Lounge of Justice - Part 90

[Da-Scribe]

Would take MoS over any Holland Spidey flicks. Scraight up.

 

[Aurakles]

As I remember it, Snyder said his films would end with him becoming "classic" Superman, which is quite different in my mind from "real" Superman.

I think that classic in Snyders mind is the fully matured, experienced superhero who is accepted and trusted by the world. He was aiming towards leaving the character in a position where he's saved the world several times, faced a number of major supervillains, gone through some crisis' of confidence, inspired others to become heroes, experienced death and resurrection, fought alongside his comrades in the JL and married Lois Lane.
I think it's perfectly valid to want to explore these things, to make your Superman story one of him going through these experiences, showing how they make him that experienced superhero.

It is a bit funny to me that Snyder gets criticized both for taking too long to get to classic Superman, and for moving too fast with his death and the formation of the JL.

 

[I Am The Knight]

These Batman spoilers got me hype af. Movie can't come soon enough.

I don't give a f*** about The Batman

However I suspect I will end up enjoying it once I actually see the film.

 

[I Am The Knight]

Would take MoS over any Holland Spidey flicks. Scraight up.

I would take MOS over FFH, but not Homecoming.

 

[dhandler01]

It is a bit funny to me that Snyder gets criticized both for taking too long to get to classic Superman, and for moving too fast with his death and the formation of the JL.

Why? With the arch he took killing Superman in film two was a huge blunder. (and I say that as someone that still really likes that film) I get it works with his overwrought Jesus allegory but the death only works if Superman is accepted by the audience. It wasn't. Using death to redeem him and as some half hearted reason to form the Justice League was a stupid miscalculation and needed at least a full film of Superman being a real hero (not 4 lines of exposition and some random cut scenes) to get the point across and have any real impact. Outside of Snyder fans like us, no one really cared because you just killed a character that they had no emotional investment in anyways. The end of BvS rang hollow because all of these people hated Superman like half an hour before Doomsday showed up and now they just think he is swell. Even wrestling handles "Heel to Hero" shifts better than that.

If MOS had not been divisive it might have worked but not likely. Superman's death shouldn't be the symbol Superman's actions should be. You don't "Lead people into the sun" by dying 2 years into a job and having half the people hate you for doing it. Rushing a Justice League film without a Superman in it (then having him come back and go dark cause man isn't that like so edgy and cool) is just dumb.

The overall problem is the "5 movie arch" (or however much it was supposed to be this week) isn't a Superman arch no matter how much he and his sycophants pretend it is and they sold it to us as being one. Hell for half of it he is either dead or a future evil Darkseid minion. Batman is the hero. Wonder Woman is a hero. Superman is a plot point...a deus ex machina. Snyder never got why the world needs Superman and Terrio had no idea how to write a comic film. (man was I wrong about that Goyer wasn't perfect but at least he understood the character) Superman isn't Jesus, he is the Man of Tomorrow. He is the ultimate symbol of what can be great about all of us.

And I have said it a million times and will say it a million more, he never got any version of the relationship between Superman and Batman. (even TDKR which is what he was trying to make) Day and Night, light and dark, yin and yang hero and vigilante. He had the setup for greatness, a fully dark Batman at the end of his rope trying his damnedest to destroy Superman. The darker Batman goes the "Lighter" (not comedic but symbol of light) Superman should be to counterbalance. A full movie of that "versus" style with a cool fight would have been a million times better and easily crosses a billion and gives fans a Superman they can at least attach too. By the end they don't have to be friends they just have accept they are who they are. Like the end of Man of Steel issue #3. Then in the next film have Superman die if you just need to hammer home your Jesus crap.

That is the difference between and "Idea Man" and a guy who gets how to make long form movie archs. Snyder has great ideas and casts awesome. His visuals are stunning. His actual writing and storytelling is mediocre.

 

[MbJ]

Superman has been around for over 80 years. Anyone who says they need a 5 movie arc to develop the real Superman should never be allowed near the character.

That is the problem with playing the long game. The idea your planned payoff will satisfy people who didn't like it implies they'll all stick around long enough to actually ensure you get to complete the story, which is never a guarantee.

Getting flashbacks of that Sinestro post-credit scene in Green Lantern now...

 

[Aurakles]

Why? With the arch he took killing Superman in film two was a huge blunder. (and I say that as someone that still really likes that film) I get it works with his overwrought Jesus allegory but the death only works if Superman is accepted by the audience. It wasn't. Using death to redeem him and as some half hearted reason to form the Justice League was a stupid miscalculation and needed at least a full film of Superman being a real hero (not 4 lines of exposition and some random cut scenes) to get the point across and have any real impact. Outside of Snyder fans like us, no one really cared because you just killed a character that they had no emotional investment in anyways. The end of BvS rang hollow because all of these people hated Superman like half an hour before Doomsday showed up and now they just think he is swell. Even wrestling handles "Heel to Hero" shifts better than that.

If MOS had not been divisive it might have worked but not likely. Superman's death shouldn't be the symbol Superman's actions should be. You don't "Lead people into the sun" by dying 2 years into a job and having half the people hate you for doing it. Rushing a Justice League film without a Superman in it (then having him come back and go dark cause man isn't that like so edgy and cool) is just dumb.

The overall problem is the "5 movie arch" (or however much it was supposed to be this week) isn't a Superman arch no matter how much he and his sycophants pretend it is and they sold it to us as being one. Hell for half of it he is either dead or a future evil Darkseid minion. Batman is the hero. Wonder Woman is a hero. Superman is a plot point...a deus ex machina. Snyder never got why the world needs Superman and Terrio had no idea how to write a comic film. (man was I wrong about that Goyer wasn't perfect but at least he understood the character) Superman isn't Jesus, he is the Man of Tomorrow. He is the ultimate symbol of what can be great about all of us.

And I have said it a million times and will say it a million more, he never got any version of the relationship between Superman and Batman. (even TDKR which is what he was trying to make) Day and Night, light and dark, yin and yang hero and vigilante. He had the setup for greatness, a fully dark Batman at the end of his rope trying his damnedest to destroy Superman. The darker Batman goes the "Lighter" (not comedic but symbol of light) Superman should be to counterbalance. A full movie of that "versus" style with a cool fight would have been a million times better and easily crosses a billion and gives fans a Superman they can at least attach too. By the end they don't have to be friends they just have accept they are who they are. Like the end of Man of Steel issue #3. Then in the next film have Superman die if you just need to hammer home your Jesus crap.

That is the difference between and "Idea Man" and a guy who gets how to make long form movie archs. Snyder has great ideas and casts awesome. His visuals are stunning. His actual writing and storytelling is mediocre.

Looking outside of franchises like these, there are dozens of examples of lead characters dying in films that are their first and only appearance. There are emotionally impactful deaths for characters who have just a few minutes on screen. Some people got attached to this version of Superman through MOS and BVS, some didn't. Frankly, I think that people who didn't care about him after two films aren't likely to be won around by a third or fourth, if they even bothered watching them. I think people who didn't like Snyders version were probably never going to be moved his death of Superman, so postponing it for their sake seems like a waste.

As for the change in how Superman is perceived by the public before and after his death, there are a few things to consider.
First is that opinion on him was never unanimous, the film repeatedly showed people divided over him, at the Capitol there were people supporting and decrying him in the crowd, we see the mother in Gotham disapproving of the burning effigy. The conversation over whether to use a nuclear weapon shows he is still held in some esteem by the US government. I think it's fair to assume that just before his death there were still a lot of people who believed in him.
Secondly, the news of Supermans death was published in the same edition of the Daily Planet that shows Luthor has been arrested for the capitol bombing. At the same time the world learns he has died, they learn someone was deliberately framing him, that they had been tricked into hating him.
Thirdly, once he has died, the question of "what if he becomes a tyrant one day?" is suddenly moot, there is no longer a question of what evil he may one day do, only the fact of the good he has done.
Lastly, I think it's important not to underestimate the emotional power of someone sacrificing their life for you, imagine you had hated someone, attacked and abused them, and then they died to protect you. I imagine it would provoke a great deal of guilt and regret.

Supermans death was an action, he willing sacrificed himself to save a world that seemed to be rejecting him, despite everything that was done to him in BVS he still chose to believe in humanity and died to protect them. His death was a testament that he still had hope in us, that we could do better, could make it to the sun. It was an example of forgiveness and self-sacrifice that others could follow. An example which inspired Batman to redeem himself, and the other JL members to come out of the shadows.

As for the films that didn't happen, what Supermans arc would have been, or whether he would have had one at all I can't say, because the never happened. However I'm satisfied with the development he got in the Snyder films which we did get.
I don't think he ever intended to make Superman a direct Jesus allegory, he borrowed the iconography sometimes, but he also made a point of Clark being uncomfortable with people treating him like a god. BVS explicitly tackles the idea that people are projecting their concepts of divinity onto him, that some are heaping impossible expectation onto him.

I think that one of the many ways BVS is an inversion of TDKR rather than an adaption is the relationship between Clark and Bruce, rather than two friends forced to fight one another, it has two foes allying and learning to trust one another. I don't think Superman and Batman always need to contrast one another, some version have it that way and it can work, but I don't think it's essential. Sometimes they are quite alike, which is something BVS plays with, showing that despite Luthors gladiatorial fantasy , the two have a lot in common.

Personally, I was attached to this version of the character and found his death a very powerful moment.

 

[Black Narcissus]

The Harder They Fall

One of the best films of the year.

 

[MbJ]

The Harder They Fall

One of the best films of the year.

Delroy Lindo is a national treasure.

 

[Detective Conan]

 

[dhandler01]

Its too late for that.

 

[MbJ]

It's a shame he never got a second solo to flesh that out. He says all the right things in these interviews.

 

[heatvision38]

Snagged me a PS5.

 

[Iceman]

Snagged me a PS5.

Congrats!! Finally seeing some available here and there, although not for long at all.

 

[heatvision38]

Congrats!! Finally seeing some available here and there, although not for long at all.

Walmart was having a Walmart+ deal where if you had the subscription, you could have early access to them at 4 pm. I bought the monthly plan at 12.95 and was able to get in there and get one. It's wild out there.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

 

[Black Narcissus]

Been watching a few DIY youtube videos as I'm trying to build my own alcohol type shelf. My youtube algorithm recommended some german blonde who does exceptional wood work, like she really makes some great stuff.Oh, added bonus is that she does so while wearing yoga pants. Who ever is spying on me, sure knows me well. I mean, that is killin two birds with one stone.

 

[Predator jp]

yoga pants are the sexiest thing ever.

 

[Black Narcissus]

yoga pants are the sexiest thing ever.

One of the greatest creations ever made. Right on top with the wheel and vaccines.

 

[Gee]

Those "TikTok leggings" are ugly as ****, though.

 

[Superchan]

Supermans death was an action,

Yes it was, an action to get rid of a character [superman] that Snyder couldn't handle and at the same time give Batman a redemption arc, an action that nearly ended the DCEU.

However I'm satisfied with the development he got in the Snyder films which we did get.

"Development"? Seriously? Snyderman wasn't even a character to begin with, he was a plot device used by a hack director. Cavill's Superman was a mopey, emo, dialogue challenged "character" in MOS, then Snyder turned him into a mopey, emo, dialogue challenged "character" with an added touch of nihilism "no stays good in this world". Then came the moody, semi-evil, "wear a black suit and don't bother explaining why" Superman in JL: the endless snyder cut.

3 (count them...THREE) movies and Superman didn't get an ounce of development, yet some suckers out there still think that Snyder wouldn't give them "the Superman they know and love" after 5 long, arduous films. Warners might've initially drank the Kool-Aid on Snyder's grand "project" and that was purely because of Nolan's involvement and backing of Snyder, but those days are over

I don't think he ever intended to make Superman a direct Jesus allegory,

You sure? Because that scene with Clark at the church in MOS with the red caped Jesus image behind him the whole time SCREAMED Superman = Jesus! And if that's not enough, David Goyer said that their 2 references for the movie were the comics and the bible.

I don't think Superman and Batman always need to contrast one another

Not unless your intention is to make a compelling world's finest story, which Dawn of Just***t certainly wasn't. The stark contrast between Superman and Batman is at the very heart of what makes their friendship / partnership / rivalry so appealing, 2 sides of the same coin, different means to the same ends and all that, but what the audience got was a nihilist, moody Superman and a morally bankrupt, psychotic Batman and the rest was history and so was the Snyderverse (thankfully).

 

[obredaan]

I don't think he ever intended to make Superman a direct Jesus allegory, he borrowed the iconography sometimes, but he also made a point of Clark being uncomfortable with people treating him like a god.

Oh it goes far further than just iconography. Look up how old Clark is during Man of Steel. Do you think Snyder randomly chose the age of 33? Or that Clark has a beard during his journey to discover himself just for the sake of having a beard? Even the house numbers that are shown in the film are tied to passages from the bible. Subteltly is not one of Snyder's strenghts.

 

[Aurakles]

Yes it was, an action to get rid of a character [superman] that Snyder couldn't handle and at the same time give Batman a redemption arc, an action that nearly ended the DCEU.



"Development"? Seriously? Snyderman wasn't even a character to begin with, he was a plot device used by a hack director. Cavill's Superman was a mopey, emo, dialogue challenged "character" in MOS, then Snyder turned him into a mopey, emo, dialogue challenged "character" with an added touch of nihilism "no stays good in this world". Then came the moody, semi-evil, "wear a black suit and don't bother explaining why" Superman in JL: the endless snyder cut.

3 (count them...THREE) movies and Superman didn't get an ounce of development, yet some suckers out there still think that Snyder wouldn't give them "the Superman they know and love" after 5 long, arduous films. Warners might've initially drank the Kool-Aid on Snyder's grand "project" and that was purely because of Nolan's involvement and backing of Snyder, but those days are over



You sure? Because that scene with Clark at the church in MOS with the red caped Jesus image behind him the whole time SCREAMED Superman = Jesus! And if that's not enough, David Goyer said that their 2 references for the movie were the comics and the bible.



Not unless your intention is to make a compelling world's finest story, which Dawn of Just***t certainly wasn't. The stark contrast between Superman and Batman is at the very heart of what makes their friendship / partnership / rivalry so appealing, 2 sides of the same coin, different means to the same ends and all that, but what the audience got was a nihilist, moody Superman and a morally bankrupt, psychotic Batman and the rest was history and so was the Snyderverse (thankfully).

Oh it goes far further than just iconography. Look up how old Clark is during Man of Steel. Do you think Snyder randomly chose the age of 33? Or that Clark has a beard during his journey to discover himself just for the sake of having a beard? Even the house numbers that are shown in the film are tied to passages from the bible. Subteltly is not one of Snyder's strenghts.

Even in your descriptions of this version of Superman, you are assigning him character traits, they may not be traits you like but they do constitute a personality. The way I see it he is a character rather than a plot device because he has motivations, internal conflict and agency.
To me Snyders Superman is be someone who is struggling with huge, world-shaping responsibilities, he is cautious and careful, wary that making a small mistake could cost countless lives. These films focus heavily on choice and consequence, Clark is repeatedly faced with difficult decisions and tries to weigh up the repercussions. He desperately wants to help people, to use his gifts openly, but is fearful that doing so might cause more harm in the long term. The idea that knowledge of his existence will change the world in a number of unpredictable ways is a weight on his mind. He wants to wait, to not reveal himself until he believes he, and the world, are ready, until it would do more good than ill. And so every time he sees someone in distress he has to make a decision, based not only on those immediately involved, but the possible wider consequences. This leads him to making a compromise with himself, he can't stand the idea of not helping, nor does he want to risk the pandoras box of exposure, so every time he uses his powers, he disappears. It means he is constantly on the move, not able to lay down roots. The knowledge that he might have to leave at any moment, and not wanting to attract attention to himself would over time train him to quiet, to be "dialogue challenged". It seems to me like a trait he would come to rely on in his life before becoming Superman.

In BVS things are a bit different, as Clark Kent he is far more talkative, challenging Perry White in meetings, Bruce Wayne at the Gala etc. But as Superman, he is still very reserved. Now that he has a public persona which allows him to use his powers, he is able to settle down and express himself more freely as Clark Kent. But as Superman he has new constraints, as a major public figure everything he says will be recorded, broadcast across the planet and analysed. He is aware of his massive influence, that he is treated as a geopolitical superpower, that some see him as a religious figure, a super-celebrity. If he makes a careless statement, if something he says is misconstrued it could change the policies of nations or inspire the actions of a fanatic. Because of this he is understandable cautious with his words, because he needs to take the same kind of care a government would with official statements.
To me at least, it appears that rather than his lack of chit chat isn't a sign that he lacks a personality, but that he has a very well thought out personality.

Similarly, I think criticising him for being downbeat is unfair, in all three films we see him happy and smiling when he's at home with his loved ones. However the nature of stories being told focuses on his trials, on him being faced with serious, difficult decisions, in such scenarios it makes sense that he isn't having a lot of laughs.
In BVS, Luthor is deliberately seeking to break his spirit, to undermine his belief in humanity and compromise his ideals. As such, he has a crisis of confidence, he goes down and the ref counts to 9 before he get back to his feet and reaffirms his belief in humanity, sacrificing himself to save them.

Snyder deliberately uses christian iconography, but I don't think that necessarily means he is uses Superman as a Jesus analogue. He also uses a lot of references to greek mythology, Arthurian legend and even the Wizard of Oz. He is using well known cultural touchstones as shorthand to try to help communicate themes to the audience. He isn't supposed to be Jesus anymore than he is meant to be Prometheus or Dorothy.

The relationship between Superman and Batman has varied a lot over the decades, sometimes they are very different, sometimes they have basically the same personality. I think there are plenty of different valid interpretations, from TDKR to Superfriends

 

[dhandler01]

Oh it goes far further than just iconography. Look up how old Clark is during Man of Steel. Do you think Snyder randomly chose the age of 33? Or that Clark has a beard during his journey to discover himself just for the sake of having a beard? Even the house numbers that are shown in the film are tied to passages from the bible. Subteltly is not one of Snyder's strenghts.

Not to mention the Jesus pose Superman makes when he leaves Zod's ship

 

[Dr.]

Religious allegory (esp. Christian/Judeo-Christian) is pretty much baked into the Superman premise. Granted, there are degrees of emphasis. But I wouldn’t characterize the allegory in MOS as more obvious than STM (the putative gold standard).

...Or that Clark has a beard during his journey to discover himself just for the sake of having a beard?

I took the beard as a modest attempt at “disguise” (inasmuch as Clark was not yet wearing his foolproof glasses disguise). On this claim, the Jesus connection might be stronger if Supes retained his beard... or if Jesus was known to have shaved his off before his public ministry.

Even the house numbers that are shown in the film are tied to passages from the bible. Subtlety is not one of Snyder's strengths.

I’ve seen MOS several times and never once noticed these numerical/Biblical “chapter and verse” references. So for me at least, subtle would be the correct description. Indeed, I think you’d have to be a keen Fundamentalist (or a scholar) to be able to link innocuous numbers with specific Biblical passages. (I suppose I might/could connect “316” to John; but that would be it for me.)