Is Superman getting the shaft in "Justice League"?

[TheRedWraith]

He was smiling warmly as he rescued the girl from the fire, that only went away when he started being worshiped.

 

[odilonredon]

yea and the fact that the one glimmer in the whole movie that snyderman might enjoy saving people is so quickly curdled should tell you something.

 

[TheRedWraith]

Yeah, that he doesn't like being worshiped and put on a pedestal and would rather be treated as just one of the people.

 

[_Superman_]

yea and the fact that the one glimmer in the whole movie that snyderman might enjoy saving people is so quickly curdled should tell you something.

Yes it tells you he doesn't want to be treated as a God because he isn't he is there only to help. In the UC you see him smiling as Clark Kent while going to Gotham and there are a few other scenes of him smiling. It's just over looked because of the tone of the movie IMO which is a very serious one.

 

[MydnightPhoenix]

No he doesn't he clearly helps because he wants to and derives Joy from it, he just doesn't like being worshiped and considered a god or derided as the devil for his actions.

CLEARLY! I don't see how people can't grasp the double meanings in some scenes. Superman helps because he can but he is being crushed by outside forces; not pulling a tanker across ice but by those questioning and doubting him. He can't just save people and fly away smiling because every save has repercussions and gets commentated to death.

 

[odilonredon]

Yeah, that he doesn't like being worshiped and put on a pedestal and would rather be treated as just one of the people.

my point is that the movie doesn't really go out of its way to illustrate that superman derives joy from saving people.

 

[The Guard]

yea and the fact that the one glimmer in the whole movie that snyderman might enjoy saving people is so quickly curdled should tell you something.

It tells me things are getting serious as Superman starts to realize how the world sees him.

Which they were.

He cracks a smile saving Lois at the beginning. He also smiles when he saves her later in the film.

 

[The Guard]

my point is that the movie doesn't really go out of its way to illustrate that superman derives joy from saving people.

Maybe he doesn't.

Maybe thus far, it's something he feels strongly that he should do, and a serious, sacred thing to him.

There are probably certain circumstances where he should be expressing joy, and some where he should be quiet and respectful.

 

[MydnightPhoenix]

my point is that the movie doesn't really go out of its way to illustrate that superman derives joy from saving people.

You make it seem like every doctor and paramedic should be doing cartwheels after every save.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

We aren't talking about a doctor or paramedic, we're talking about a superhero with magical powers.

 

[odilonredon]

come on guys i feel like i'm being gaslighted here. my point that the movie doesn't go out of its way to show that superman derives joy from saving people was in response to this post:

No he doesn't he clearly helps because he wants to and derives Joy from it, he just doesn't like being worshiped and considered a god or derided as the devil for his actions.

 

[The Guard]

come on guys i feel like i'm being gaslighted here. my point that the movie doesn't go out of its way to show that superman derives joy from saving people was in response to this post:

1. Do you know what being gaslighted means? I'm fairly certain no one here is attempting to manipulate you into questioning your own sanity or logic.

2. You're being responded to because you keep moving the goalposts.

First you made the comment that Superman seems to dislike saving people.

When it was pointed out that you were incorrect in this assessment, you made the comment about how he may like saving people, but he isn't joyful about it.

When it was pointed out that the film does hint that he occassionally does show warmth or an interest in saving people, your position then became "Well the movie doesn't go out of its way to show this" or "It doesn't show enough of it".

 

[MydnightPhoenix]

Actually this

my point is that the movie doesn't really go out of its way to illustrate that superman derives joy from saving people.

Was in response to this by Redwraith

"Yeah, that he doesn't like being worshiped and put on a pedestal and would rather be treated as just one of the people. "

So I apologize for getting confused but the direct quote didn't mention that RedWraith felt Superman got joy out of saving people.

I personally don't need to see him get joy out of helping people. This Superman reminds me of modern soldiers who do their jobs and move on to the next and don't like being called heroes.

 

[odilonredon]

1. Do you know what gaslighted means?

2. You're being responded to because you keep moving the goalposts.

First you made the comment that Superman seems to dislike saving people.

When it was pointed out that you were incorrect in this assessment, you made the comment about joy.

When it was pointed out that the film does hint that he occassionally does show warmth or an interest in saving people, your position then became "Well the movie doesn't go out of its way to show this" or "It doesn't show enough of it".

i was obviously replying exclusively in response to theredwraith. i can't address all of you guys coming at me at once. if i reply in response to you i'll quote you.

 

[odilonredon]

Actually this



Was in response to this by Redwraith

"Yeah, that he doesn't like being worshiped and put on a pedestal and would rather be treated as just one of the people. "

So I apologize for getting confused but the direct quote didn't mention that RedWraith felt Superman got joy out of saving people.

I personally don't need to see him get joy out of helping people. This Superman reminds me of modern soldiers who do their jobs and move on to the next and don't like being called heroes.

yes thank you.

 

[The Guard]

i was obviously replying exclusively in response to theredwraith. i can't address all of you guys coming at me at once. if i reply in response to you i'll quote you.

Hardly clear as you said "Come on guys".

It's a message board. Anyone can respond to anyone, or can choose not to respond to anyone.

 

[jfurioso]

One thing that we all have to keep in mind is that the internal consistency and causality of a movie and the meta perception of it can be very different things even if they do affect each other.

We may have some behavior and character work in a movie scene be perfectly justified WITHIN the movie, justified by its plot, its preceding events and character work, and be a perfectly valid take on a character or event, but that does not mean it what is externally wanted by the fanbase, welcomed by the audience or critically appreciated. It can be. It does not necessarily have to be.

But when one makes a comment on an aspect of a film, unless you are criticising its internal structure, consistency or congruence, the comment is not invalidated by observing it makes sense within the story told. A story can be perfectly told yet not be a story that satisfy everyone.

There are movies I liked, enjoyed or loved, but which I can see were not the more suitable ones when developing a larger franchise.

 

[MydnightPhoenix]

Good point, if odilredon didn't find enough satisfaction in Superman's saving scenes it is OK. I don't want us all to turn into misslane and bombard someone with essays describing every reason why "he" is wrong. Odilonredon wanted more joy, some of us were content with the serious emotions being displayed.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I'm okay with serious moments, serious scenes because the films aren't comedies after all, I just don't see the big deal with having more joyful stuff mixed in with that. I think we need Superman involved in an uplifting save moment in one of these films, a moment that isn't undercut with some overly dramatic plot point at the end of it.

 

[Nemeres]

I appreciate the effort to focus on journalist Clark, and am equally rubbed the wrong way by the fact that his crusade in BVS goes nowhere. That storyline develops parallel to Superman's struggle with public opinion -- then after the capitol bit it's shoved aside and the film just finds no room for it afterwards. The “Clark Kent as social crusader” angle is just meant to be featured, but not led to a conclusion regarding Clark's effectiveness as a reporter, or Superman's as a hero on a human, non-super level. Eventually he even apologizes and admits he was in the wrong of it. The film is interested in putting them at odds over ideology until it isn't.

There's a thinkpiece I read about how meaningful this Superman in the Trump era, and while it definitely is in regards to the xenophobia parallels, there's enough in the film's chosen handling of character that I think just makes that an awkward conclusion. A wallflower who turns the other cheek when bullied and a reporter who'll let himself be proven wrong in the pursuit of social justice. There's not an aspect of Superman-on-film that I crave to see better developed than Reporter Clark.

 

[hitmanyr2k]

CLEARLY! I don't see how people can't grasp the double meanings in some scenes. Superman helps because he can but he is being crushed by outside forces; not pulling a tanker across ice but by those questioning and doubting him. He can't just save people and fly away smiling because every save has repercussions and gets commentated to death.

And this is where it gets stupid. What's preventing Superman from actually, I don't know, SPEAKING?!? He can't grant one freakin interview to give the world (who would all tune in or read) his point of view? He's a morose mute in these films. If people don't act the way he wants after he performs a heroic feat is he always going to fly off somewhere and mope about it? That's not going to accomplish anything and it's doing nothing for his character.

 

[Da-Scribe]

And this is where it gets stupid. What's preventing Superman from actually, I don't know, SPEAKING?!? He can't grant one freakin interview to give the world (who would all tune in or read) his point of view? He's a morose mute in these films. If people don't act the way he wants after he performs a heroic feat is he always going to fly off somewhere and mope about it? That's not going to accomplish anything and it's doing nothing for his character.

Superman is just introverted. That's really it. Both films have gone out of their way to show he's always been a bit of a loner and has had trouble reconciling his powers with his relationships. Like it or don't like it though.

The whole "he's mute" thing is so overblown.

 

[The Guard]

I appreciate the effort to focus on journalist Clark, and am equally rubbed the wrong way by the fact that his crusade in BVS goes nowhere. That storyline develops parallel to Superman's struggle with public opinion -- then after the capitol bit it's shoved aside and the film just finds no room for it afterwards.

It doesn't go anywhere because Clark runs up against a hard "no" from Perry. Essentially, the story transitions into the larger narrative at this point as Clerk discovers that there are certain things that only Superman can address, at least in this particular instance.

The “Clark Kent as social crusader” angle is just meant to be featured, but not led to a conclusion about Clark's effectiveness as a reporter, or Superman's as a hero on a non-super human level.

But it does inform Clark/Superman as a good person. It shows that behind everything, are his good intentions. This is both an important character trait and a tragic flaw.

Eventually he even apologizes and admits he was in the wrong of it. The film is interested in putting them at odds over ideology until it isn't.

They could very well still be at odds over ideology.

Yes, there could have been a better resolution of the "social justice" angle, but I suspect this core difference between Batman and Superman will inform their relationship moving forward, much as it does in the comics. They have never entirely approved of each other's methods, and likely never will. That they are friends and allies in spite of this is the strength of their relationship.

There's a thinkpiece I read about how meaningful this Superman in the Trump era, and while it definitely is in regards to the xenophobia parallels, there's enough in the film's chosen handling of character that I think just makes that an awkward conclusion. A wallflower who turns the other cheek when bullied and a reporter who'll let himself be proven wrong in the pursuit of social justice. There's not an aspect of Superman-on-film that I crave to see better developed than Reporter Clark.

The character doesn't let himself be proven wrong, though. When he cannot make a dent through the usual channels, he then takes rather dramatic action as Superman.

This is the core trait of a vigilante or superhero. This is why they put on costumes and leverage their power in the world.

 

[The Guard]

And this is where it gets stupid. What's preventing Superman from actually, I don't know, SPEAKING?!? He can't grant one freakin interview to give the world (who would all tune in or read) his point of view? He's a morose mute in these films. If people don't act the way he wants after he performs a heroic feat is he always going to fly off somewhere and mope about it? That's not going to accomplish anything and it's doing nothing for his character.

Aside from the fact that this version of the character is clearly a lot more private, they obviously wanted to do something different than almost every other version of the character which follows the SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE template and has Superman wipe out almost all political and social concerns with an interview. The BVS filmmakers did not want things to be that black and white or "easy" in terms of a solution. If he had given an interview in the movie and humanity still had issues with him, would the fan complaint then be that he didn't give a good enough interview?

He does not always fly off and mope in this film. In fact, the first time he encounters conflict in the movie, he shows up at Lois' apartment with dinner and flowers.

At a key turning point in the film he flies off and "mopes" because a lot of people have died connected to the issues surrounding him. That seems like a legitimate and very human emotional response to me. It's also a traditional take on the ongoing superhero story in movies, and really storytelling in general. The hero questioning themselves.

 

[hitmanyr2k]

They obviously wanted to do something different than almost every other version of the character which follows the SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE template and has Superman wipe out almost all political and social concerns with an interview. The BVS filmmakers did not want things to be that black and white. If he had given an interview in the movie and humanity still had issues with him, would the complain then be that he didn't give a good enough interview?

He flies off and "mopes" because a lot of people have died connected to this issue. That seems like a legitimate and very human emotional response to me.

He doesn't have to give the perfect interview. Just give the world some idea about what he's thinking, his values, something...even if it's the Charles Barkley "I'm not a role model" kick If you're being crushed by outside forces, as MydnightPhoenix puts it, sitting around brooding (for 18 months or however long he's been performing these acts) isn't going to help anything and it really doesn't make his character even remotely interesting. It's like there goes Superman moping and being silent again, it's so riveting. I actually got excited during the trailer for BvS when I saw Superman was going to speak at the hearing because I was like finally this guy gets to speak and give the world his perspective. Of course we all know how that turned out. I'm a Superman fan so I want some reason to actually root for this guy or have some interest in him but honestly his character is as interesting as watching paint dry.