The Daily Planet - Superman News and Speculation Thread (🚨TAG SPOILERS🚨)

[Black Narcissus]

I would love that. Superman the teacher's pet. And shouting "Whyyyy!?" when Batman punches him.

I'm serious about that Injustice League thing. First tho, I would've given ya'll the most beloved version of the character for like 4 flicks. So when that thing happens, it is painful to see. He kills bald Lois with their unborn baby and then kills Leto's Joker. Fast forward to a Mad Max Knightmare timeline with only Batman and whats left of the JL members.

 

[flickchick85]

I'm serious about that Injustice League thing. First tho, I would've given ya'll the most beloved version of the character for like 4 flicks. So when that thing happens, it is painful to see. He kills bald Lois with their unborn baby and then kills Leto's Joker. Fast forward to a Mad Max Knightmare timeline with only Batman and whats left of the JL members.

See, I'd be fine with that. Gotta make us care first. That part's kinda key.

 

[Black Narcissus]

 

[Willi Berg]

I'm serious about that Injustice League thing. First tho, I would've given ya'll the most beloved version of the character for like 4 flicks. So when that thing happens, it is painful to see. He kills bald Lois with their unborn baby and then kills Leto's Joker. Fast forward to a Mad Max Knightmare timeline with only Batman and whats left of the JL members.

 

[misslane38]

But who is saying Superman has to be perfect? He doubts himself and people throughout the whole of MOS and it worked great. There is a difference between him having doubts occasionally and him having doubts all the time which is how Snyder played it. Christ his first meeting with Batman he friggin threatened him.

You want to show Superman not be able to save the day fine. Hell Donner Supes flat out quit to be with Lois and then changed his mind. It isnt about whether Superman is flawed, it is about how Superman sees the world. A Superman who trusts almost no one isnt a Superman people want to see.

He literally does not look for the bomb in Keefe's chair because he trusts too much. That's why he's so broken after the bombing. And if Superman truly trusted no one, there's no way he would have even tried to secure Bruce's help after Lex's ultimatum. Instead, Clark apologizes.

 

[misslane38]

I am not saying he should only see good, I said if Snyder understood visuals as much as his sycophants think he does he would have used that to show the inherent differences in the two characters. Superman should never look at the world as grey especially one in his first full year as a hero. That is just not the way Superman is. Superman is an optimistic character to the audience.

He didn't look at the world as grey. He was optimistic about the conversation surrounding his actions in Nairomi at first, which you can see in his conversations with Lois in the apartment and Bruce at the gala. You can see it in his openness to appear before Finch's committee. You can see it in how in interacts with the people in Gotham when he seeks out Kahina and later information about the branded criminal who died in custody. You can see it in how he idealistically argues for truth and justice in the face of Perry's cynicism.

And Superman being naive with the bombing doesnt change the fact that he never seems happy to be doing heroic things outside of saving Lois at the beginning. He always looks troubled, he always looks half angry, and he never seems to trust that what he is doing is right. I mean I guess that is seeing his point of view but again, no one wants to see Superman doing that which is why it never resonated. Superman should be saving people even when they hate him for it. It is why killing him is still one of the most boneheaded moves in Superhero movie making and why the faux love the people of Earth gave him after his death felt hollow.

He is happy saving the girl in Juarez. He's happy sacrificing his life to save the world from Doomsday. Superman never stopped saving people in BvS. That's the entire point of his trying to reach out to Bruce and sacrificing himself.

 

[Yellow Cyclone]

That isnt the point and you know it. Good dodge though. The idea could be from the best director of all time and still suck. But please be outraged...

no i don't know it, nice goalpost moving though

you brought up his age and height. which are both irrelevant.

the gl film at the time(/might still be) wb was looking for was both jordan/stewart centric with jordan being the older mentor. cruise's age doesn't matter because he still looks young, nor is his height relevant since apple boxes and camera angles have been a thing in hollywood since the beginning

i don't need to be outraged, i'm just disappointed that wb would pass on something that it seemed mcq/cavill were excited about, especially considering the former's track record and the later's obvious passion for wanting to deliver a truly great superman movie. you assume the idea is bad without any information and that wb made the right call, i'll assume the opposite b/c of wb's very mixed track record with the dceu

 

[dhandler01]

See, I'd be fine with that. Gotta make us care first. That part's kinda key.

Exactly! The death should have been in Justice League after he spends all of BvS doing good and making the world (and the audience) love him. (and reforming Batman) Hell it would have made their fight more impactful instead of just being "I really want to show the fight from TDKR so here!". As I said before The Knightmare should have been a moment where we all go "Jesus what happened?!?! What could have gone so wrong that Superman has gone rogue and is going to kill Batman?!?!". Instead it was more "Hey look, Angry Supes is Angrier! Poor Batman!"

Snyder never got what made Death of Superman such an impactful story. Yeah the fight is amazing, but it is the realization that Superman, a Godlike being that has saved the world countless times from villains that defy imagination could still die and did so to save the world that he loved. His Superman never got to that point. He defeated Zod which was great, but half the world still hated him after that. His death would not have made them love him, they would have cheered it because they think he is part of the problem and they fear him. It was fake, it was unearned and that is why critics and fans disliked the film and the characterization in general.

We could have crowdsourced a better storyarc in a thread on this message board. I get what was trying to be done and I supported it in theory but Snyder is not a good enough director to pull it off. When MOS underperformed he should have been pulled from the project. Let him be the idea man and let someone who can actually tell a story visually as a director have control. There is a reason why his films (along with Ayer's) are the ones the critics hate while Patty Jenkins, James Wan and David Sandberg all made movies the critics and fans enjoyed and it isnt some conspiracy...they are better directors than Snyder is.

 

[Aurakles]

The idea that Superman can die doesn't mean much, what matters is what he is willing to die for.
It's easy to be kind to people who love you and support you, it's a lot harder to be kind to someone who hates you and curses you.

In BVS Superman sacrifices himself for a world that has scorned him, despite the darkness humanity has shown, he is still optimistic enough to believe the world is worth saving and trusts that humanity will do better.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

Yeah, that's a big problem with those movies. I'm not opposed to showing the public's perception of Superman (though I don't like it being as negative as it was in those films) but I also want to see HIS perspective. Superman feels less like a character in those movies and more of a McGuffin. It's evidenced by his lack of dialogue and screen time (and please, spare me the "Superman isn't a talker like Iron Man" argument... he's never been a mute in the comics).

Thank you.

People are trying to polish a turd. If Snyder’s Superman were really a good characterization then he would have done an interview with Lois after the Zod fight explaining everything about
what the public saw. Who he is and what Zod wanted.

Instead we just got him pumping his chest at the military to leave him alone.

But that wouldn’t have allowed for Batman to act like a paranoid idiot.

The movie handicaps use to not knowing what the public knows about him except Snyder’s visuals as some floating strongman.

 

[2kt09]

But that wouldn’t have allowed for Batman to act like a paranoid idiot.

Nah, it wouldn't make a difference.

 

[JimThompson]

The idea that Superman can die doesn't mean much, what matters is what he is willing to die for.
It's easy to be kind to people who love you and support you, it's a lot harder to be kind to someone who hates you and curses you.

In BVS Superman sacrifices himself for a world that has scorned him, despite the darkness humanity has shown, he is still optimistic enough to believe the world is worth saving and trusts that humanity will do better.

EXACTLY!

 

[misslane38]

Thank you.

People are trying to polish a turd. If Snyder’s Superman were really a good characterization then he would have done an interview with Lois after the Zod fight explaining everything about
what the public saw. Who he is and what Zod wanted.

Instead we just got him pumping his chest at the military to leave him alone.

But that wouldn’t have allowed for Batman to act like a paranoid idiot.

The movie handicaps use to not knowing what the public knows about him except Snyder’s visuals as some floating strongman.

None of what you just wrote makes ANY sense. First, you complain about what the public knows, yet cite an example of a private interaction between Superman and Swanwick. You also get pretty much EVERYTHING about BvS wrong.

In BvS, the public are shown to LOVE Superman. He has a monument in his honor, for example. It's only when Keefe vandalizes that monument, the Africa incident occurs, and the Capitol blows up that it starts to look like not everyone is content with Superman's presence and concern grows. Recall that when Perry sees the news coverage of the monument graffiti, he says "End of love affair with Superman." When Clark talks to Bruce at the gala, he defends Superman by saying that the world didn't share Bruce's negative outlook. Even Bruce, when pressed by Alfred to explain his vendetta against Superman, admits that Superman is only a possible enemy of tomorrow rather than one today.

In short, the general public by and large embrace Superman after Zod's attack. Those that didn't were isolated cases, like Wallace, Bruce, and Lex whose own past traumas or personality flaws made it nearly impossible for them to have faith in Superman. People who are that cynical aren't going to be moved by a PR stunt or a good speech.

 

[dhandler01]

The idea that Superman can die doesn't mean much, what matters is what he is willing to die for.
It's easy to be kind to people who love you and support you, it's a lot harder to be kind to someone who hates you and curses you.

In BVS Superman sacrifices himself for a world that has scorned him, despite the darkness humanity has shown, he is still optimistic enough to believe the world is worth saving and trusts that humanity will do better.

Eh it just didnt ring that way. It was supposed to, and I was able to do that because i got what the story was supposed to say, but the audience doesnt read it that way. Even with Justice League bashing us over the head with that idea the audience still didnt buy it.

 

[dhandler01]

None of what you just wrote makes ANY sense. First, you complain about what the public knows, yet cite an example of a private interaction between Superman and Swanwick. You also get pretty much EVERYTHING about BvS wrong.

In BvS, the public are shown to LOVE Superman. He has a monument in his honor, for example. It's only when Keefe vandalizes that monument, the Africa incident occurs, and the Capitol blows up that it starts to look like not everyone is content with Superman's presence and concern grows. Recall that when Perry sees the news coverage of the monument graffiti, he says "End of love affair with Superman." When Clark talks to Bruce at the gala, he defends Superman by saying that the world didn't share Bruce's negative outlook. Even Bruce, when pressed by Alfred to explain his vendetta against Superman, admits that Superman is only a possible enemy of tomorrow rather than one today.

In short, the general public by and large embrace Superman after Zod's attack. Those that didn't were isolated cases, like Wallace, Bruce, and Lex whose own past traumas or personality flaws made it nearly impossible for them to have faith in Superman. People who are that cynical aren't going to be moved by a PR stunt or a good speech.

At no point in the film is Superman seen as being accepted by the majority of the people. Snyder goes out of his way to show he is a controversial figure. Hell it was part of the marketing. They built a monument to him but isnt like they show tons of visitors there or even talk about how he saved everyone. (a good storyteller would do that cause it actually shows part of the story and helps develop character) It is there, along with the names of all the people that died.

How me and you see it, isnt how the majority of people saw it. And that isnt on them, that is on the film makers. If the movie was as good as the Snyderphiles think it was you wouldnt need to be on here explaining things that people didnt see. It is why I stopped defending the film despite liking it. I saw things in it that made me like it more. I filled in gaps or knew the story it was referencing so I "got it". You know who didnt...people who had no idea what Snyder was going for. Hell even the easy stuff, like Batman fighting Superman...something even non comic geeks fight over who would win, he couldnt get that right to the point people mocked it. The movie crashed and burned because the things WE saw no one else did which is a failure on Snyder. I get the "show not tell" philosophy but what he showed didnt explain anything either. Superman may have been accepted, but maybe give us a few examples of that. Have a news story of Superman at the unveiling of the statue. Have the talking heads talk about his good deeds. Have Alfred beat Bruce over the head with the fact that Superman is doing good, something Bruce used to stand for. (we never even get to find out why Batman went dark outside seeing the Robin outfit) Dont imply it SHOW IT! A three minute montage in the beginning would have been enough. (just like a montage at the end of MOS would have changed the whole outlook of the film to many) Jesus the JL scene with the kids doing the video did more to show how Superman was thought of by the world than 2 movies did and that was a reshoot with bad CGI.

We shouldnt need you to be on here to point this stuff out every time someone questions the film. A good filmmaker puts it in the film and makes it obvious.

 

[misslane38]

At no point in the film is Superman seen as being accepted by the majority of the people. Snyder goes out of his way to show he is a controversial figure. Hell it was part of the marketing. They built a monument to him but isnt like they show tons of visitors there or even talk about how he saved everyone. (a good storyteller would do that cause it actually shows part of the story and helps develop character) It is there, along with the names of all the people that died.

Why would people be talking about how Superman saved everyone a year and a half after the event? That's the purpose of the monument. It shows how in the time that passed between Zod's invasion, there was enough public support for Superman that a monument was built in his honor. And, it wasn't just any monument, it was a monument that placed his image next to the names of the dead, which means no blame for those deaths was assigned to him by the majority of people who supported the erection of the monument.

How me and you see it, isnt how the majority of people saw it. And that isnt on them, that is on the film makers. If the movie was as good as the Snyderphiles think it was you wouldnt need to be on here explaining things that people didnt see. It is why I stopped defending the film despite liking it. I saw things in it that made me like it more. I filled in gaps or knew the story it was referencing so I "got it". You know who didnt...people who had no idea what Snyder was going for. Hell even the easy stuff, like Batman fighting Superman...something even non comic geeks fight over who would win, he couldnt get that right to the point people mocked it. The movie crashed and burned because the things WE saw no one else did which is a failure on Snyder. I get the "show not tell" philosophy but what he showed didnt explain anything either.

I have no idea how this is at all relevant to the question posed by the person to whom I originally responded. An idea was suggested that Superman giving an interview (a PR stunt) would have have made a 180 degree difference in how he was accepted by the public. In other words, if Superman had just given Lois a print interview for the DP, then there would not be a broken Bruce Wayne or Wallace Keefe. Lex Luthor's devious plans wouldn't have moved the needle on Superman's popularity had he just explained himself in the press. To which, I call BS. There is no amount of showing or telling the public how awesome and good Superman is that would have affected what happened with Nairomi, Keefe, Bruce, and Lex and, aside from that, the film makes it clear that after Zod's invasion Superman was generally loved, and it was that love that aggravated cynics like Bruce, Wallace, and Lex who wanted to undermine the public's faith in a savior just as theirs had been.

Superman may have been accepted, but maybe give us a few examples of that. Have a news story of Superman at the unveiling of the statue. Have the talking heads talk about his good deeds. Have Alfred beat Bruce over the head with the fact that Superman is doing good, something Bruce used to stand for. (we never even get to find out why Batman went dark outside seeing the Robin outfit) Dont imply it SHOW IT! A three minute montage in the beginning would have been enough. (just like a montage at the end of MOS would have changed the whole outlook of the film to many) Jesus the JL scene with the kids doing the video did more to show how Superman was thought of by the world than 2 movies did and that was a reshoot with bad CGI.

The talking heads did talk up how great he was! The montage in the middle of the film presents a conversation between both those who are believers and nonbelievers. Alfred does tell Bruce that Superman is not the enemy. We do see there's more to Bruce's rage that Robin. The flashback at the beginning of the film is as big of a neon sign as it gets! The scene in JL is a joke. It presents Superman as a hollow cipher spouting mundane platitudes.

We shouldnt need you to be on here to point this stuff out every time someone questions the film. A good filmmaker puts it in the film and makes it obvious.

It is obvious. I don't know how more obvious it could have been. I don't think this is a problem of misunderstanding or misinterpretation. Audiences get it. They get the story. The problem is it just wasn't the story audiences wanted to see. I am pretty tired of these half-baked criticisms of Snyder's storytelling and direction when every nitpick boils down to wanting a different story or wanting the world in which his Superman existed to follow fantasy logic that wouldn't fly in the real world.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

None of what you just wrote makes ANY sense. First, you complain about what the public knows, yet cite an example of a private interaction between Superman and Swanwick. You also get pretty much EVERYTHING about BvS wrong.

In BvS, the public are shown to LOVE Superman. He has a monument in his honor, for example. It's only when Keefe vandalizes that monument, the Africa incident occurs, and the Capitol blows up that it starts to look like not everyone is content with Superman's presence and concern grows. Recall that when Perry sees the news coverage of the monument graffiti, he says "End of love affair with Superman." When Clark talks to Bruce at the gala, he defends Superman by saying that the world didn't share Bruce's negative outlook. Even Bruce, when pressed by Alfred to explain his vendetta against Superman, admits that Superman is only a possible enemy of tomorrow rather than one today.

In short, the general public by and large embrace Superman after Zod's attack. Those that didn't were isolated cases, like Wallace, Bruce, and Lex whose own past traumas or personality flaws made it nearly impossible for them to have faith in Superman. People who are that cynical aren't going to be moved by a PR stunt or a good speech.

The monument is the problem. What is it for? Destroying a city in MOS? A bunch of glossy images of saving people? The people of Metropolis have no idea who Zod is or was. Just some scrambled face on a tv.

Compare that to TDK. Dent got memorialized as a hero for fighting corruption. The Joker. The mob. He spoke to the audience/Gotham to give them hope “ I promise you the dawn is coming.” We witnessed with them what the crime was doing to the city. The image of Dent as the White Knight wasn’t just something we saw in the background or quick vignettes.

That’s how you build a protagonist people care about.


You say isolated cases. I say the movie never bothers to make the world outside of a few people matter. It prefers random images over talking.

 

[Aurakles]

The monument is the problem. What is it for? Destroying a city in MOS? A bunch of glossy images of saving people? The people of Metropolis have no idea who Zod is or was. Just some scrambled face on a tv.

Compare that to TDK. Dent got memorialized as a hero for fighting corruption. The Joker. The mob. He spoke to the audience/Gotham to give them hope “ I promise you the dawn is coming.” We witnessed with them what the crime was doing to the city. The image of Dent as the White Knight wasn’t just something we saw in the background or quick vignettes.

That’s how you build a protagonist people care about.


You say isolated cases. I say the movie never bothers to make the world outside of a few people matter. It prefers random images over talking.

I think it's fair to assume that the US government would have briefed the public on what happened. Zods attack is one of the most important and dramatic events in history, the world would want to know everything about it. It would have been major news for weeks.
The monument would have also taken at least months to be erected, during which we can assume Superman carried out heroic acts like the ones we see in Keefes apartment.

 

[misslane38]

The monument is the problem. What is it for? Destroying a city in MOS? A bunch of glossy images of saving people? The people of Metropolis have no idea who Zod is or was. Just some scrambled face on a tv.

Compare that to TDK. Dent got memorialized as a hero for fighting corruption. The Joker. The mob. He spoke to the audience/Gotham to give them hope “ I promise you the dawn is coming.” We witnessed with them what the crime was doing to the city. The image of Dent as the White Knight wasn’t just something we saw in the background or quick vignettes.

That’s how you build a protagonist people care about.


You say isolated cases. I say the movie never bothers to make the world outside of a few people matter. It prefers random images over talking.

It sounds like you're conflating yourself or the audience with the fictional public of the film. You know more about Superman's backstory and what really happened with Zod than the public; so in terms of how you care, you should be fine according to your standards. Even if you still needed more from Superman, the public doesn't. They know they were invaded and that Superman could've taken Zod's side, but didn't and saved them. That's what those in Smallville saw, the military, and journalists like Perry and Jenny. By BvS, he is not hated by the public. He doesn't have to do the apology tour you proposed. He only becomes more controversial, not hated, LATER in the film because of NEW events. Those that do hate him, like Lex and Bruce, do so because he's loved. Also, no amount of speeches are going to move the greatest of cynics. Every beloved and popular leader has had his or her detractors, from Jesus, to Martin Luther King Jr., to Lincoln. You're trying to solve an imaginary problem with an ineffective solution.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

It sounds like you're conflating yourself or the audience with the fictional public of the film. You know more about Superman's backstory and what really happened with Zod than the public; so in terms of how you care, you should be fine according to your standards. Even if you still needed more from Superman, the public doesn't. They know they were invaded and that Superman could've taken Zod's side, but didn't and saved them. That's what those in Smallville saw, the military, and journalists like Perry and Jenny. By BvS, he is not hated by the public. He doesn't have to do the apology tour you proposed. He only becomes more controversial, not hated, LATER in the film because of NEW events. Those that do hate him, like Lex and Bruce, do so because he's loved. Also, no amount of speeches are going to move the greatest of cynics. Every beloved and popular leader has had his or her detractors, from Jesus, to Martin Luther King Jr., to Lincoln. You're trying to solve an imaginary problem with an ineffective solution.

It’s not about everyone loving or hating Supes. People can feel multiple ways about him.

I’m not conflating my views for the audience.

The movie sets up this big idea about the world reacting to aliens first contact as some key point but never follows through. We were hit over the head with how this is “ what if Clark was first contact” and what is the follow through?

Clark spends his whole life worrying and the reaction is... okay.

Alien invasion destroys part of a city...and the only people reaction comes from Batman. Not the UN or any other nation?

Alien first contact with at least one alien having lived among us in hiding... reaction?


The escalation theme in TDK addresses people being affected at every level. Mayor, cops, citizen, Wayne employees. That’s how we get to the power of Harvey Dent’s image.

But Snyder’s Superworld can’t be bothered to see the ramifications of its questions through cause it just wanted visuals.

 

[JimThompson]

It’s not about everyone loving or hating Supes. People can feel multiple ways about him.

I’m not conflating my views for the audience.

The movie sets up this big idea about the world reacting to aliens first contact as some key point but never follows through. We were hit over the head with how this is “ what if Clark was first contact” and what is the follow through?

Clark spends his whole life worrying and the reaction is... okay.

Alien invasion destroys part of a city...and the only people reaction comes from Batman. Not the UN or any other nation?

Alien first contact with at least one alien having lived among us in hiding... reaction?


The escalation theme in TDK addresses people being affected at every level. Mayor, cops, citizen, Wayne employees. That’s how we get to the power of Harvey Dent’s image.

But Snyder’s Superworld can’t be bothered to see the ramifications of its questions through cause it just wanted visuals.

You sort of skipped past the whole reason Superman went to the Capitol in Batman v. Superman in the first place.

 

[misslane38]

In MOS, we see initial first contact exploration in the conflicts and conversations between Superman and both civilians like Lois, Perry, and Father Leone and military or representatives of the state like Swanwick, Hamilton, and Hardy. With Lois, Perry, and Father Leone the question of whether the world is ready is asked, and while Lois and Perry decide that it's not, Father Leone encourages Clark to take a leap of faith. That leap of faith leads him to the military base where he has the first of several meaningful exchanges with the personnel there. More importantly, this occurs after Zod's very public ultimatum where we saw people like Woodburn, the blogger, on 24 hour news willing to out Lois (and Clark essentially) to spare Earth Zod's wrath.

By turning himself into the human authorities, Superman shows the world that he is trusting them, and his ultimate fight with Zod reaffirms his commitment to humanity. But with Swanwick and Hardy specifically, the issues of his existence alongside human authority is interrogated. At the base, Superman says, "Let's put our cards on the table here, General. You're scared because you can't control me. You don't, and you never will. But that doesn't mean I'm your enemy." Soon after, Hardy treats Superman as suspicious by shooting at him just as he is Faora and the other Kryptonian attacker in Smallville. Yet, when Superman takes those shots and still saves both him and a falling soldier from harm, he and the other soldiers have a change of heart: he is not their enemy. Finally, the film concludes with the military (Swanwick) seeking more reassurance through drone surveillance. Superman intercepts this and expresses his position further:

GENERAL: How do we know you won't one day act against America's interests?
SUPERMAN: Look, I'm here to help, but it has to be on my own terms. You have to convince Washington of that.
GENERAL: Even if I were willing to try, what makes you think they'd listen?
SUPERMAN: I don't know, general. Guess I'll just have to trust you.

The story continues in BvS. It's made clear that Superman has been embraced by the general public. People honor his heroism and seek out his help when they are in peril. It's a bit of a honeymoon period, which Senator Finch indicates in one of her first lines, "The world has been so caught up with what Superman can do, that no one has asked what he should do." It's the incident in Nairomi — the one that instigates the need for the hearing at the Capitol in Washington D.C. — that marks the end of that honeymoon period and the beginning of a more in depth exploration of the implications of Superman's existence and influence in the human world.

The Zod attack didn't serve as the catalyst for this precisely because it was a much more clear cut example of an outsider threatening the whole world and Superman acting selflessly to save everyone; he was like a savior. It's a false premise and and a false assumption that the public should have had a more negative reaction. Sure, a few people might feel differently (Bruce, Wallace), but they are in the minority and their reactions are more about them and their unique psychology. An interview or a few good deeds isn't enough for them. The audience and the public don't need to know more. Zod attacked them, and Superman saved them. Conversely, the Africa incident revealed his fallibility and how his power could interfere with the sovereignty of nations. Furthermore, Superman's approach is to trust humans and follow their lead when it comes to how they process and negotiate his presence in their world (e.g. seeking guidance from Lois and the priest). So when Senator Finch invites him to talk, he does.

In light of all of this narrative work, the notion that these films didn't explore or follow through with the "first contact" narrative is absurd. Beyond that, it's contradictory to suggest more needed to be done to show escalation while also advocating a simple interview from Superman at the end of MOS inoculate Superman and the world from potential conflict. Comparisons to TDK only reflect and reaffirm the approach that was taken, as Harvey and Joker mirror Bruce and Lex. Joker and Lex are both characters used to represent the escalated response or push back. Harvey is manipulated by Joker to lose his faith in goodness after a loved one (Rachel) is killed, and he ultimately cannot be redeemed. Whereas Lex manipulates Bruce to lose his way, but Bruce ultimately is redeemed. Both Batman and Superman make final sacrifices. In short, the criticisms in this thread recently not only don't hold up to scrutiny, they also can best be described as splitting the finest of hairs.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

In MOS, we see initial first contact exploration in the conflicts and conversations between Superman and both civilians like Lois, Perry, and Father Leone and military or representatives of the state like Swanwick, Hamilton, and Hardy. With Lois, Perry, and Father Leone the question of whether the world is ready is asked, and while Lois and Perry decide that it's not, Father Leone encourages Clark to take a leap of faith. That leap of faith leads him to the military base where he has the first of several meaningful exchanges with the personnel there. More importantly, this occurs after Zod's very public ultimatum where we saw people like Woodburn, the blogger, on 24 hour news willing to out Lois (and Clark essentially) to spare Earth Zod's wrath.

By turning himself into the human authorities, Superman shows the world that he is trusting them, and his ultimate fight with Zod reaffirms his commitment to humanity. But with Swanwick and Hardy specifically, the issues of his existence alongside human authority is interrogated. At the base, Superman says, "Let's put our cards on the table here, General. You're scared because you can't control me. You don't, and you never will. But that doesn't mean I'm your enemy." Soon after, Hardy treats Superman as suspicious by shooting at him just as he is Faora and the other Kryptonian attacker in Smallville. Yet, when Superman takes those shots and still saves both him and a falling soldier from harm, he and the other soldiers have a change of heart: he is not their enemy. Finally, the film concludes with the military (Swanwick) seeking more reassurance through drone surveillance. Superman intercepts this and expresses his position further:

GENERAL: How do we know you won't one day act against America's interests?
SUPERMAN: Look, I'm here to help, but it has to be on my own terms. You have to convince Washington of that.
GENERAL: Even if I were willing to try, what makes you think they'd listen?
SUPERMAN: I don't know, general. Guess I'll just have to trust you..

This is true and is why it makes no sense.

Zod threatens the world in his message demanding they turn over Clark. He doesn't pretend he's not the enemy saying we will face consequences. Why would the military then think Clark is the the enemy need to "turn himself in?" If Zod had called him an escaped criminal then yeah he would need to prove his trust in humanity.

Him acting defensively about not being able to control him would be something if his connection to humanity were known. No one(except Lois and Martha) has any idea what Zod is talking about or where to find him.Plus the threat was to the entire world, not the US military or America. It would have made more sense to stand before the UN and explain to the world that he was a "refugee"

It's like someone pointing a gun at you for hiding someone in your home then you would start questioning if the person without a gun is a threat. What???

The story continues in BvS. It's made clear that Superman has been embraced by the general public. People honor his heroism and seek out his help when they are in peril. It's a bit of a honeymoon period, which Senator Finch indicates in one of her first lines, "The world has been so caught up with what Superman can do, that no one has asked what he should do." It's the incident in Nairomi — the one that instigates the need for the hearing at the Capitol in Washington D.C. — that marks the end of that honeymoon period and the beginning of a more in depth exploration of the implications of Superman's existence and influence in the human world.

The Zod attack didn't serve as the catalyst for this precisely because it was a much more clear cut example of an outsider threatening the whole world and Superman acting selflessly to save everyone; he was like a savior. It's a false premise and and a false assumption that the public should have had a more negative reaction. Sure, a few people might feel differently (Bruce, Wallace), but they are in the minority and their reactions are more about them and their unique psychology. An interview or a few good deeds isn't enough for them. The audience and the public don't need to know more. Zod attacked them, and Superman saved them. Conversely, the Africa incident revealed his fallibility and how his power could interfere with the sovereignty of nations. Furthermore, Superman's approach is to trust humans and follow their lead when it comes to how they process and negotiate his presence in their world (e.g. seeking guidance from Lois and the priest). So when Senator Finch invites him to talk, he does..

Your sequel is build on a bad foundation. It doesn't matter what "story continues" It's narratively weakened by the the bad decisions in MOS. Superman doesn't exist until the end of the movie.

Like you pointed out

SUPERMAN: Look, I'm here to help, but it has to be on my own terms

In Begins, when Batman tells Gordon, he never has to say thank you, it's after we've seen him as Batman doing good for and hour of run time. By the time he wrecks part of the city, he's at least turned in some crime bosses and made an anti-toxin to save lives.

At the end of MOS, The Superman persona has just come into existence. So for BvS to jump into quick flash, montage, montage, negates whatever public persona you think it's established cause it doesn't have time. Superman has existed for a while...okay....let's start the movie....okay but it would have been nice to see him fully making those saves. You know, build up and tension.

In light of all of this narrative work, the notion that these films didn't explore or follow through with the "first contact" narrative is absurd. Beyond that, it's contradictory to suggest more needed to be done to show escalation while also advocating a simple interview from Superman at the end of MOS inoculate Superman and the world from potential conflict. Comparisons to TDK only reflect and reaffirm the approach that was taken, as Harvey and Joker mirror Bruce and Lex. Joker and Lex are both characters used to represent the escalated response or push back. Harvey is manipulated by Joker to lose his faith in goodness after a loved one (Rachel) is killed, and he ultimately cannot be redeemed. Whereas Lex manipulates Bruce to lose his way, but Bruce ultimately is redeemed. Both Batman and Superman make final sacrifices. In short, the criticisms in this thread recently not only don't hold up to scrutiny, they also can best be described as splitting the finest of hairs.

If you think an interview would inoculate Superman from potential conflict is absurd.

The point of the interview would be to let Superman speak. In MOS, up until that point, everyone else had been telling Clark what to do. Ma and Pa as a kid. Lois trying to get him to open up. Zod exposing him. How about Clark just letting people know what he wants and thinks. "Earth is my home, I'm a refugee from a dead planet...."

Lex and Joker are nothing alike. You completely misread what TDK was talking about. The Joker was an outgrowth of Batman's war on the mob. The same way Harvey and the hockeypad Batmen were.

Lex's superiority complex had nothing to do with learning aliens exist. Cause we already know he knows superpowered Atlanteans, immortal warrior women, and speedsters exist. All of them superior to him.

Batman's paranoia had nothing to do with Superman or aliens. He admitted it. He was an outgrowth of being a crimefighter for too long and becoming cynical.

Alfred: He is not our enemy.

Bruce: Not today.

Bruce: 20 years in Gotham, Alfred...

 

[misslane38]

This is true and is why it makes no sense.

Zod threatens the world in his message demanding they turn over Clark. He doesn't pretend he's not the enemy saying we will face consequences. Why would the military then think Clark is the the enemy need to "turn himself in?" If Zod had called him an escaped criminal then yeah he would need to prove his trust in humanity.

The whole idea of an alien is threatening enough to humanity. The idea that he was hiding and pretending to be human makes it more threatening, similar to an illegal immigrant but worse. The idea, though, is that this alien (Clark) had been hiding on Earth because he wanted to and chose to, so if he chooses to protect his anonymity and place on Earth over people's well-being (because Zod's ultimatum includes harming Earth if Kal doesn't comply), he would show the world that he was selfish and not to be trusted. Moreover, Zod's original demand was for Kal to turn himself over to him, not to the military or any other human authority. What Clark debates with the priest in Smallville is whether he should make his public debut by turning himself over to Zod directly or to humanity. Turning himself over to humanity shows that he is wants to build a relationship with them and trusts them. This is all in the script, by the way.

ZOD: To Kal-El, I say this: Surrender within 24 hours or watch this world suffer the consequences.
NEWS ANCHOR: We hardly know anything about him, isn't that right? If he truly means us no harm, he'll turn himself in and face the consequences. And if he won't do that then maybe we should.
WOODBURN: The Daily Planet's Lois Lane knows who this guy is. She's the one we should be questioning.

Yes, it's obvious Zod is the aggressor. But it's also obvious that Kal would show he's a benign force by turning himself in, and that how he does it will reveal his good character, to the audience and to the public of the film, even more. As Clark says to the priest, "Zod can't be trusted. The problem is I'm not sure the people of Earth can be either." To which the priest responds, "Sometimes you have to take a leap of faith first. The trust part comes later." He chooses to save humanity, believe in humanity, and engage with them first over Zod (his own kind). These choices, as Jonathan said Clark's choices would do, reveal his "good character," because he's deciding to "stand proud in front of the human race."

Him acting defensively about not being able to control him would be something if his connection to humanity were known. No one(except Lois and Martha) has any idea what Zod is talking about or where to find him.Plus the threat was to the entire world, not the US military or America. It would have made more sense to stand before the UN and explain to the world that he was a "refugee"

He turns himself in to the US military because Lois Lane is being held there as a traitor just because she is protecting him. His choice to wear their handcuffs and to explain that he won't be theirs to control are careful attempts to establish trust and boundaries. It's not about how threatening humanity views him. They just don't know what to make of him.

It's like someone pointing a gun at you for hiding someone in your home then you would start questioning if the person without a gun is a threat. What???

Um, the film's script explicitly has the humans state that they don't perceive a threat from Kal or Zod, and just because someone threatens another person doesn't make that other person good, innocent, or benign by default.

NEWS: According to government officials, the visitors do not represent a threat despite the ominous tone of their message. Then of course there's the question on everyonek mind: "Who is this Kal-El person? Does he actually exist? How could he have remained hidden from us for so long?"

They don't know anything about this "alien," like why Zod wants him or why he's been in hiding. They start to get to know his character better because of the choices he makes. Ultimately they come to know that he was willing to turn himself in and that Zod didn't hold his end of the bargain when he attacks Earth. That Superman continues to demonstrate his loyalty and love by fighting the aliens to protect his adopted home helps them embrace him further.

Your sequel is build on a bad foundation. It doesn't matter what "story continues" It's narratively weakened by the the bad decisions in MOS. Superman doesn't exist until the end of the movie.

You've failed to demonstrate that there actually were bad decisions in MOS, and Superman existing by the end doesn't negate the fact that Superman saved them from the bad guy, which turned him into a savior in the public eye. An interview with Lois isn't necessary to prevent the problems in BvS, because the problems in BvS, at least among the few in the public who aren't fans of his, are the result of NEW events in Nairomi and Washington, DC.

The specific problems that Lex and Bruce represent are actually the result of how LOVED Superman is and their own deeply troubled psychology, all of which have NOTHING to do with MOS and would have not been prevented by the PR stunt interview you proposed. If anything, it would just piss them off more; Bruce even says the DP puff pieces bother him. Please understand this. Your original argument was that they chose NOT to have an interview or lots of public saves and love onscreen so they could justify Bruce's vendetta. Every counterargument you've made has strayed from this point, and I have to assume it's because you've realized it's unsound.

At the end of MOS, The Superman persona has just come into existence. So for BvS to jump into quick flash, montage, montage, negates whatever public persona you think it's established cause it doesn't have time. Superman has existed for a while...okay....let's start the movie....okay but it would have been nice to see him fully making those saves. You know, build up and tension.

See, this is where I see you conflating your personal desires and a cinematic experience over the point of view or subjective experiences of the public in the fictional world these characters inhabit. Your proposed interview solution and build up of saves onscreen aren't needed by that fictional public, because they don't need convincing. They are in a "love affair" with Superman. Now, you can say that you wished you could have felt that more as a viewer, but you can't say that such a sentiment didn't exist and that the narrative doesn't flow logically from that established antecedent. I suppose I can at least agree that it would have been "nice" to see such things. I don't think it was necessary, but it would have been nice, for sure.

Lex and Joker are nothing alike. You completely misread what TDK was talking about. The Joker was an outgrowth of Batman's war on the mob. The same way Harvey and the hockeypad Batmen were.

Lex's superiority complex had nothing to do with learning aliens exist. Cause we already know he knows superpowered Atlanteans, immortal warrior women, and speedsters exist. All of them superior to him.

I didn't say they were identical. I just illustrated some of the parallels in the structure of the films, not in the actual characterizations of the villains beyond superficials. I think it's you who needs to be careful of misreading things. In fact, you're very much mistaken about Lex. He only seeks out information about the other metahumans BECAUSE of Superman's existence, and Lex's superiority complex is something that exists in him ALWAYS. He has probably been driven by it his whole life. But it's Superman's arrival that tests it, as it always does in every Superman origin story, and it's his desire to undermine Superman's status that drives him. So, I'm sorry, I have to disagree and say that Lex and Joker are similar in the sense that both target the new "hero" because they represent a fundamental existential threat to their primary drive.

Batman's paranoia had nothing to do with Superman or aliens. He admitted it. He was an outgrowth of being a crimefighter for too long and becoming cynical.

Alfred: He is not our enemy.

Bruce: Not today.

Bruce: 20 years in Gotham, Alfred...

Excuse me? I never said Bruce's issue with Superman had anything to do with aliens. I even used the word "goodness." Again, pay attention. Bruce says goodness is a promise that can't be kept, a beautiful lie. Both Bruce and Lex believe gods can't be trusted to be good, and so both seek to destroy him.

 

[All-Father]

It’s not about everyone loving or hating Supes. People can feel multiple ways about him.

I’m not conflating my views for the audience.

The movie sets up this big idea about the world reacting to aliens first contact as some key point but never follows through. We were hit over the head with how this is “ what if Clark was first contact” and what is the follow through?

Clark spends his whole life worrying and the reaction is... okay.

Alien invasion destroys part of a city...and the only people reaction comes from Batman. Not the UN or any other nation?

Alien first contact with at least one alien having lived among us in hiding... reaction?


The escalation theme in TDK addresses people being affected at every level. Mayor, cops, citizen, Wayne employees. That’s how we get to the power of Harvey Dent’s image.

But Snyder’s Superworld can’t be bothered to see the ramifications of its questions through cause it just wanted visuals.

True. I don't understand why people expected more than that from him.