Is there an actual quote that that wasn't the real Jimmy, or that he'd later resurrect him? From all I've seen, that was his having "fun" with the Jimmy character, which sort of indicates that he intended that to be the real Jimmy. And that was all we were getting from him because he didn't have space for him anywhere else.
He's said like eight different things, always with a twinkle in his eye. He's called it a "misdirect", talked about how if it was a TV show they'd probably bring him back, I think at some other point he also said they would have used the real Jimmy, had the five film arc continued.
Anyway, it's not that funny. It just reinforces that this version of Superman can't have anyone in his life of significance besides Lois and his parents, which just contributes to making him ill defined and boring.
It's not supposed to actually be ha ha funny. It's a dude getting shot in the face. It's just a nod to a character.
I think that's where Superman started out, but I don't believe that's where he would have ended up.
Unlike Jimmy, I can at least kind of see the logic in killing Dick Grayson off as the Robin who died at the hands of the Joker, since he is the main Robin and it would carry the most weight. But hardly seems like a worthy depiction of the fourth most published character at DC comics if all we're going to get is one context-less shot of Bruce looking at a burned costume and then never bringing it up again to allow us to give a crap.
And how many things did Snyder put in the DCEU films that were teases for things to come? SUICIDE SQUAD mentioned it, there's apparently something about it in Snyder's JL, and I'd wager that Affleck's proposed THE BATMAN would have dealt with it.[/QUOTE]
Lol. You must be a young’in if you think 13 years is a long career. That is not longevity. Besides, Uwe Bol has had a career that long, but you’d be hard pressed to find anyone who considers him a talented filmmaker.
And surely you aren’t arguing that Snyder hasn’t pissed off a large portion of the general audience. Let’s face it, MoS underperformed, and BvS disappointed. Compared to what these films should’ve been, they tanked and frustrated the general audience.
At this point, unless his JL cut is considered a masterpiece, I would guess that while he will get work, he won’t ever again be given the opportunity that he received and squandered when he was handed the keys to the DC universe and delivered a divisive product and apparently purposefully “trolled” the fans. He will be the directorial version of Taylor Kitsch.
Compared to the careers that most directors have? Of course he's had a decent directorial career, and he's still making movies. I never said he was one of the greats, and you're moving goalposts, because we're not even talking about him being a talented filmmaker here, we were discussing longevity.
Try making your points without resorting to insults.
I think most of the general audience probably has better things to do than get angry about a version of a character they don't care for. He may have disinterested them...pissed them off is a bit much.
I think most of the general audience probably has better things to do than get angry about a version of a character they don't care for. He may have disinterested them...pissed them off is a bit much.
We’ve heard that a decent amount over the years and I think it’s telling that nearly everyone saying that also loved the theatrical cut in 2016 and swore it was a masterpiece.
I assure you that a longer version of that movie wouldn’t have gone over any better.
Can't agree there. It was just longer, and even more bloated than the movie already was. And while it connected a few plot dots, it didn't fix any of the stuff I hated in the theatrical cut. There was just more of it. I'd argue the critical and audience reaction would've been even harsher than the theatrical cut, because why would you want something that already feels like a slog to get through to be even longer?
The UC is also rated R, and having a three hour movie featuring Superman and Batman that you most likely won't want to bring your kids to is a hilariously bad business decision when this thing was meant to launch a multi-film franchise. And needed to appeal to as broad an audience as possible to be a success.
Fixing some plot issues (but not all) isn't worth making the thing more bloated, more violent and still having the basic ideas people weren't on board with in the first place.
The Snyder Cut of JL is going to be even more "Snyder Unleashed" than the BvS ultimate cut was, for better or worse. At the very least I'm hoping for a "so disastrously bad/bizarre, it's entertaining"
He's said like eight different things, always with a twinkle in his eye. He's called it a "misdirect", talked about how if it was a TV show they'd probably bring him back, I think at some other point he also said they would have used the real Jimmy, had the five film arc continued.
Saying eight different things doesn't exactly help with his reputation at being bad at explaining himself in his interviews, or that this was coherently planned. "If it was a TV show" is a non-defense because this isn't a tv series, and I don't see anything solid that he would have used the real Jimmy at all. Saying "if this was some other type of project" means that this project as it is doesn't have room for Jimmy and this was all we're gonna get.
It's a nod that is hard to pin down as to who exactly it's aimed at. Clearly not the people who like Jimmy. I'm not sure those that dislike Jimmy or are neutral to him would get a kick out of it either.
Because I don't think Superman failing to save someone from getting their brains blown out is something the general audience was clamoring to see.
The five film arc that involved Lois getting killed and having Superman be possessed by Darkseid so he can scowl some more doesn't exactly inspire a lot of confidence. Having to get through five films before we can get a fully formed Superman is really stupid, especially as other movies have their heroes come into their own by the end of one.
And how many things did Snyder put in the DCEU films that were teases for things to come? SUICIDE SQUAD mentioned it, there's apparently something about it in Snyder's JL, and I'd wager that Affleck's proposed THE BATMAN would have dealt with it.
The film should be able to work on its own without needing other films to do the heavy lifting for it. Especially as being traumatized by such events is a key motivation for this Batman. If this whole story has to be done (it probably doesn't), I think delving into this specific event more would have helped us connect to this Batman more. As it stands, we don't know this version of Batman well enough to care.
There is also the fact that Snyder revealed this Robin was Dick, while WB was kicking around the idea of doing a Nightwing movie and the Suicide Squad movie revealed it was Jason who died. This shared universe was not on the same page. And a common defense of Snyder's films now that I've seen is that they were never meant to launch a shared universe and were all self contained, which is completely bonkers.
Let's be clear and honest here, Zack Snyder NEVER had a movie that was deemed magnificent by the general audience and critics. Dawn and 300 were well liked and successful to be sure but neither will make it into any mass audiences' top 10 or whatever lists any time soon, so to say that a 30 min longer version of a derided theatrical cut would've saved the DCEU is a stretch only Reed Richards is able to make, hence:
BvS theatrical cut was (according to audience and critics) s***.
BvS UC would've most likely been (according to the above) s*** mixed with lots of deodorant.
The ultimate cut was basically the same movie but with more emphasis on Superman's side of the story hence there was more balance to the overall story and the movie didn't look like it was edited by a 10 yr old who missed his dose of Ritalin. The overall plot is the same, Batman was still a total psycho and Superman was still a nihilist mope and whole movie was still an overtly long, convoluted mess that you couldn't take the aforementioned 10 yr old to.
There is also the fact that Snyder revealed this Robin was Dick, while WB was kicking around the idea of doing a Nightwing movie and the Suicide Squad movie revealed it was Jason who died.
Actually Suicide Squad never reveals it’s Todd, it only states that Harley Quinn played a role in Robin’s death. The dead Robin’s identity is still undisclosed in that film.
However, David Ayer himself did say on twitter one time that it was Jason Todd when explaining why Joker has the “damaged” tattoo on his forehead...only to backtrack later after Zack publicly revealed it was actually Dick.
Saying eight different things doesn't exactly help with his reputation at being bad at explaining himself in his interviews, or that this was coherently planned. "If it was a TV show" is a non-defense because this isn't a tv series, and I don't see anything solid that he would have used the real Jimmy at all. Saying "if this was some other type of project" means that this project as it is doesn't have room for Jimmy and this was all we're gonna get.
It's a nod that is hard to pin down as to who exactly it's aimed at. Clearly not the people who like Jimmy. I'm not sure those that dislike Jimmy or are neutral to him would get a kick out of it either.
Which is how you know he's taking the piss. I don't see how people couldn't figure out that via the very existence and then demise of "CIA Agent Jimmy Olsen".
Because I don't think Superman failing to save someone from getting their brains blown out is something the general audience was clamoring to see.
Superman can't save everyone. No hero can. Bad things happen to people, and did, and usually do, despite Superman's presence. Granted, the film could have explored that better, but the character wasn't exactly Superman's pal Jimmy, either, which is another reason people should have figured out it wasn't anything close to the real Jimmy.
The five film arc that involved Lois getting killed and having Superman be possessed by Darkseid so he can scowl some more doesn't exactly inspire a lot of confidence. Having to get through five films before we can get a fully formed Superman is really stupid, especially as other movies have their heroes come into their own by the end of one.
I don't think that's quite what he had planned, nor was that all he had planned. I think the idea was to have Superman overcome great darkness and come out of the whole thing a major figure of inspiration despite his trials.
The film should be able to work on its own without needing other films to do the heavy lifting for it.
I think it does work on its own, because the film doesn't rely on the actual content of the personal relationships, but the general weight of Batman's crusade and its psychological impact on Batman.
Also (points at modern comic book films)
Teasing things is pretty common these days, I think it's fair game.
Spider-Man and Iron Man's personal issues and relationship conflicts haven't all been revealed or resolved in a single film, why do Batman's have to be? If they're making these movies with an eye toward franchising, there's really no reason they can't hint at things to explore later.
There is also the fact that Snyder revealed this Robin was Dick, while WB was kicking around the idea of doing a Nightwing movie and the Suicide Squad movie revealed it was Jason who died. This shared universe was not on the same page. And a common defense of Snyder's films now that I've seen is that they were never meant to launch a shared universe and were all self contained, which is completely bonkers.
Ah, but when did we start hearing concrete Nightwing movie rumors? After BVS failed, and in early 2017, in a surprise announcement post LEGO BATMAN, when they started to move in a different direction.
Technically, Dick Grayson being killed still hasn't happened in the DCEU continuity. Snyder just wanted it to. Unless the Snyder Cut has a whole scene about "the death of Dick Grayson". Which it almost certainly will. Although it's been made pretty clear that's not the main DCEU continuity anyway.
Actually Suicide Squad never reveals it’s Todd, it only states that Harley Quinn played a role in Robin’s death. The dead Robin’s identity is still undisclosed in that film.
However, David Ayer himself did say on twitter one time that it was Jason Todd when explaining why Joker has the “damaged” tattoo on his forehead...only to backtrack later after Zack publicly revealed it was actually Dick.
Ayer stating that and then having to backtrack, and WB at least planning a Nightwing film for a while shows that the left hand had no idea what the right hand was doing.
Technically it still hasn't happened. He just wanted it to. Unless the Snyder Cut has a whole scene about "the death of Dick Grayson". Which it almost certainly will.
I don't know about a "whole scene," Zack indicated he'd do a "hint" in his version of JL, which doesn't sound like much:
Also a little late to be doing it, it'd be more relevant in the film Batman wants to kill Superman in as it is the chief reason he's so far gone. Clark learning about this and reaching out to him about it would have been a little more effective than the "MARTHA" nonsense.
You're talking about an Edition that fixes some plot issues but it's not like there were 30 extra minutes of Green Lanterns, more cameos and action sequences.
Ayer stating that and then having to backtrack, and WB at least planning a Nightwing film for a while shows that the left hand had no idea what the right hand was doing.
And honestly that was clear even at the time. A recurring debate here from 2012-2017 or so was whether or not they ever had a plan beyond “rush a bunch of movies ASAP”, and now that the dust has settled the results kinda speak for itself.
Ayer stating that and then having to backtrack, and WB at least planning a Nightwing film for a while shows that the left hand had no idea what the right hand was doing.
It's fairly clear WB wasn't cool with a dead Dick Grayson. It isn't in BVS, and it isn't in SUICIDE SQUAD either. Snyder talks about it as something he wanted to do, but I don't think they were going to let him.
Disagreements about what should be done doesn't mean one side doesn't know what the other is doing. That's called "creative differences".
What Ayer and Snyder "wanted" isn't what actually happened on film.
We know WB has wanted to make a Nightwing movie for a while, and they actually put one into some stage on development in 2017, though Affleck's issues and the development of Reeves THE BATMAN and the development of TITANS have effectively shuttered that. Guessing we're looking at post THE BATMAN franchise at this point, if Reeves uses Robin. Which he almost certainly will. Or maybe concurrent with a Batgirl franchise. That's be cool, too.
And honestly that was clear even at the time. A recurring debate here from 2012-2017 or so was whether or not they ever had a plan beyond “rush a bunch of movies ASAP”, and now that the dust has settled the results kinda speak for itself.
Yes, this whole "a self contained five film arc was always the plan" thing seems like serious back tracking. Either that or it was never adequately communicated to us. You don't have Batfleck cameo in Suicide Squad or have Diana email him in her movie without the intent of doing a shared universe. It maybe wasn't ever going to be as connected as the MCU, but something along those lines was blatantly there and you can see it from space.
One of the fans in that Twitter thread states "it was always going to be five films and they were going to re-start after Flashpoint Paradox," and the whole Flashpoint rumors didn't start until after the disastrous reception of BvS and Squad.
It's fairly clear WB wasn't cool with a dead Dick Grayson. It isn't in BVS, and it isn't in SUICIDE SQUAD either. Snyder talks about it as something he wanted to do, but I don't think they were going to let him.
Disagreements about what should be done doesn't mean one side doesn't know what the other is doing.
What Ayer and Snyder "wanted" isn't what actually happened.
We know WB has wanted to make a Nightwing movie for a while, and they actually put one into some stage on development in 2017, though Affleck's issues and the development of Reeves THE BATMAN and the development of TITANS have effectively shuttered that.
The gravestone for Dick Grayson was on the set of BvS. If WB didn't want to let him kill off Dick, why is he acting like he would have continued to hint at it in JL? If it's such an important event to Bruce, how would this have impacted his five film arc? Would he have just shifted this to Jason?
This is basic character stuff that neither Snyder nor WB seemed to be on the same page on while they were trying to launch a shared universe to compete with the MCU. It's like WB wanted a shared universe and Snyder didn't, but they put him in charge of launching the universe anyway. It's no wonder it was such a disaster.
Yes, this whole "a self contained five film arc was always the plan" thing seems like serious back tracking. Either that or it was never adequately communicated to us. You don't have Batfleck cameo in Suicide Squad or have Diana email him in her movie without the intent of doing a shared universe. It maybe wasn't ever going to be as connected as the MCU, but something along those lines was blatantly there and you can see it from space.
I think Snyder literally just means his own arc. The emergence of the heroes, the alien threat, the resolution of the relationships between Batman, Superman and Diana, that was the arc.
They were spinning franchises out of the JL one, several of which were already in development. The universe wouldn't have ended, just that storyline. Snyder was going to make those five films himself, but the DCEU was going to continue beyond that. It was clearly intended to be more than five films. More than five films were in development at the time of BVS: Justice League, Aquaman, Wonder Woman, The Batman, Shazam and Suicide Squad.
The gravestone for Dick Grayson was on the set of BvS. If WB didn't want to let him kill off Dick, why is he acting like he would have continued to hint at it in JL? If it's such an important event to Bruce, how would this have impacted his five film arc? Would he have just shifted this to Jason?
There was no Robin/Nightwing film in development, that we know of, at the time, prior to BVS' release. The bottom line is WB didn't let him do it. Or it would be in the movie. There's also the possibility that the gravestone was a misdirect, since they were in fact, killing Superman, and we knew there was a funeral sequence or two that filmed.
This is basic character stuff that neither Snyder nor WB seemed to be on the same page on while they were trying to launch a shared universe to compete with the MCU. It's like WB wanted a shared universe and Snyder didn't, but they put him in charge of launching the universe anyway. It's no wonder it was such a disaster.
There's no clear indication that Snyder and WB weren't on the same page about where the characters were going until after BVS got edited down and was poorly received. Though I do suspect there were factions in WB that didn't want the characters to be so dark and dour.
However, it's become relatively clear Snyder was onboard for the shared universe. He planned five films. If he didn't want to make them, why would he commit to five films and a two part JL?
I think Snyder literally just means his own arc. The emergence of the heroes, the alien threat, the resolution of the relationships between Batman, Superman and Diana, that was the arc.
They were spinning franchises out of the JL one, several of which were already in development. The universe wouldn't have ended, just that storyline. Snyder was going to make those five films himself, but the DCEU was going to continue beyond that. It was clearly intended to be more than five films. More than five films were in development at the time of BVS: Justice League, Aquaman, Wonder Woman, The Batman, Shazam and Suicide Squad.
Yeah, but that's not what some of the pro-Snyder crowd are saying now. They've been saying it was never going to be more than five films. When you point out to them the obvious spin-offs like Squad and Wonder Woman, they say those are self contained films and not a part of a shared universe. It's honestly kind of bonkers and like arguing with crazy people.
If the intent was for it to continue on, it does seem like the legs were cut out from some of the corners before they could make it far. Batman's career is already winding down, Dick Grayson was killed and we didn't even get any time to see him as Robin, him being dead means we're not getting an accurate take on the Teen Titans or Nightwing, and if it was never going to be Jason they are leaving the chance to push Red Hood merchandise on the table, etc. Clark's secret ID would be blown if he was killed in his second movie and resurrected in his third. It also doesn't seem we were ever going to get more solo Superman movies (which were needed), and instead rely on the JL films as his arc. Which screws over both him and the other characters.
Once that storyline is over, is a foundation that includes a dour Superman having already experienced his death and resurrection, been mind controlled by Darkseid and being so poorly defined as a character with not much of a life really a solid foundation to continue stories out of?
The bottom line is WB didn't let him do it. Or it would be in the movie. There's also the possibility that the gravestone was a misdirect, since they were in fact, killing Superman, and we knew there was a funeral sequence or two. Fans even speculated about that.
Seeing as how Snyder has been upfront that he intended Dick to be dead even after the film's release, I'm doubtful it was a misdirection on his part at least. WB not letting him do it is one thing, but if it was a major part of this Batman's arc (yet also didn't warrant more than "hints," lol these movies are so bad), wouldn't that have impacted his arc?
Yeah, but that's not what some of the pro-Snyder crowd are saying now. They've been saying it was never going to be more than five films. When you point out to them the obvious spin-offs like Squad and Wonder Woman, they say those are self contained films and not a part of a shared universe. It's honestly kind of bonkers and like arguing with crazy people.
If the intent was for it to continue on, it does seem like the legs were cut out from some of the corners before they could make it far. Batman's career is already winding down, Dick Grayson was killed and we didn't even get any time to see him as Robin, him being dead means we're not getting an accurate take on the Teen Titans or Nightwing, and if it was never going to be Jason they are leaving the chance to push Red Hood merchandise on the table, etc. Clark's secret ID would be blown if he was killed in his second movie and resurrected in his third. It also doesn't seem we were ever going to get more solo Superman movies (which were needed), and instead rely on the JL films as his arc. Which screws over both him and the other characters.
I don't think his secret ID would neccessarily have been blown. There are ways to handle it, even if it was.
Recall that one of the secret characters in the JL can wipe people's memories, and may have no human moral compunction against doing so, at least insofar as it affects national/global security.
I think solo Superman movies would have depended on what it's always depended on; how Superman was received by the end of things. There's really no reason to think we wouldn't have gotten them HAD things been received well.
Nevermind that his arc could have continued in other movies. Relying on Avengers movies to continue an arc worked out okay for Iron Man.
Once they went the shared universe route, we were never going to get a completely faithful adaption of any character's mythos were all the characters receive their due. It hasn't happened with the MCU, it wasnt going to happen with the DCEU.
It's not the comics. Adaptions make changes, and they can't explore everything to the extent fans would like.
Once that storyline is over, is a foundation that includes a dour Superman having already experienced his death and resurrection, been mind controlled by Darkseid and being so poorly defined as a character with not much of a life really a solid foundation to continue stories out of?
He probably wasn't going to be poorly defined and dour by the fifth film, though. He was going to have resolved his issues, be better adjusted, refreshed about the hero mission and happy,
with a son named after Bruce.
Seeing as how Snyder has been upfront that he intended Dick to be dead even after the film's release, I'm doubtful it was a misdirection on his part at least. WB not letting him do it is one thing, but if it was a major part of this Batman's arc (yet also didn't warrant more than "hints," lol these movies are so bad), wouldn't that have impacted his arc?
Compared to the careers that most directors have? Of course he's had a decent directorial career, and he's still making movies. I never said he was one of the greats, and you're moving goalposts, because we're not even talking about him being a talented filmmaker here, we were discussing longevity.
Try making your points without resorting to insults.
I think most of the general audience probably has better things to do than get angry about a version of a character they don't care for. He may have disinterested them...pissed them off is a bit much.
I don't think his secret ID would neccessarily have been blown. There are ways to handle it, even if it was.
Recall that one of the secret characters in the JL can wipe people's memories, and may have no human moral compunction against doing so, at least insofar as it affects national/global security.
I think solo Superman movies would have depended on what it's always depended on; how Superman was received by the end of things. There's really no reason to think we wouldn't have gotten them HAD things been received well.
He'd already had two chances and wasn't well received by the audience. Or at least Superman was divisive after his first film, but he had the misfortune of his second appearance being BvS. I don't blame the studio for getting cold feet and not thinking the GA would come back for three more chances on the off chance the fifth film might win them over. Meanwhile, Superman fans have to sit through this mess and wait.
But keep in mind that Tony Stark was embraced pretty much immediately by the general audience in one film. DCEU Superman couldn't do it after two, despite already being a much bigger character whose basic trappings are known by pretty much everyone. And the announcement of MoS caused hype because people wanted a new Superman movie.
Marvel did more with less. Iron-Man won people over after one movie, and the first team up with the Avengers was a monster hit. At that point, they pretty much earned the audience's trust to start serializing stuff more between movies and expect people to show up.
Once they went the shared universe route, we were never going to get a completely faithful adaption of any character's mythos were all the characters receive their due. It hasn't happened with the MCU, it wasnt going to happen with the DCEU.
It's not the comics. Adaptions make changes, and they can't explore everything to the extent fans would like.
Nobody is asking for a complete re-creation of the comics. But the MCU made household names out of c-list characters like the Guardians of the Galaxy, and they have three movies to themselves as well as cross overs with others. DC has bigger IPs and they are doing a shared universe. They could give characters their due much more than they have.
He probably wasn't going to be poorly defined and dour by the fifth film, though. He was going to have resolved his issues, be better adjusted, refreshed about the hero mission and happy,
But again, it should not take five films for us to get to know Superman. Especially five films of an uninteresting journey that didn't sound like it would have ended with a very strong character. If anything, it sounds like Clark was always going to be a cosmic horror from beyond the stars who brings nothing but ruin to us, albeit accidentally, and it was going to prove that Batman was the real hero all along.
And I didn't see that spoiler before, but man if that's true I'm not into it at all. It sounds even more like WB kissing Batman's ass.
He'd already had two chances and wasn't well received by the audience. Or at least Superman was divisive after his first film, but he had the misfortune of his second appearance being BvS. I don't blame the studio for getting cold feet and not thinking the GA would come back for three more chances on the off chance the fifth film might win them over. Meanwhile, Superman fans have to sit through this mess and wait.
Right, but we weren't really talking about what actually happened. We were talking about their apparent initial longterm plan for the character, and how it theoretically would have worked.
But keep in mind that Tony Stark was embraced pretty much immediately by the general audience in one film. DCEU Superman couldn't do it after two, despite already being a much bigger character whose basic trappings are known by pretty much everyone. And the announcement of MoS caused hype because people wanted a new Superman movie.
Right, but we weren't really talking about what actually happened. This isn't a comparison between the MCU and DCEU in terms of it's success. I was pointing out that if it's okay for multiple franchises to use this approach, it shouldn't suddenly be a dealbreaker for another franchise to do so.
Marvel did more with less. Iron-Man won people over after one movie, and the first team up with the Avengers was a monster hit. At that point, they pretty much earned the audience's trust to start serializing stuff more between movies and expect people to show up.
But my point stands...they still didn't fully explore Tony Stark in one movie. In fact, they teased character elements and followed up on them later.
Nobody is asking for a complete re-creation of the comics. But the MCU made household names out of c-list characters like the Guardians of the Galaxy, and they have three movies to themselves as well as cross overs with others. DC has bigger IPs and they are doing a shared universe. They could give characters their due much more than they have.
It didn't. The issue with the presentation of Superman isn't so much that people didn't get to know him. MOS drew him fairly clearly as a character, and BVS followed up on it. The issue seems to be that they didn't like how he was portrayed in general.
Especially five films of an uninteresting journey that didn't sound like it would have ended with a very strong character.
I'm not sure what you're basing this on, other than speculation. We don't know what Snyder and WB had planned, other than some basic plot details.
If anything, it sounds like Clark was always going to be a cosmic horror from beyond the stars who brings nothing but ruin to us, albeit accidentally, and it was going to prove that Batman was the real hero all along.
Right, but we weren't really talking about what actually happened. We were talking about their apparent initial longterm plan for the character, and how it theoretically would have worked.
Right, but we weren't really talking about what actually happened. This isn't a comparison between the MCU and DCEU in terms of it's success. I was pointing out that if it's okay for multiple franchises to use this approach, it shouldn't suddenly be a dealbreaker for another franchise to do so.
But I'm not really trying to say it's a dealbreaker for one franchise to try to do it. It's that this one wasn't done well, or was trying to do too much at once early on. Like someone else said earlier in this thread, these films tried to deconstruct these characters before doing the hard work of constructing these versions and getting people invested in them first.
Giving Superman a five film arc that crosses over into other films isn't necessarily a bad thing. But they are doing stuff like diving right into the Death of Superman only after he's barely established and he isn't going to be a fully formed confident superhero until after five films. The nature of the arc is dicey even before we get to the execution.
For Superman and Batman, Snyder is relying on people being fans of the characters before hand to do the leg work of making us care about these versions instead of doing the work himself.
They didn't fully explore him, but they presented enough that he was recognizably Iron-Man by the end of the first film and had audience's liking him. There was more to be explored, but you can come away from the first film with a good mostly self contained story. And in Avengers, he and Steve were only just meeting and buillding up a relationship before they did Civil War after a few more films.
DCEU barely has Superman be active before Batman is trying to kill him in a TDKR-inspired fight scene in only the former's second appearance and the latter's first.
No, you said we shouldn't expect the adaptations to get 100% of everything from the comics or every character in film. My response is that the MCU, despite making many changes and not featuring everyone, still did more with much less at their disposal. Launching a shared universe for DC to compete with Marvel and promote their IPs in the way they did with Snyder seems counterproductive for some of them,.
It didn't. The issue with the presentation of Superman isn't so much that people didn't get to know him. MOS drew him fairly clearly as a character, and BVS followed up on it. The issue seems to be that they didn't like how he was portrayed in general.
This is sort of the Snyder defense of putting the onus on the audiences for not getting what he was going for with Superman, or that they had the wrong expectations. I think if enough critics and general audiences are apathetic to this Superman or do not understand what motivates him, the obvious answer is maybe it didn't do its job that well?
Avoiding the MCU, this is not a problem that Wonder Woman, Aquaman and Shazam had to deal with in their debut films.
The basic plot details we've received do not paint a flattering picture. After unwittingly leading Zod and the Kryptonians to Earth in MoS, Clark's presence alerts Apokolips and he was going to be brainwashed by Darkseid into becoming a minion after Lois was killed. And the day would be saved by Batman via time travel ("Lois Lane is the key.").
Superman's presence on Earth hasn't proved beneficial in the DCEU and didn't seem like it was ever going to. Despite all the pretentious Jesus imagery, he sounds like he would have been the Anti-Christ.
But I'm not really trying to say it's a dealbreaker for one franchise to try to do it. It's that this one wasn't done well, or was trying to do too much at once early on. Like someone else said earlier in this thread, these films tried to deconstruct these characters before doing the hard work of constructing these versions and getting people invested in them first.
But you didn't say that at first, and that's not what our conversation was about. You've moved the goalposts, because your original point, that somehow they couldn't have continued on, specifically with solo Superman movies, based on their original plans, was refuted.
If the intent was for it to continue on, it does seem like the legs were cut out from some of the corners before they could make it far. Batman's career is already winding down, Dick Grayson was killed and we didn't even get any time to see him as Robin, him being dead means we're not getting an accurate take on the Teen Titans or Nightwing, and if it was never going to be Jason they are leaving the chance to push Red Hood merchandise on the table, etc. Clark's secret ID would be blown if he was killed in his second movie and resurrected in his third. It also doesn't seem we were ever going to get more solo Superman movies (which were needed), and instead rely on the JL films as his arc. Which screws over both him and the other characters.
Once that storyline is over, is a foundation that includes a dour Superman having already experienced his death and resurrection, been mind controlled by Darkseid and being so poorly defined as a character with not much of a life really a solid foundation to continue stories out of?
You made assumptions about what could have happened and where characters would have been. Once it was pointed out to you that this might not be where Superman's story had to end and probably isn't where he was going to end up as a character, you then seem to have moved the goalposts so this could remain yet another "But...but it wasn't gooooood" thread.
They didn't fully explore him, but they presented enough that he was recognizably Iron-Man by the end of the first film and had audience's liking him.
And you can say the same thing about MAN OF STEEL, at least in terms of a self contained story. The quality of a story, or one's opinion of a story, is fairly subjective.
And in Avengers, he and Steve were only just meeting and buillding up a relationship before they did Civil War after a few more films.
And in BVS, Bruce and Clark were just meeting and starting their relationship before they shared more adventures.
No, you said we shouldn't expect the adaptations to get 100% of everything from the comics or every character in film. My response is that the MCU, despite making many changes and not featuring everyone, still did more with much less at their disposal. Launching a shared universe for DC to compete with Marvel and promote their IPs in the way they did with Snyder seems counterproductive for some of them,.
I know that was your response. And your response had next to nothing to do with my point. Frankly I don't care about how well the MCU did things, because this isn't the MCU thread. I used an MCU example to show that structurally something can work, not to make a value judgement about how good something is VS something else.
This is sort of the Snyder defense of putting the onus on the audiences for not getting what he was going for with Superman, or that they had the wrong expectations. I think if enough critics and general audiences are apathetic to this Superman or do not understand what motivates him, the obvious answer is maybe it didn't do its job that well?
There's no defense here. I'm just pointing out that while we didn't get the Superman people wanted, we did, in fact, get to know Superman. I didn't say a word about audiences "getting" what was presented with regard Superman. In fact, audiences DID get it, and a lot of them didn't like it.
It seems like you've defaulted to "DCEU didn't do it well" talking points in response to...pretty much everything I've said. And that's fine, but it's not an interesting conversation, nor is it a conversation I'm interested in having. It's just not fertile ground for discussion at this point.
The basic plot details we've received do not paint a flattering picture. After unwittingly leading Zod and the Kryptonians to Earth in MoS, Clark's presence alerts Apokolips and he was going to be brainwashed by Darkseid into becoming a minion after Lois was killed. And the day would be saved by Batman via time travel ("Lois Lane is the key.").
by Batman, and it would certainly impact things, but it was not all that needed done to counter the overall threat.
Superman's presence on Earth hasn't proved beneficial in the DCEU and didn't seem like it was ever going to. Despite all the pretentious Jesus imagery, he sounds like he would have been the Anti-Christ.
He...he saved the world, and then at least Metropolis, and was then instrumental in saving the world again. His sacrifice inspired Batman to put together the Justice League, which then saved the world, and possibly the universe had things continued on. He's apparently going to help Shazam take on Black Adam, and possibly be a mentor figure to him.
Getting back to the original question: Why do people think Snyder doesn’t respect comic characters? Just look at what he says about these characters:
“Superman is the dream of a farmer from Kansas. Righting wrongs for a ghost. It's sort of the Kansas morality, that black and white, unrealistic morality of fighting crime."
“ I wanted a hero in Superman that was a real hero and sort of reflected the world we live in now."
[on fans of Superman:] “I feel like they were taking it personally that I was trying to grow up their character.”
“Everyone says that about Batman Begins. ”Batman’s dark.” I’m like, okay, ”No, Batman’s cool.” He gets to go to a Tibetan monastery and be trained by ninjas. Okay? I want to do that. But he doesn’t, like, get raped in prison. That could happen in my movie. If you want to talk about dark, that’s how that would go.”
And then there is the aforementioned profane response to his decision to make Superman and Batman to be murderers:
“Once you’ve lost your virginity to this f$&!ng movie and then you come and say to me something about, like, ‘My superhero wouldn’t do that,’ I’m like, ‘Are you serious?’ I’m, like, down the f&$)?ing road on that,”
“It’s a cool point of view to be like, ‘My heroes are still innocent. My heroes didn’t f@&&ing lie to America. My heroes didn’t embezzle money from their corporations. My heroes didn’t commit any atrocities.’ That’s cool. But you’re living in a f$!&ng dream world,”
Snyder doesn’t respect these characters. He’s embarrassed by them. He’s embarrassed at the fact that they represent the best of us. They represent what we are incapable of being. He sees their morality as a weak joke. He despises who they are, so he feels the need to dirty them up. It’s a very juvenile position to look at Superman’s love of humanity and the value he places on human life and to say “that’s all kid stuff. Let’s make him real. Let’s make him like us.” That’s the point. He’s not like us. Neither is Batman. I appreciated Dan Jurgens’ statement about Superman he made on a recent podcast. He was talking about the belief that Superman isn’t relevant in today’s world because his morality is outdated. I cannot remember the exact quote, but he essentially pointed out that when you view the state of the world today, Superman’s morality has never been more relevant or more needed. Jurgens gets it. These characters’ morality isn’t something to be ashamed of. It’s what makes them something to be emulated.
I know that a lot of people like Snyder’s Watchmen, but I found it lacking as well. In the end, I think that’s because he saw it as a superhero movie. That’s what superheroes are to him. After all, he also said:
“I understand the rules of Superman - not necessarily better than anyone else - but better than a normal filmmaker would. After doing 'Watchmen' and digging that deep into the why of superheroes, when Superman is presented to you, I felt like I was in a unique position to say 'I get this guy. I know what this is.'”
Watchmen is a deconstruction of the superhero genre. It’s not really part of the superhero genre. I don’t know that Snyder gets that distinction. Snyder sees the ills of the world and says that Batman and Superman need to be as or more ill to combat it. And that just isn’t what those characters are about.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
