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

[Willi Berg]

He can still be a figure of optimism and hope while being hunted by the government. It's all about how you present it. His greatest superpower is that he can remain hopeful and optimistic even when faced with opposition and seemingly insurmountable odds. That's kinda the main power that makes him Superman, imo. So if you present him dealing with it like Grant Morrison had him dealing with it, and not as someone beaten down and depressed by the whole scenario, I don't think audiences would take issue with that at all. But you have to show the POSITIVE effects he's having on people, too. The lives he's saved, the lives he's changed, the people he's inspiring every day. Because they're the ones that inspire him. It's not a one-way street. He inspires us, we inspire him. That's a crucial element of any Superman mythos, imo.

Well said. Also, if Lex as President would begin to show more and more of his true colours then people's trust in him would begin to erode. The people would need Superman more and more.

 

[Silvermoth]

If they do that they should call the new flick “why the world needs Superman”

 

[Aurakles]

Following Luthor and seeing things from his point of view would allow Superman film to be made a lot cheaper.
We don't see the fight with the killer robots, just Lex surveying the aftermath. All the big action scenes occur off screen, we just see clips of news reports or CCTV that Luthor is watching.

 

[Nemeres]

I could see "President Luthor" serving as a viable movie idea if they expanded it into a Suicide Squad-style team movie, a Legion of Doom origin film of some sort... rival villain teams at war, á la Villains United. Might even work as a premise for another SS sequel. The President Luthor concept would share the film's weight with other supervillains and it justifies the absence of the hero that he's generally associated with.

 

[Aurakles]

I quite like the idea of a story where Luthor get more and more unhinged as his plans are repeatedly stymied by Superman.
Thefts, acts of industrial sabotage and assignations etc, all thwarted by Superman. He becomes angrier, nastier, more unstable as he becomes obsessed with destroying the Man of Steel.
Moby Dick with Luthor as Ahab and Superman as the Whale.

 

[Frodo]

I like the idea of Lex being more of a supporting character and an emerging threat as opposed to being the big bad right off the bat and coming after Superman head on. I like the L&C, Smallville, and STAS type of Lex who's as important a supporting character as Lois Lane ,and who, while being up to something, is not always behind everything.

I'd first establish some of Superman's other foes and rogues, to establish that Superman has more enemies than just Lex and Zod, and that there are other threats in Metropolis which aren't connected to Lex Luthor or other Kryptonians.

Aside from Superman 3 , which had Ross Webster, Nuclear Man and Doomsday as a weapons, Steppenwolf who appeared in crossover films, the other Superman 1,2,4, Superman Returns, Man of Steel, Batman vs Superman, have basically exclusively featured Lex or Zod as the main villain.

I'd want to see foes like Intergang, Metallo, Livewire, Brainiac, Parasite, Toyman etc, first before building up to having Lex be the sole villain in a Superman film.

 

[GreenKToo]

I like the idea of a Lex film.
I'd show him from childhood to adulthood.
Have him work for the government when he is younger, and is on the team ''investigating'' a crashed ufo report in smallville.
He steals some of the tech he found at the crash site, reverse engineers it, and make billions. As a result, Lexcorp is born.
Lex finds a cure for a disease, but superman steals the headline after saving a crashing plane.
Lex creates a new form of food supply to feed the hungry, but superman steals the headline again by stopping a bank robbery.
Lex would be livid, and starts his descent into trying to destroy superman.

We only would see bits and pieces of Superman, but he would be there, in the background.
I just don't see how you could have a lex film without having at least some of Superman in it, but make no mistake, it should be 98% about Lex.

 

[SupermanFan]

He can still be a figure of optimism and hope while being hunted by the government. It's all about how you present it. His greatest superpower is that he can remain hopeful and optimistic even when faced with opposition and seemingly insurmountable odds. That's kinda the main power that makes him Superman, imo. So if you present him dealing with it like Grant Morrison had him dealing with it, and not as someone beaten down and depressed by the whole scenario, I don't think audiences would take issue with that at all. But you have to show the POSITIVE effects he's having on people, too. The lives he's saved, the lives he's changed, the people he's inspiring every day. Because they're the ones that inspire him. It's not a one-way street. He inspires us, we inspire him. That's a crucial element of any Superman mythos, imo.

Completely agree with you. That’s one of my issues with BVS, it tells us that Superman was this believed for figure but they never showed us.

 

[Aurakles]

Well, BVS does show that people built a statue of him which the news calls a beloved monument. Keefes wall is covered in news articles of about rescues and Perry mentions the end of the publics "love affair" with him. We see people painting his symbol on their roof, screaming fans wearing clothes "Superman Saves". Bruce mentions the Daily Planet writes puff pieces about him and Kahina says "they say he's a hero".
And as in Grant Morrisions New 52 run, he has a crisis of faith when the public turns against him.

 

[flickchick85]

The movie focused on none of that. I’ve seen it several times and I don’t even know what “Keefe’s wall” is or what was on it. The symbol on the roof was people crying for his attention because they wanted to be rescued, not because they wanted to honor or celebrate him, and we saw none of his interactions with these people other than hovering above them or standing among an awed crowd like a detached god being worshipped. A giant monument that we don’t even see the dedication to, so we don’t see anyone’s testimonies or personal stories/praise about him only furthers that impression. There was no human connection there. All he did was mope about like a misanthrope while they projected their grand ideas onto him as he stoically performed rescues like it was some great burden he was doomed to repeat forever. So again I say, it’s all about how you present it. Having characters claim the public loves him is meaningless if you don’t show it and make us feel it.

 

[I Am The Knight]

Wallace Keefe had a wall filled with Superman articles because he was obsessed and he hated him.

 

[flickchick85]

Ah, the disgruntled Wayne employee guy. Thanks! So basically, if you leaned over to take a sip of soda at the wrong time, you miss that particular dose of “people loving Supes.”

 

[Aurakles]

The movie focused on none of that. I’ve seen it several times and I don’t even know what “Keefe’s wall” is. The symbol on the roof was people crying for his attention because they wanted to be rescued, not because they wanted to honor or celebrate him, and we saw none of his interactions with these people other than hovering above them or standing among them like a detached god being worshipped. A giant monument that we don’t even see the dedication to, so we don’t see anyone’s testimonies or personal stories/praise about him only furthers that impression. There was no human connection there. All he did was mope about like a misanthrope while they projected their grand ideas into him as he stoically performed rescues like it was some great burden he was doomed to repeat forever. So again I say, it’s all about how you present it.

The film didn't focus on it, but it was still there. There's plenty of evidence placed throughout the movie. It gives a sort of lived in impression, Superman is no longer this brand new thing everyone is gushing about, they've kind of gotten used to him.

We didn't see the statue being dedicated, but seeing its existence, we can reason that it would have had one. We know monuments like this don't go up without a lot of fanfare and for an individual to be the focal point they must be held in high esteem. We don't need to see the ceremony to know there would have been one.

Sorry I could have explained that better, by Keefe’s wall, I meant the start of this scene:


I don't think it's fair to say all he did was mope. At the start of the film he was upbeat, happy with Lois and shrugging off criticism. He is then driven in his investigation of Batman, he is motivated and active in pursuing truth and justice, rather than just saying he's a fan of it.
And when things get very bad, when hundreds of people die around him, he feels horrible, because of course he does. That's not moping, that's being genuinely heartbroken over a tragedy.
He has a crisis of faith, he wants to keep helping people, but he questions whether the best way to do that is to stop being Superman.
He has a range of emotions throughout the film, all appropriate responses to the given situation.

I agree that presentation is important, it's a point the film makes as well. The movie takes a deliberate look at perception and how often our assumptions are wrong. The sequence of rescues is deliberately tied into the media discussion of him, where they speak about him acting like a god. The rescues are cut so that see certain parts but not others, we see him hovering over the flood, we can logical work out that he would have then proceeded to help the people, likely directly interacting with them, but we don't get shown that. A single event can be spun to produce various different interpretations.
The detached god angle is something Luthor is trying to push, everything Superman does begins to be framed in that contexts, things that don't fit the narrative are excised.
The sequence ends with Clark watching it on TV, the section isn't about how Superman really is, it's about how he is being perceived.

 

[flickchick85]

Little more than Easter Eggs sprinkled throughout is not the way to sell an audience on something. And yes, I agree it’s trying to make a point about perception, but the problem is, it’s more interested in making that point and more interested in the idea of Superman as a god than in him as a person. Hence the “detached god” angle taking precedence over Superman’s inner life or balanced experience. You say the world wasn’t gushing over him “anymore” - we never got to experience the point when they were, because Snyder wasn’t interested in that part. So again, presentation is key. Present these things in a way that gives the audience insight into what makes Superman tick and actually makes them care about him as a person (which means giving him a personality), and perhaps most importantly, isn’t aggressively depressing because that’s not what this character has ever been about giving people, and they’re fine concepts to use in a Superman film that audiences could actually enjoy.

 

[misslane38]

Little more than Easter Eggs sprinkled throughout is not the way to sell an audience on something. And yes, I agree it’s trying to make a point about perception, but the problem is, it’s more interested in making that point and more interested in the idea of Superman as a god than in him as a person. Hence the “detached god” angle taking precedence over Superman’s inner life or balanced experience. You say the world wasn’t gushing over him “anymore” - we never got to experience the point when they were, because Snyder wasn’t interested in that part. So again, presentation is key. Present these things in a way that gives the audience insight into what makes Superman tick and actually makes them care about him as a person (which means giving him a personality), and perhaps most importantly, isn’t aggressively depressing because that’s not what this character has ever been about giving people, and they’re fine concepts to use in a Superman film that audiences could actually enjoy.

What do you mean by Superman "as a person," his "inner life," what "makes him tick," and "balance?" What would that look like to you onscreen? Also, when you say "personality," do you just mean a specific kind and that only some personalities can inspire caring?

 

[flickchick85]

What do you mean by Superman "as a person," his "inner life," and "balance?" What would that look like to you onscreen?

His relationships beyond Lois and his mom, actual human interactions with the public, the stuff that makes him love helping people, evidence that he even does love helping people other than the fact that he keeps doing it, the stuff he does in his free time to amuse himself, living his day-to-day life with these incredible abilities, etc.

 

[misslane38]

His relationships beyond Lois and his mom, actual human interactions with the public, the stuff that makes him love helping people, evidence that he even does love helping people other than the fact that he keeps doing it, the stuff he does in his free time to amuse himself, living his day-to-day life with these incredible abilities, etc.

The way he interacts with the Day of the Dead fire victim and bystanders, with Batman's victims, and how he chose to respond to Finch's call says a lot as did his interactions with the military in MOS. He likes to live a quiet life, cooking and watching TV. He takes public transportation even when he doesn't have to and smiles at two men in love. His day to day life gets hijacked (in a good way) by his abilities, since he can be in the middle of disobeying his boss's instructions by pursuing his Batman story when he must rush off to help someone.

He shouldn't need positive reinforcement to "make him" love helping people. His help and love should be unconditional. That he does it in spite of some bad reactions shows his love and dedication more not less.

So, is it more that you want those insights to take a different form? More playful, less serious? He's a fine character, but not a good wish fulfillment character?

 

[flickchick85]

No, I think I’ve made clear what I’d like to see, and where I feel Snyder failed to make him an engaging character.

 

[dhandler01]

I agree with everything flickchick said. So do most of the people who see the film which is why Superman wasnt liked overall. (and why the Snyderverse died) All style, no substance. Yes the scenes are beautiful when he saves the family or The Day of the Dead Fire...but that is all they are visuals. And they arent even really helpful visuals just excuses for Snyder to use his slow mo fetish to make Cav-El look like Jesus. It is so vaguely presented you cant even tell if he is taking joy in saving them, he just looks constipated and detached. The only time that isnt true is when he is saving Lois...

And here is the thing, it isnt like it takes much to convey what the people wanted to see. You can literally do an exposition dump a few times and it will resonate subconsciously. Have the staff at the Planet listing off the things he has done, when the TV shows are debating the value of Metas have them debate back and forth with real examples. Have snippets of kids running around dressed like Supes talking about how cool it must be to fly while picnicking at the statue. I have said it a dozen times...10 minutes of that stuff and all of a sudden Snyder has the true contrast between an unhinged Batman and a Superman just doing his best to save the day. Hell if you want have the adults distrust him (like older Batman) and have the kids love him because they see him with uncynical eyes...a man who can fly and will protect everyone big or small.

For all the flaws Justice League had, especially the Whedon reshoots, the added bit at the beginning with the kids doing the Vlog all excited trying to get a quote from Supes was exactly what was missing from MOS and BvS. If those films had had 1/1000 of the childlike wonder and awe Shazam did they both are beloved. I mean Sandberg did more to show how great Superman was through Freddy Freeman than Snyder did with the entire casts of 3 films.

 

[Aurakles]

Little more than Easter Eggs sprinkled throughout is not the way to sell an audience on something. And yes, I agree it’s trying to make a point about perception, but the problem is, it’s more interested in making that point and more interested in the idea of Superman as a god than in him as a person. Hence the “detached god” angle taking precedence over Superman’s inner life or balanced experience. You say the world wasn’t gushing over him “anymore” - we never got to experience the point when they were, because Snyder wasn’t interested in that part. So again, presentation is key. Present these things in a way that gives the audience insight into what makes Superman tick and actually makes them care about him as a person (which means giving him a personality), and perhaps most importantly, isn’t aggressively depressing because that’s not what this character has ever been about giving people, and they’re fine concepts to use in a Superman film that audiences could actually enjoy.

I don't think it's fair to dismiss them as easter eggs. They weren't little extras in the background, they lingered on or were important pieces of dialogue in serious scenes.
Having someone simply give some exposition might have been easier, but it would have lacked the very natural and realistic way the film slips in the information.
The film makes a point of showing we shouldn't blindly trust people, they could be mistaken or deliberately misleading us. As in real life, there is no unbiased, unprejudiced, infallible source of objective truth. Better to look at the evidence yourself before taking as gospel the word of anyone looking to explain everything to you.

The film intentionally tries to make the audience subject to Luthors machinations, it gives us a taste of how he's manipulated the public discourse against Superman. Luthor doesn't want the world to see Superman as human, he doesn't want people to relate to him. In BVS Superman is attacked by someone deliberately attempting to strip him of his humanity in the eyes of the world, he's attacked in a way many minorities have been, it's easier to hate people who've been dehumanised. We are given front row seats to the anti-Superman show, so that we can more easily relate to Batman, so we understand how he might be buying what Lex is selling.
Showing lots of Clark at his nicest, warmest, cuddliest moments makes Bruce seem inhuman for wanting to kill him.
It's a lesson in judging people too quickly, how often do we make assumptions about people based off just brief interactions?
A stranger acts rudely, I decide they are simply a rude person, if I act rudely it was because I was having a bad day, I'm not like that if you get to know me, honest.
If a stranger lies they are a liar, if I lie it's only because of the situation, because I had to, I'm still a trustworthy person.
We are quick to brand people without doing due diligence.

The film plays heavily on misunderstandings and misjudgments, on the fact that people are complex and contradictory. Having clear cut exposition dumps might make things seem simple, but as Martha Kent reminds us "Nothing was ever simple."

 

[Silvermoth]

No, I think I’ve made clear what I’d like to see, and where I feel Snyder failed to make him an engaging character.

yes Snyder was not a good choice. Arguably you could say he was the worst choice possible.

 

[RomanticPenguin]

 

[Deck Rickard]

Ah, the disgruntled Wayne employee guy. Thanks! So basically, if you leaned over to take a sip of soda at the wrong time, you miss that particular dose of “people loving Supes.”

And even if you did notice that, I feel like those ideas are completely undercut because the main focus is a guy who hates him and blames him for everything, lol.

 

[flickchick85]

I don't think it's fair to dismiss them as easter eggs. They weren't little extras in the background, they lingered on or were important pieces of dialogue in serious scenes.
Having someone simply give some exposition might have been easier, but it would have lacked the very natural and realistic way the film slips in the information.
The film makes a point of showing we shouldn't blindly trust people, they could be mistaken or deliberately misleading us. As in real life, there is no unbiased, unprejudiced, infallible source of objective truth. Better to look at the evidence yourself before taking as gospel the word of anyone looking to explain everything to you.

The film intentionally tries to make the audience subject to Luthors machinations, it gives us a taste of how he's manipulated the public discourse against Superman. Luthor doesn't want the world to see Superman as human, he doesn't want people to relate to him. In BVS Superman is attacked by someone deliberately attempting to strip him of his humanity in the eyes of the world, he's attacked in a way many minorities have been, it's easier to hate people who've been dehumanised. We are given front row seats to the anti-Superman show, so that we can more easily relate to Batman, so we understand how he might be buying what Lex is selling.
Showing lots of Clark at his nicest, warmest, cuddliest moments makes Bruce seem inhuman for wanting to kill him.
It's a lesson in judging people too quickly, how often do we make assumptions about people based off just brief interactions?
A stranger acts rudely, I decide they are simply a rude person, if I act rudely it was because I was having a bad day, I'm not like that if you get to know me, honest.
If a stranger lies they are a liar, if I lie it's only because of the situation, because I had to, I'm still a trustworthy person.
We are quick to brand people without doing due diligence.

The film plays heavily on misunderstandings and misjudgments, on the fact that people are complex and contradictory. Having clear cut exposition dumps might make things seem simple, but as Martha Kent reminds us "Nothing was ever simple."

Sorry, but I didn’t see Clark as warm or “cuddly” at any point in the film. Not even when he was making out with Lois in a tub while deflecting a serious conversation about how it looked like he totally murdered people in the desert and should maybe take care with how he comes across to the public. So if the film wanted me to see any warmth in this Superman, it failed dramatically. If it wanted me to “more easily relate to Batman” at some point as you claim, then it also failed there. Because that’s the thing - I understand exactly what the film was trying to do. I just feel Zack completely lacks the nuance and believability in his portrayal of human behavior (in every film I’ve seen of his) to convey it in a remotely effective manner. I never buy what his characters are doing, because he’s more interested in the visuals their actions will provide than in selling them to the viewer. So as a result, there was not a single character I connected to, or whose actions I actually believed in, in the entirety of BvS.

 

[dhandler01]

Yeah he is never warm...pushed home by his interaction with Batman when they first meet. That is when he SHOULD have been warm. Batman should look like a dick and Superman should be more human. Superman never even tries, he threatens him. That isnt Superman and no movie that has that as their first meeting can claim to show him as warm.

MOS at least showed him as such when dealing with his mom...BvS purposefully never does that because that isnt what Snyder wanted to do. That is fine it is his choice but Cav-El is never warm and cuddly. He is detached and cold, which was supposed to have been long gone by the time BvS happened. His characterizations are closer to the Superman Lex Luthor would see than the one who say The Daily Planet or the people of Metropolis in the comics would see.