Has to do with both.

 

[DA_Champion]

Would this Jonathan ever say "maybe"?

That's a different take. Smallville's Pa Kent was meant to be the embodiment of platitudes, a lot of people found him annoying for that reason.