Justice League The Justice League General & Speculation Discussion Thread - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 50

[Da-Scribe]

Always goes back to the checklist thing with Supes for me. There’s no wiggle room with fans for this character. Not cinematically at least.

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

And that's the crux of why he wasn't received well, imo. He's Superman - people don't want him to appear dour to begin with. If they have to look beneath the surface to find the qualities they're looking for in Superman, you're not gonna have a successful Superman movie, imo.

I was actually referring to the goings-on of the film (i.e., certain aspects of it), not Superman per se. I saw him as conflicted, rather than dour. For instance, when he attempted to rescue people in different parts of the world, he was unjustly criticized for acting unilaterally/meddling in political affairs. As a direct result, he then sought to distance himself from the US government (as seen in the Ultimate Edition) so as to give the impression that he's more of a free agent. And once again, he was criticized (this time, in the form of a put-down from none other than Jon Stewart). Superman was essentially in a position where he could do no right... where there was no pleasing anyone. Unfortunately, much of that criticism soon took on a life of its own. What's worse is that viewers/audiences, for whatever reason, appear to have conflated it with Superman himself. It's as if they required more action on his part to emphasize that he was, in fact, not responsible for all of these false allegations of misconduct.

 

[Vaibow]

While I personally wouldn't call a film like BvS dark, I don't think a CBM is somehow impervious to being labeled as such simply by nature of what some of its most intrinsic elements (in this case, costumes and fisticuffs) allow for. That would be almost akin to saying a DC porn parody isn't really a skin flick just because it's got superheroes in it.

Anyway, to Vaibow's point, which, again, I don't wholly agree with (the "violated" stuff, for example, is utter nonsense), I think some people are a little too fixated on the utmost example of what dark can mean. And to be fair, there's some legitimate variance to be found there. An online definition of the word, for instance, reads as follows: relating to grim or depressing circumstances // dark humor. In that sense, one could argue that BvS certainly has its dark moments. However, and it's here where Vaibow loses me, the film isn't entirely devoid of joy and hopefulness. Case in point, Snyder's Superman, regardless of how he's perceived by fans and critics alike, rarely if ever wavers from trying to do the right thing even in the face of ever-mounting criticism from all sides. Details like this are significant because when you look at the film for all that it is, it's only then that you realize things aren't as dour as they appear to be.

Of course, the way people use "dark" nowadays isn't anything new. Even Batman himself is often referred to as a "dark knight", the term coined as far back as '39 with his comic book inception. And why? Because, despite his altruism or willingness to do good, he's nevertheless a violent and damaged hero, often walking a fine line between right and wrong. Interestingly enough, though, not everyone cares for that particular moniker. Most recently, in fact, I read a piece from an author who scoffed at the idea of perceiving Bats as a "dark" knight, something he erroneously credited Nolan for. A prime example of someone with an arguably narrow vision of what it means to be dark, the author couldn't make sense of the term as applied to anyone who hadn't committed the most egregious of acts (I believe he alluded to axe murderers and the like). So, it would seem that this kind of ambiguity over how and to what we apply the word in question is rather ubiquitous. Complicating matters further is the manner in which language has been known to change as popular usage drifts from guidelines.

I said 'possibly violated' so for the hot shots keen on turning this into a ''who's the human thesaurus''
Possibly = perhaps, in accordance to likely happen.
Violated = treat something with disrespect.

So you mean to say they politely took a lady, sat her down, apologized and gently gagged her? Nope, i'm saying they probably hurt her, ruffled her feathers and messed with her dignity, verbally, physically, who knows - the photos had her looking visibly distressed and violated - it got superman pissed.

Anyways...

 

[flickchick85]

Always goes back to the checklist thing with Supes for me. There’s no wiggle room with fans for this character. Not cinematically at least.

It's not just Superman. We saw what happened when they went all light and goofy with Batman even though it's not like there wasn't precedence via Adam West. People just come to expect certain things from these characters, because those are the things that made them fans in the first place. When they get something that feels like a betrayal of those core qualities, they reject it. Seems simple to me.

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

I said 'possibly violated' so for the hot shots keen on turning this into a ''who's the human thesaurus''
Possibly = perhaps, in accordance to likely happen.
Violated = treat something with disrespect.

So you mean to say they politely took a lady, sat her down, apologized and gently gagged her? Nope, i'm saying they probably hurt her, ruffled her feathers and messed with her dignity, verbally, physically, who knows - the photos had her looking visibly distressed and violated - it got superman pissed.

Anyways...

Gagged kidnappings are the norm in the world of comics and cartoons, though (even the ones aimed at younger audiences). So, if you weren't implying that something more vile took place, what was the point of bringing it up in the first place?

 

[Vaibow]

Gagged kidnappings are the norm in the world of comics and cartoons, though (even the ones aimed at younger audiences). So, if you weren't implying that something more vile took place, what was the point of bringing it up in the first place?

Well what's the point in us bringing anything up from the world of 'comics and cartoons' then??


We need some official news on anything, fast....

 

[flickchick85]

I was actually referring to the goings-on of the film (i.e., certain aspects of it), not Superman per se. I saw him as conflicted, rather than dour. For instance, when he attempted to rescue people in different parts of the world, he was unjustly criticized for acting unilaterally/meddling in political affairs. As a direct result, he then sought to distance himself from the US government (as seen in the Ultimate Edition) so as to give the impression that he's more of a free agent. And once again, he was criticized (this time, in the form of a put-down from none other than Jon Stewart). Superman was essentially in a position where he could do no right... where there was no pleasing anyone. Unfortunately, much of that criticism soon took on a life of its own. What's worse is that viewers/audiences, for whatever reason, appear to have conflated it with Superman himself. It's as if they required more action on his part to emphasize that he was, in fact, not responsible for all of these false allegations of misconduct.

Yes, I know what you meant, but I also meant the content of the film itself. Most people don't go to see a Superman film and hope to see something dour. Even if Superman himself isn't (I'd argue he was, but can agree to disagree there).

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

Well what's the point in us bringing anything up from the world of 'comics and cartoons' then??


We need some official news on anything, fast....

No, I specifically meant in your previous response to DaScribe on page 36. You mentioned the kidnapping as one of several examples you took issue with. I was just curious why since that's pretty much a staple in most comic book films and related material.

 

[Vaibow]

Yes, I know what you meant, but I also meant the content of the film itself. Most people don't go to see a Superman film and hope to see something dour. Even if Superman himself isn't (I'd argue he was, but can agree to disagree there).

I really thought we would get the age old tropes... shirt rip, at least one scene where his secret identity is called into question and glorious sunny day flight scene.

Does anyone remember the set photo's from MOS and it looked as if there was an extra dressed exactly like Reeve's Clark kent... i'll see if i can find the image.

 

[Vaibow]

No, I specifically meant in your previous response to DaScribe on page 36. You mentioned the kidnapping as one of several examples you took issue with. I was just curious why since that's pretty much a staple in most comic book films and related material.

It was a pretty evil, dark idea to take Clark's mother.. lex said it himself, the bond between boy and his mummy. Having lois and ruthlessly throw her over the edge was bad enough, but i'm sure we all thought 'damn he got his mother' and the way the pictures were presented, crying, tears, writing on the forehead... no one wants their mum in that position.. it was dark... at least to me.

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

Yes, I know what you meant, but I also meant the content of the film itself. Most people don't go to see a Superman film and hope to see something dour. Even if Superman himself isn't (I'd argue he was, but can agree to disagree there).

I hear you. It was essentially a niche film marketed in the guise of one suited for mass audiences.

 

[Vaibow]

I hear you. It was essentially a niche film marketed in the guise of one suited for mass audiences.

In hindsight - was that wise??

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

In hindsight - was that wise??

Personally, I was never especially keen with how WB went about marketing this film (it felt dishonest to me), but I nevertheless understand why they took that approach. Likely dismayed by the negative feedback from the very first teaser, which was relatively indicative of what we'd be getting in theaters, they were forced to change their strategy and focus on the more superficial aspects of the production. Was it wise? From a business standpoint I'd say yes, as it enabled them to make the most profit from the endeavor. Had the studio continued to market BvS as a niche product, showing trailers more in line with the aforementioned teaser, they ultimately would've ended up with less money from ticket sales, merchandising, etc.

 

[Aurakles]

To me, BVS is certainly an adult and serious film, but I don't think dark is the right word. It's a film about heroes under attack from darkness and triumphing over it. Superman has his hope and optimism challenged and though he wavers, at the end of the film he retains his faith, his belief in the light.
Batman begins the film in darkness but at the end of the film he has found a path of redemption and rejects the darkness.

 

[_Superman_]

It was a pretty evil, dark idea to take Clark's mother.. lex said it himself, the bond between boy and his mummy. Having lois and ruthlessly throw her over the edge was bad enough, but i'm sure we all thought 'damn he got his mother' and the way the pictures were presented, crying, tears, writing on the forehead... no one wants their mum in that position.. it was dark... at least to me.

I don't have a problem with that one bit because he was the villain.

 

[Erzengel]

To me, BVS is certainly an adult and serious film, but I don't think dark is the right word. It's a film about heroes under attack from darkness and triumphing over it. Superman has his hope and optimism challenged and though he wavers, at the end of the film he retains his faith, his belief in the light.
Batman begins the film in darkness but at the end of the film he has found a path of redemption and rejects the darkness.

I just think it's just an argument in semantics. Adult, serious, dark, dour. I think the TDKT is too a more adult or serious set of movies, but personally BvS feels joyless.

 

[_Superman_]

I just think it's just an argument in semantics. Adult, serious, dark, dour. I think the TDKT is too a more adult or serious set of movies, but personally BvS feels joyless.

BvS wasn't supposed to be joyful though. It was meant to show our heroes at their darkest moments. It was also supposed to and did show (for me and other people who liked the movie) that even in those darkest moments Superman still saw the good in this world and it's people which is why he fought to the end even though they hated him or treated him bad.

 

[Aurakles]

I just think it's just an argument in semantics. Adult, serious, dark, dour. I think the TDKT is too a more adult or serious set of movies, but personally BvS feels joyless.

I think the distinction is important. There are plenty of serious adult films that aren't dark or dour, and dark comedy is a entire subgenre. These terms aren't interchangeable.
While I certainly wouldn't call it joyful, I do find watching BVS to be a something of a revivifying experience. I came out of my midnight showing absolutely buzzing, we stayed up all night taking about it.
By contrast, I went to see a midnight showing of JL with the same people and we were pretty subdued after and went straight home.

 

[Erzengel]

BvS wasn't supposed to be joyful though. It was meant to show our heroes at their darkest moments. It was also supposed to and did show (for me and other people who liked the movie) that even in those darkest moments Superman still saw the good in this world and it's people which is why he fought to the end even though they hated him or treated him bad.

I think that's the issue and another synonym for the movie and why I just think it's just similar words to describe the movie.

I think the distinction is important. There are plenty of serious adult films that aren't dark or dour, and dark comedy is a entire subgenre. These terms aren't interchangeable.
While I certainly wouldn't call it joyful, I do find watching BVS to be a something of a revivifying experience. I came out of my midnight showing absolutely buzzing, we stayed up all night taking about it.
By contrast, I went to see a midnight showing of JL with the same people and we were pretty subdued after and went straight home.

Personally, like I said earlier, it's just arguing the same thing. And I went to see BvS, opening night and like most CBM of that scale, that night and even opening weekend you get more of the fans who'd be into it and cheer and were silent when the credits rolled. I'm sure there are examples of experiences otherwise, but I'm just going by what my theater was like.

 

[idiot09]

When Arrival's credit rolled, you could hear a pin drop, the hall was so silent. So was I, because I was in awe of what I had just seen(my favourite movie of 2016). I felt the same way after BvS too. It was an experience.

Post movie experiences can be different. And that's cool.

 

[Vaibow]

Not supposed to be joyful and showing dark moments - translates to dark to a lot of people, but like others have said, different words describe the same thing...

The posters and advertising all had dim, dour posters.... sure, you can deconstruct it, read into it and make of it what you will, but the average 15 year old lining up won't be thinking that.

 

[_Superman_]

Not supposed to be joyful and showing dark moments - translates to dark to a lot of people, but like others have said, different words describe the same thing...

The posters and advertising all had dim, dour posters.... sure, you can deconstruct it, read into it and make of it what you will, but the average 15 year old lining up won't be thinking that.

I agree they should've marketed the movie differently. While I love this movie and think that it is a great movie it might be a different conversation if from the start they said that this movie was more for adults than kids. I think if they did that yeah they might have gotten some flack but it also might be a different story as well

 

[Erzengel]

I agree they should've marketed the movie differently. While I love this movie and think that it is a great movie it might be a different conversation if from the start they said that this movie was more for adults than kids. I think if they did that yeah they might have gotten some flack but it also might be a different story as well

I keep saying that BvS was a niche movie, however, I don't think Snyder necessarily intended it to be. If there was a JL released in the 90s or early 00s and this was a reboot of sorts, a more adult movie may have worked. But the first JL series out of the gate? No.

 

[heatvision38]

Not supposed to be joyful and showing dark moments - translates to dark to a lot of people, but like others have said, different words describe the same thing...

The posters and advertising all had dim, dour posters.... sure, you can deconstruct it, read into it and make of it what you will, but the average 15 year old lining up won't be thinking that.

You're right, people have different definitions of dark. I think when some of us hear people use the term 'dark,' it's in the context of grimdark, or dark for the sakeness of dark, dark for no other purpose than trying to be cool, that type of dark, which Snyder has been accused of plenty of times. It's easy to hear someone call BvS dark and interpret that person's meaning from the perspective I just laid out. That's where I think some people are coming from here.

Some people see BvS and see Snyder just engaging in a wankfest (** @flickchick85 , if I can't say this, please let me know and I will edit it), while others see beauty in the movie. So feelings are going to be attached all around.

 

[heatvision38]

I keep saying that BvS was a niche movie, however, I don't think Snyder necessarily intended it to be. If there was a JL released in the 90s or early 00s and this was a reboot of sorts, a more adult movie may have worked. But the first JL series out of the gate? No.

I agree. Snyder clearly thought it would be received better than it was. He was clearly hurt when the initial criticisms were coming fast and hard.