Is Superman getting the shaft in "Justice League"? - Part 2

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]528465[/split]

 

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]526871[/split]

 

[Flint Marko]

Words. Dialogue. All hog-wash criticisms when it comes to missing the point of BvS. Superman was silenced by Lex Luthor and by the Bat vigilante and to some degree, the world media. It's setting up for more interesting plot points to what is meant to be a connected universe. Fact of the matter is, a character like Superman is much more than words or dialogue. His presence alone tells a story. A person or character's energy can say a lot and that always rung true to me for Superman. He doesn't have to say much, but his presence is always felt. Though Clark was meant to be silenced by VILLAINY and antagonist attacks, I still felt the weight of the world on his shoulders when presented on-screen. That counts for something. When Kal walked in the courtroom in BvS, I was literally holding my breath. Good storytelling without unneeded dialogue 101. The aurora of Superman himself brought the goods. That's not to say I crave more for Superman. God knows I TRULY do, but that's coming, I'm sure of but when it comes to the actual FILM and storytelling in itself, for me as a fan, it worked. I didn't have to waste my time and actually count Henry's line's to prove a point.

Oh boy, another "you missed teh point of BvS" post. I didn't miss the point of BVS, I'm saying that I find it incredibly stupid. He was silenced by the film makers to tell a ridiculous story that could've been easily solved had characters acted natural and spoke to one another. But we can't have that, we need to contrive the titular fight!
"Hogwash criticism". Just because you don't agree with a criticism doesn't mean it's hogwash. You understand that, right?

 

[Tra-El]

Oh boy, another "you missed teh point of BvS" post. "Hogwash criticism". Just because you don't agree with a criticism doesn't mean it's hogwash. You understand that, right?

Lets not turn this into sensitive fanboy disrespect. I respect your and everyone else's opinion. Without it, there's no debate. I'm just expressing how I see things. That's the only thing I can control. As I said, the way I see it, I think it's a hogwash point of view judging by how I interpreted the film and the stipulation that surrounded things. Does it make your words hogwash? No and I didn't mean for things to come off in that way. I respect your opinion so don't let these forms of expressions and terms bother you.

 

[Tra-El]

He was silenced by the film makers to tell a ridiculous story that could've been easily solved had characters acted natural and spoke to one another. But we can't have that, we need to contrive the titular fight!

That's all gravy and potatoes but the two hero's weren't the only thing that existed in this film. Villains exist in superhero films and like a wise man once said "The hero is only as good as the villain." Point is, the characters (especially Superman) tried to act natural and tried to speak to the other. Too bad corruption by an another character prevented that from happening "naturally" which again, was one of the points of the film that happened for a storytelling reason. You can hate it and think it's stupid all you want but from a creative and film making point of view, the things you describe as being easy to resolve was made difficult for the sole purpose of creating drama, tension and conflict. It's not supposed to be as cut and dry black and white as some would have liked it. But we're digressing.

 

[The Batman]

Snyder and co. took a character that a lot of people assume is boring and outdated and chose to depict him as an icon, a diety to endlessly drone on about, than an actual character and in doing so failed to overcome that misconception. Superman isn't boring, but Snyder's Superman is.

This.

There is nothing, beyond personal anecdotes, that suggests Snyder has somehow increased Superman's level of popularity. The way I see it, he's pretty much had the same level of popularity he's had for years now. Yet another mediocre treatment of the character yielding the same kind of results. The character who was once DC's top man is still taking a backseat to Batman. The character is still coasting on past glories, which is the only reason why Snyder's take is even being talked about among fans.

 

[misslane38]

See, what I think is irrelevant. I'm talking about how the audience sees this Superman. You may see things in the Snyder Superman, and indeed they might be there for you if you're willing to invest the time and effort to see them, but the general audience isn't. To them, Superman did not come across well in BvS, and the idea that people left that movie by and large thinking that Superman had been some kind of beacon of hope is just not true. That's the issue with what Batfleck is saying in the trailer. It won't be what most people remember from BvS.

It seems like you didn't read my post. I already addressed your issues or concerns with audience response. I am not arguing with you about whether the audience universally responded to this Superman or whether he is seen as a beacon of hope. My post wasn't about that at all. What I asked you is to consider why there is a disconnect. Why is hope so poorly understood and so difficult to recognize?

Superman gave Batman hope. The film is literally bookended with Bruce's fall into despair and his rise into hope. All due to Superman. And, look, I get the audience didn't connect with that arc or how that arc was magnified over a billion fold in the public after he died, but I am not asking you to believe or accept audiences left the theater inspired.

I am asking you to think about why it is easier to see a version of Superman like Reeve's Superman, who doesn't make anyone better in his first two films, as more of an example of Bruce's statement in the trailer than a Superman who literally had that effect on the man saying the words.

They remember Superman flying a man through a brick wall with a sneer on his face. They remember him with red eyes blazing in the darkness with rain pouring down. They remember him saying that Superman was never real. They remember him being not really that far away from Batman in character and tone. The stuff you talk about - the positive stuff, is lost to the GA because it takes a back seat to the maudlin tone and grimdark stuff that is front and centre throughout.

And I think that is an incredibly sad statement about modern audiences rather than Snyder's films or his Superman. Hope isn't light that shines in the brightest day or when the tone of our lives is positive. Hope stands out because it exists within darkness. As Diana said in Wonder Woman, hope is the light within the darkness. A beacon is a lighthouse on a dark shore on a stormy evening. It isn't a blazing fire on a sunny day.

For every dark moment for Superman, there was a light one to balance it out. So ask yourself why the darkness weighs heavier than the light for you and others. Why remember the sneer at a terrorist warlord as more damning than the fist Superman stopped from hitting Lex? Why remember the red eyes in the rain more than the warm smile among a forgotten community in Mexico? Why remember Superman at his lowest moment (a moment just like Diana's after killing Ludendorff) more than the moment he returns to face the nightmares and choose Earth as his world by sacrificing his life for it?

I don't think it's Superman who is the problem when one chooses to let the darkness consume the light.

I totally get you can read a lot into the characterisation than the general audience doesn't, and that's cool. There's a lot of interesting stuff to dissect. But it doesn't matter, not really. Not when you're talking about the reception to the movie and character as a whole. That's Snyder's error - he tries to deconstruct and analyse, and in doing so, he alienates the general audience.

I think the general audience shouldn't be coddled but challenged. Storytelling shouldn't be a passive experience in which one is spoonfed the status quo of sentimentality.

I hope JL presents is with a Superman people can love - because he should be loved. At the moment, that love just does not exist for Cavill's Superman, and that's a crying shame in my book.

It is a shame but for different reasons.

There is nothing, beyond personal anecdotes, that suggests Snyder has somehow increased Superman's level of popularity. The way I see it, he's pretty much had the same level of popularity he's had for years now. Yet another mediocre treatment of the character yielding the same kind of results. The character who was once DC's top man is still taking a backseat to Batman. The character is still coasting on past glories, which is the only reason why Snyder's take is even being talked about among fans.

I realize this conversation has moved in a slightly different direction, but even the hint that somehow popularity is an indicator of whether or not a character is a "beacon of hope" does not sit well with me. Snyder failing to make Superman popular really doesn't have anything to do with whether he's a beacon of hope, especially for the bullied, the lost, or those who are struggling with despair. As someone who is aware of the DCEU fandom for this character, I can assure you he means a lot to women, people of color, the developmentally different, the mentally ill, and the marginalized. You know, the sort of people who aren't "popular" and who are minorities each in their own way. That isn't to say DCEU Superman is a unanimous favorite among these groups, but it has been my experience that the fandom for this character is not made up of those one might consider the majority or the privileged.

 

[The Batman]

I realize this conversation has moved in a slightly different direction, but even the hint that somehow popularity is an indicator of whether or not a character is a "beacon of hope" does not sit well with me.

I mean...good for you, I guess. Maybe you should take it up with someone who's actually expressed that idea.

 

[idiot09]

And I think that is an incredibly sad statement about modern audiences rather than Snyder's films or his Superman. Hope isn't light that shines in the brightest day or when the tone of our lives is positive. Hope stands out because it exists within darkness. As Diana said in Wonder Woman, hope is the light within the darkness. A beacon is a lighthouse on a dark shore on a stormy evening. It isn't a blazing fire on a sunny day.

For every dark moment for Superman, there was a light one to balance it out. So ask yourself why the darkness weighs heavier than the light for you and others. Why remember the sneer at a terrorist warlord as more damning than the fist Superman stopped from hitting Lex? Why remember the red eyes in the rain more than the warm smile among a forgotten community in Mexico? Why remember Superman at his lowest moment (a moment just like Diana's after killing Ludendorff) more than the moment he returns to face the nightmares and choose Earth as his world by sacrificing his life for it?

I don't think it's Superman who is the problem when one chooses to let the darkness consume the light.
.

Incredibly well said.

 

[misslane38]

I mean...good for you, I guess. Maybe you should take it up with someone who's actually expressed that idea.

This whole conversation exists because it was argued audience response is the reason why the "beacon of hope" line from Bruce doesn't work.

 

[Herolee10]

The one thing that I will personally never understand is why some people are okay with superman having very little to say in the films that he appears in and yet It's okay for other heroes (Captain America, Wonder Woman, Batman, etc) to have plenty of dialogue to choose from.

I mean there are a lot of double standards that goes on when it comes to his character in general. Showing him in any way for this film would be considered as a big mistake on the studio's part from a lot of people's POV and yet characters likes Jack Sparrow are allowed to be prominently featured and promoted in their returning film's after they were seemingly killed off in the previous installment. Heck, Darth Vader was featured more prominently in the promotion for Rogue One and he was more of a special cameo if anything in that film.

For all of the DCEU's efforts in presenting their take on Superman, I'm willing to bet that if you were to do a general survey of who fans and the general audiences liked and preferred when it came to our current batch of cinematic superheroes, Superman would rank under characters who he was originally popular over a decade ago.

Also, going back to dialogue, if Superman had so little to say in BvS (a film where he was featured as one of its lead protagonists) then he will most likely be a mute in this film where his screen time is significantly reduced.

 

[FunkMiller]

I think the general audience shouldn't be coddled but challenged. Storytelling shouldn't be a passive experience in which one is spoonfed the status quo of sentimentality.

I agree wholeheartedly with you here. Where we diverge is you think Zack Snyder is good at doing this, whereas I do not. You can only challenge an audience by clearly defining what that challenge is. If Zack Snyder has a weakness it's in his inability to be clear about his storytelling intentions. Hence why you need a lot of paragraphs to dissect his work in order to explain and discuss what those challenging themes are. The best filmmakers are the ones who can challenge an audience in as clear and concise a manner as possible. The ability to convey complex themes and ideas in the prism of a two hour movie in a way that will engage the audience is the mark of an auteur. Snyder fails utterly (IMO) in doing this. He over complicates and fudges his messages and meanings in overwrought dialogue, poor story structure and CGI frippery. I truly believe there is a very clever filmmaker in their somewhere - I just think he needs to get out of his own way a little and show more than tell.

...wow, that went off topic didn't it?

 

[misslane38]

Incredibly well said.

Thank you. You know, I'd like to think Diana would agree with me:

I glimpsed the darkness that lives within their light. I learned that inside every one of them, there will always be both. The choice each must make for themselves - something no hero will ever defeat.

No hero has the power to make someone choose light over dark. So if Superman, like all men...like Steve, has this same mix of light and dark, then I wonder why it's so hard to choose light? Why let a character's lowest moments define him rather than how he finds his way out of them? Why ignore the people whose lives he's changed for the better in favor of aligning oneself with the voices of the cynics and the critics in the film? Choose love. It's what Superman would do. It's what I try to do.

 

[misslane38]

I agree wholeheartedly with you here. Where we diverge is you think Zack Snyder is good at doing this, whereas I do not. You can only challenge an audience by clearly defining what that challenge is. If Zack Snyder has a weakness it's in his inability to be clear about his storytelling intentions. Hence why you need a lot of paragraphs to dissect his work in order to explain and discuss what those challenging themes are. The best filmmakers are the ones who can challenge an audience in as clear and concise a manner as possible. The ability to convey complex themes and ideas in the prism on a two hour movie in a way that will engage the audience is the mark of an auteur. Snyder fails utterly (IMO) in doing this. He over complicates and fudges his messages and meanings in overwrought dialogue, poor story structure and CGI frippery. I truly believe there is a very clever filmmaker in their somewhere - I just think he needs to get out of his own way a little and show more than tell.

I'm going to have to agree to disagree with you here and leave it at that.

 

[misslane38]

The one thing that I will personally never understand is why some people are okay with superman having very little to say in the films that he appears in and yet It's okay for other heroes (Captain America, Wonder Woman, Batman, etc) to have plenty of dialogue to choose from.

Because actions speak louder than words. Despite having more dialogue, for example, Reeve's Superman makes fewer people better in his first two films than Cavill's Superman.

 

[The Batman]

I'm always amazed at this sections ability to complain about critics/detractors bringing up Reeve when assessing Cavill*, but have no problem doing the exact same thing.

*: To be fair to misslane, she might not be one of those people.

 

[The Batman]

For all of the DCEU's efforts in presenting their take on Superman, I'm willing to bet that if you were to do a general survey of who fans and the general audiences liked and preferred when it came to our current batch of cinematic superheroes, Superman would rank under characters who he was originally popular over a decade ago.

Oh, definitely.

Snyder's Superman is mainly talked about because its polarizing among fans. Even with all that, he's not in the realm of popularity as Iron Man, Star Lord, Deadpool, Harley Quinn, and now Wonder Woman.

 

[misslane38]

I'm always amazed at this sections ability to complain about critics/detractors bringing up Reeve when assessing Cavill, but have no problem doing the exact same thing.

Dude, I am literally making the comparison because it's the only one that seems to register with people. It's not my preference. I've learned that Reeve is the gold standard for a lot of folks, so I'm going to use the analogy or comparison I know will make the biggest impact. I love both versions of Superman, so it's not a pissing contest for me. I just know how highly Reeve is rated, so using him as a reference point is the most effective way I know of using an example that will land.

 

[The Batman]

Dude, I am literally making the comparison because it's the only one that seems to register with people. It's not my preference. I've learned that Reeve is the gold standard for a lot of folks, so I'm going to use the analogy or comparison I know will make the biggest impact. I love both versions of Superman, so it's not a pissing contest for me. I just know how highly Reeve is rated, so using him as a reference point is the most effective way I know of using an example that will land.

If you're one of those people who got bent out of shape with critics using past versions Superman to critique Cavill, this rationale still doesn't make what you're doing any better than those critics.

Not to mention, Herolee wasn't even arguing about whether or not Cavill Supes made people better.

 

[FunkMiller]

I'm going to have to agree to disagree with you here and leave it at that.

Okay. But it's a shame you only seem willing to debate on your terms. But hey ho. Onwards and upwards.

 

[C. Lee]

For me....the question of - is Superman going to be short changed in the JL movie - is answered with - if you go by the use of him in the other recent DCU movies, then yes....yes he will be.

 

[misslane38]

If you're one of those people who got bent out of shape with critics using past versions Superman to critique Cavill, this rationale still doesn't make what you're doing any better than those critics.

Not to mention, Herolee wasn't even arguing about whether or not Cavill Supes made people better.

I'm up for any analysis as long as it is fair, which to me means context is considered and facts are presented accurately. A lot of fans and critics approach this type of analysis with Reeve's Superman differently or will only use Reeve to examine one aspect of Cavill, so it's difficult to say I had any sort of blanket rejection of the comparison or the analysis. It's a very case by case, person by person thing.

As I said before, I referred to Reeve earlier because he is often treated as the gold standard, so he works as a sort of baseline of comparison. My intention wasn't for that to be the be all or end all of the discussion, but merely something to inspire a new way of looking at the situation.

For example, Reeve's and Superman's popularity with Reeve, and somewhat before and after him, can't even really be compared to the popularity of Superman or Cavill now, because there is a lot more competition now. Who knows if Captain Marvel will give Wonder Woman a run for her money, for instance? Right now women starved of female superheroes only have one, so it's easier for Wonder Woman to grab all of that attention and affection, especially as the first. As usual, context matters.

Okay. But it's a shame you only seem willing to debate on your terms. But hey ho. Onwards and upwards.

I only said agree to disagree because you noted how we were going off topic ("wow, that went off topic didn't it?"). I don't want to get into a back and forth in a thread where it doesn't belong. If you'd like to continue to discuss all of this, then feel free to send me a private message or move the discussion to where you feel it is most appropriate.

 

[WBwins]

I agree wholeheartedly with you here. Where we diverge is you think Zack Snyder is good at doing this, whereas I do not. You can only challenge an audience by clearly defining what that challenge is. If Zack Snyder has a weakness it's in his inability to be clear about his storytelling intentions. Hence why you need a lot of paragraphs to dissect his work in order to explain and discuss what those challenging themes are. The best filmmakers are the ones who can challenge an audience in as clear and concise a manner as possible. The ability to convey complex themes and ideas in the prism of a two hour movie in a way that will engage the audience is the mark of an auteur. Snyder fails utterly (IMO) in doing this. He over complicates and fudges his messages and meanings in overwrought dialogue, poor story structure and CGI frippery. I truly believe there is a very clever filmmaker in their somewhere - I just think he needs to get out of his own way a little and show more than tell.

...wow, that went off topic didn't it?

For me....the question of - is Superman going to be short changed in the JL movie - is answered with - if you go by the use of him in the other recent DCU movies, then yes....yes he will be.

This posts are full of so much harsh truths...

 

[The Batman]

For me....the question of - is Superman going to be short changed in the JL movie - is answered with - if you go by the use of him in the other recent DCU movies, then yes....yes he will be.

Pretty much sums it up.

I've yet to see anything showing that Superman will have better treatment here than in BvS or MOS.

 

[Herolee10]

For me....the question of - is Superman going to be short changed in the JL movie - is answered with - if you go by the use of him in the other recent DCU movies, then yes....yes he will be.

Pretty much sums it up.

I've yet to see anything showing that Superman will have better treatment here than in BvS or MOS.

Pretty much. Another thing I'd like to add is that whenever the issue of Superman not being involved in the formation of the JL is brought up, some always use the excuse that Superman wasn't a part of the original group back when they were conceived in the comics. However, they always conveniently leave out on how neither Batman and Cyborg were also involved in that original lineup.

At the end of the day, I still maintain my belief that I have seen nothing but excuses to justify Superman's joke of a role in this film...

There is absolutely no excuse in excluding him from the promotion (e.g. posters) for this film.

And I'm sorry to say this but showing up in the end or middle of a battle to help an already established group doesn't make you a member of it.