The only thing we can really say he did was cast Gal Gadot as WW and helped write the story. But Patty Jenkins did the bulk of it, and it shows.
DC Movies Thread - Shazam saves the day
-
-
Well by that token wouldn't that also mean Wonder Woman is on his hands too?
Yes, actually. The people who say this BS to me DO also try to make that point. Zack Snyder's Producer and writer credit plus casting Gal Gadot mean HE'S the REAL reason it's a good movie… >_>
-
And what about people saying "MoS and BvS had lots of great things but also lame stuff" being called "stupid dark-Sasuke DC fans" ?
-
The only thing we can really say he did was cast Gal Gadot
I remember when people whined about her being cast funny what a difference a few years and two movies make.
-
I remember when people whined about her being cast funny what a difference a few years and two movies make.
I was very unsure at the time because all we knew about her was she was a former Miss Israel and a model. But everyone deserves their chance to prove themselves, and she has.
-
Aren't some still mad cause she's a Zionist or whatever?
-
Those people are going to be mad about a lot of people in Hollywood, then.
-
How many people in Hollywood fought for the Israeli army (I guess it doesn't count because it's mandatory, but Natalie Portman didn't do it I think) ? Been elected Miss-Israeli (don't know what it implies though, lol. I'm just quoting the arguments I see in the comment section on youtube) ? And supported Tsahal at many occasions (not since she's WonderWomen though, but I don't know for what specific occasions she did) ? And yes okay, we've already had many good actors being crazy people (Tom Cruise, Alain Delon…....) before and it has never really been a problem.
--- Update From New Post Merge ---
And what about people saying "MoS and BvS had lots of great things but also lame stuff" being called "stupid dark-Sasuke DC fans" ?
'kay let's be hypocritical.
-
Wonder Woman 2 is rumored going to take place in the 1980's and be focused around fighting the Soviet Union during the end of the Cold War.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2017/07/11/wonder-woman-2-rumored-to-be-set-in-the-1980s
-
Seems weird. I don't remember any big cold war event that would catch her attention. I hope they keep the same director.
-
At the risk of everyone hating me… I really didn't like Wonder Woman at all. The exposition at the beginning was extremely boring, every scene was a cliche (the character we've only seen for two minutes gets killed in a tragic act of sacrifice), and the villain was stupid.
The action scenes were cool, but there were only three of them and the last one dragged.
-
A film based on the relationship between Charles Moulton, Elizabeth Marston, and Olive Byrne is being released this year. If anyone's interested. It also looks like Charles getting the Wonder Woman comic published will be part of the narrative too.
-
With all of the re-shoots happening on Justice League I'm starting to think that we're going to have a new Superman II on our hands. Thirty years from now Snyder will be able to put out his own cut of the film with the way things are going.
-
Batman is just straight up LYING about Superman's effect on the world, sure as shit not what the films seemed to suggest.
Also new poster is very much Alex Ross inspired.
-
All JusticeLeague trailers suck. The CGI sucks so much, it makes me sick.
-
Did the radio in the trailer around fifty seconds in say that Lex Luthor is in Arkham Asylum lol?
-
That trailer is amazing! Aquaman is going to steal the show
-
Flash still seems like the entertainment factor of the movie.
@Count:
Did the radio in the trailer around fifty seconds in say that Lex Luthor is in Arkham Asylum lol?
You can't be surprise. Clearly the guy was unstable.
-
You can't be surprise. Clearly the guy was unstable.
I definitely agree. It's just so funny to me that Lex Luthor gets kept in both Batman's city and the same place as losers like Two-Face lol.
-
@Count:
I definitely agree. It's just so funny to me that Lex Luthor gets kept in both Batman's city and the same place as losers like Two-Face lol.
Well clearly he is trying to be new Joker. He heard there was an opening and Superman is to boring for his taste.
-
Well clearly he is trying to be new Joker. He heard there was an opening and Superman is to boring for his taste.
Does this mean that Leto Joker's going to find Batman too boring and is going to antagonize Supes by trying to kill Lois Lane like in Injustice?
-
I am hyped. btw the confirmed DCEU films are:
Shazam
Suicide Squad 2
Justice League Dark
Flashpoint
Wonder Woman 2
Batgirl
The BatmanEdit: forgot Green Lantern Corps
-
I cannot wait to see how they fuck up Captain Marvel.
Also new poster is very much Alex Ross inspired.
It's not a proper Alex Ross homage unless Batman is Gregory Peck.
-
@Count:
Does this mean that Leto Joker's going to find Batman too boring and is going to antagonize Supes by trying to kill Lois Lane like in Injustice?
Leto's Joker is feeling neglected because Batman is all about Sups now and will kidnap Lois to catch his attention. Plus he wants some tanning in a brighter city.
I always thought that superman was perfect to make an injustice movie. Everything from the way he looks at his job to his parent makes him perfect to become the tyrant of injustice.
-
Joker does a massacre of the Daily Bugle, Lois included.
Magog murks him on the steps of the courthouse.
A few years later, Magog, the Metal Men, and Captain Atom are pursuing the Parasite in Kansas…
-
Superman wasn't around long enough to have an effect on the world to the degree with which Batman is implying here. Sure, a super powered alien showing up and saving the world did have a huge effect on the entire world but a lot of the effect was a mixed bag of emotions. People loved and feared him. They barely got a chance to really know him.
Whereas in the comics Superman was around for many years before he "died" and most of the world loved him because he saved the planet so many times. Superman was also more sure of himself and accepted who he was. He took the inspiration he knew he gave to people and tried to make the best of it.
Unfortunately, in the movies they killed Superman off in the 2ND MOVIE so people are like…well, he was there now he isn't.
Also, I hope they mix it up a bit with Wonder Woman fight scenes. Her choreography is getting a little stale.
-
I can buy the Superman effect. Thinking about it realistically, even a year is long enough for a world to rapidly change and then reel from the death of said change. Hell, look at how much the real world has changed in the past six months, let alone the year that Superman was around. We live in a media (and social media) drive world now. The tiniest thing can blow up, especially if that thing is a real life superhero.
Also, holy crap, the Flash suit is sexy.
-
I agree, Superman showing up, an alien from another world, would have a huge effect.
But the effect itself being of mourning, indifference, or something else after he died is what's at question. The movie makes it seem "the whole world" is in mourning after Superman's death but the last time we checked Superman was both literally worshiped and feared. Understandably, "the whole world" could just be a nice way of saying 'A lot of people' but it's still dumb that they killed off Superman before he could become truly beloved. Before he could become that shining beacon Batman mentioned.
Yes, he was a shining beacon for many people but he wasn't around long enough to truly shine as he should have.
-
@Yuugi's:
I can buy the Superman effect. Thinking about it realistically, even a year is long enough for a world to rapidly change and then reel from the death of said change. Hell, look at how much the real world has changed in the past six months, let alone the year that Superman was around. We live in a media (and social media) drive world now. The tiniest thing can blow up, especially if that thing is a real life superhero.
Also, holy crap, the Flash suit is sexy.
But we are talking beacon of hope when the movie he died in made clear he was still a issue being discussed with mixed feeling all around.
-
But we are talking beacon of hope when the movie he died in made clear he was still a issue being discussed with mixed feeling all around.
And in his absence it looks like that discussion has found some conclusion.
I'm not saying it's perfect–goodness knows all of these films suck giant donkey dick--but a tremendous gap now exists in the world, especially if it was made known just how much of a sacrifice Superman made.
-
@Yuugi's:
And in his absence it looks like that discussion has found some conclusion.
An off-screened conclusion stemming from pretty much the entire point of Superman and Batman's conflict in the second movie is not good.
I'm not saying it's perfect–goodness knows all of these films suck giant donkey dick--but a tremendous gap now exists in the world, especially if it was made known just how much of a sacrifice Superman made.
And why won't the doubters use Lex and Doomsday as an excuse to keep bashing Supes, as if he brought them into being as threats?
-
So, mysterious person at the end. Superman or Shazam?
And yes, Aquaman and Flash seem to be the most promising parts of the movie. Surprisingly.
@Cyan:
I cannot wait to see how they fuck up Captain Marvel.
You mean Shazam. Marvel has Captain Marvel now.
-
Aquaman is by far the cringiest character they showed.
-
I'm afraid to ask who is the villain, because it will spoil the plot for me. I saw this two horned helmet guy and yeah, better not to think about it…
-
Buying into the "Superman gave us hope" bullshit is just impossible given what they've shown in the movies. He spent years saving people from the shadows(saving lives, but not inspiring), then he wrecks a city, does some stuff offscreen, and dies after a week of insane city wrecking and the capitol being blown up. And that inspires people? Even from the supplementary material, we know that Lexy Wonka took care of Metropolis's clean up after MoS.
It wouldn't have taken much to show Superman being Superman. I've said it before in this thread, just show him saving a cat out of a tree and being cute with a little girl, adapt that comic story of him staying with someone who was gonna commit suicide talking until they voluntarily came down, and mention that he took care of all of the debris removal after his battle with Zod. That gives an actual stake in liking Superman and an argument for why he belongs. You can have scenes of people cheering as Superman lifts a fallen building from his and Zod's battle away, and they'd contrast with that opening scene of a very human Bruce Wayne trying to save his employees.
In regards to the lineup of movies, I have zero hopes for Shazam at all. Spending years trying to hype Dwayne Johnson's casting as Black Adam was simply idiotic. I get it, you have a great actor who is known for being a genuinely nice human being and casting him as a villain. You can have a lot of fun with that. But they cast him as a villain the general public does not know about, while deciding to push forward with that heroes solo movie….without the big name you cast years ago. You have properties like Green Lantern, Static Shock, the Teen Titans, all have a fanbase and are decently well known even outside a comic book community. Instead they focus on....Shazam.
I'm not complaining about bringing a character to life on film that hasn't been portrayed yet, but of all the characters that have interesting stories to tell that can relate to an audience, capture an existing fanbase, and allow room for sequels and franchising....they're doing Shazam? Give us MoS2 before Shazam. It's not a Marvel scenario where they took B-list heroes, made them household names, and THEN decided to use characters like the Guardians after a series of successful movies. DC is shooting in the dark hoping for something to land.
SS2 will likely be garbage, JL Dark is redundant when we pretty much got it between BVS and SS, I have little hopes for a Batgirl movie in a franchise that hasn't focused on the extended Batfamily at all. If it came after a Batflick with Robin, maybe set up the mythos with Barbara already being paralyzed and Oracle and co-staring with someone like Stephanie Brown as the Batgirl, then maybe.
Flashpoint as the first Flash movie.....yeah they're really just hoping to capitalize on one of the most popular Flash comics in the last decade and hoping they get people in the theaters that recognize it between the book and the tv show. Really worries me that they're starting there. It would be like starting your team up movies with the death of Superman
.......
I don't mean to be a debbie downer, but I've just lost all faith in this universe and it's really sad because I love these characters.
-
@Cyan:
Joker does a massacre of the Daily Bugle, Lois included.
Magog murks him on the steps of the courthouse.
A few years later, Magog, the Metal Men, and Captain Atom are pursuing the Parasite in Kansas…
If only they would do Kingdom Come.
-
I feel like stuff like this is being forgotten in this Superman discussion:
Anf then there's Batman's character arc in the movie of going from having lost all hope to regaining it from his sacrifice.
Whether or not Snyder did it well, is debatable, I guess, but he definitely tried to show that.
Also, I can't go back a page to quote it, but Luthor was put into Arkham at the end of BvS.
-
I feel like stuff like this is being forgotten in this Superman discussion:
Anf then there's Batman's character arc in the movie of going from having lost all hope to regaining it from his sacrifice.
Whether or not Snyder did it well, is debatable, I guess, but he definitely tried to show that.
Also, I can't go back a page to quote it, but Luthor was put into Arkham at the end of BvS.
Two moments of him saving people without even showing a smile or doing anything to resemble inspiring hope. He's a glorified rescue helicopter and firefighter in those scenes. It's all about the character shown, not the action.
When we see Batman's awesome Arkham game-style fight in the movie it works, because it's showing the detail in Batman's physical ability and the results of his years of training around the world. He gets to whale on people with his fists, burst through walls, grapple people in, throw Batarangs at them and it works because it's true to the modern interpretation of the character. If instead we got Batman using standard boxing and cracking one-liners it would be out of character. The result would be the same, he saved the day, but he wasn't being Batman in the process.
Same thing here. Superman saves people, we've known that since Man of Steel. But Superman isn't somebody that saves people. He's somebody that saves a plane falling from the sky and says "hope this doesn't ruin your traveling experience. Statistically, it still is the safest form of travel". As I mentioned in my previous post, he's the person that will spend hours in the sky talking to somebody about to jump off of a building until they are ready to get help, not just take them off the roof against their will.
The point of his character is that the alien who's nearly a god is the most human of all of is. All the examples of him in the DCEU are afterthoughts to his character. In these movies he serves the purpose of letting DC use him as a framing device to world build for their connected movies. They say he inspires people, they say he was a loved hero. But they don't show us that. They just say it.
-
I feel like stuff like this is being forgotten in this Superman discussion:
Anf then there's Batman's character arc in the movie of going from having lost all hope to regaining it from his sacrifice.
Whether or not Snyder did it well, is debatable, I guess, but he definitely tried to show that.
Also, I can't go back a page to quote it, but Luthor was put into Arkham at the end of BvS.
Those were three brief less than a minute (or even half a minute) long scenes of a few random people being thankful. Those scenes hardly show anything about Superman's character. He gets regarded as more a symbol or even object than a person that people can have an actual solid opinion on, because these scenes never bother to focus on how Superman interacts with civilians They're always instantly cut off before that can happen because Jesus symbolism. Martian really summed it up best by saying he's nothing more than a glorified helicopter/firefighter in those scenes. We don't even know why people came to the funeral or why people celebrating Dia de los Muertos were praising him like a divine savior. They just… are. Saving a few random people and lifting heavy things is not enough to make the entire world suddenly mourn you. Especially when so many people already blame him for Metropolis' destruction. I don't even need Supes to act 100% like his authentic comic book boy scout mentality. There's just no reason for the public to mourn him by the end of the film.
We need scenes like that to buy into Supes becoming an iconic, inspiring symbol for the DCEU so his death actually feels meaningful. Where we actually see the public react to him up-front and see who he is not just from an abstract distance, but up close. So they can reasonably feel appreciative of him as a moral person. We don't even need the whole Earth liking Superman before his death scene, there can still be some doubt. Which would only make for all the more reason to at least show him saving people up front even at the expense of his own life to stand as an example to them. Being willing to save any and everyone, no matter who believes in him or who doubts him.
To be honest, I can't imagine any scenes like what I'm describing in The Avengers movies too, but most of the time, they don't need it because they're not banking the entire internal and external conflict of their stories on people hating the Avengers and the Avengers needing to prove themselves. It's just fun action-heavy romps you don't need to think too hard about. The movie that comes closest to that is Civil War and hints of Age of Ultron, but that focuses more on just how faceless governments view the Avengers than the actual public and maybe one hysterical grieving person just to give Tony a guilt trip. Which I think was a sorely missed opportunity and the movie could have done more to show why Steve's way of heroics is right more than only demonizing Tony's side and conveniently having a villain to pull the strings instead of focusing on a cool philosophically gray conflict, but I digress.
-
Buying into the "Superman gave us hope" bullshit is just impossible given what they've shown in the movies.
@Count:
Saving a few random people and lifting heavy things is not enough to make the entire world suddenly mourn you.
Huh? It literally can't be impossible unless you're forgetting what exactly the movies showed us. Superman saved every single man, woman, and child on earth.
Maybe twice.
The first time, yes, Superman went through a few building but 95% of the damage done to Metropolis was done by Zod's war machine, clearly. And by stopping Zod, Superman saved billions of lives. Approximately 7 billion actually because, again, Superman saved the entire planet! So it actually is impossible to think Superman didn't inspire people and give them hope after he saved earth and flew around the skies for 18 months saving people from fires, crimes, assaults, and whatever perilous dangers people wound up in. BvS took place 18 months after MoS.
And then the second time he saved earth, maybe, was when he sacrificed himself to kill Doomsday. Who knows how much destruction Doomsday would have done if Superman didn't stop him then and there but the point is Doomsday was going to kill a lot of people and Superman gave his life to stop him.
That inspires people.
The debate is not whether or not Superman inspired people. He did, obviously. Saving an entire planet will do that for you. The debate is really about how many people he inspired vs. how many people feared or hated him, and what happened to the latter. For instance, there is this scene in BvS where Superman goes to congress and you can see in the crowd of onlookers people protesting and cheering him. There is this media scene of people questioning Superman's "controversial" role on this planet, both positively and negatively.
At the end of the movie though, no one who questioned or was against Superman's role on earth was given any screentime in reaction to Superman's death. All of a sudden everyone loves him. Ok, maybe the death of a beloved figure, in much of the world's eyes, would keep you silent publicly, but how about showing some private moments? How about a drunken tirade at a bar about how someone's glad Superman is dead? Anything to show what the first 3/4 of the movie was showing. That Superman was a divisive figure in those times. Surely, not everyone felt bad that Superman died but that's the very impression the ending left us with which was a jarring contrast to the rest of the movie.
Also, Zack Snyder could have handled Superman way better with his moments/interactions with civilians but it's still pretty clear why people love him.
-
Yeah, when watching that Trailer I called BS immediately on the "Superman is a beacon of hope" crap.
Fair warning, I'm a massive Comic Book Fangirl with a particular love of DC, so this is gonna get long-winded in a hurry.
We needed at least one, preferably a lot more main Superman movies showing him actually doing good and getting the world's trust and love before killing him. Make the audience fall in love with him, so that when Batman says "The whole world loves him" it is mirrored in our feelings for him as an audience too. There's an idiom in movies called "Show, Don't Tell" and I feel that's a big flaw BvS had. It TOLD us too much about how the world sees and treats Superman without properly SHOWING it.
Also, we needed SOME level of hopeful and good Superman, instead of the mopey poutey man we got. The most infuriating thing about this however is that… They REVERTED his character in order to give us BvS...
Man of Steel had a lot of problems, I won't sit here and try to really defend it as a proper representation of the character, but If you watch it for what it is, it's clear what they were TRYING to go for with it. They wanted a more mopey "Realistic" Superman who would question himself and try to come to terms with his powers and what he means to the world. Does he want to reveal himself? Does he want to become this savior?
The resolution of his character arc was SUPPOSED to be him accepting that and coming to terms with it. This was the scene of him putting on the suit, it was underscored by the scene at the end where he crumples up that drone and says to the general "I know you guys don't fully trust me, but screw you, I'm Superman and I'm here to stay".
Even if the movie really bungled its execution, it was TRYING to tell a Superman story where at the end, he's a confident and hopeful Superman...... BUT I guess David S. Goyer can only write mopey Superman so they reverted him in BvS. Every time I make this complaint, DC fanboys jump up to go "Buh, Realistic!!" but that doesn't work.
You might be able to explain away why he'd be back to being mopey thanks because the world doesn't like him and boo hoo, but from a storytelling standpoint, it doesn't make for interesting character work to completely undo an entire movie's worth of character development for no real reason.
Imagine if Empire Strikes Back had featured a Han Solo who was still complaining that he wanted a reward for all he's doing for the Rebellion. It would have felt shitty, and would have completely negated his character development in Star Wars, especially his moment at the end where they LITERALLY say to him "I knew there was more to you than money!" From then on, his conflict is that he wants to stay and help the Rebellion, but he knows he has to pay Jabba or he'll be hunted. He went through an arc and then his character CONTINUED in the next film.
In MoS, Superman went through an arc and then was reverted back to square 1 in BvS. Which makes no sense to me either because with the story they were trying to tell, Having Superman be hopeful and sure of himself would have fit SO MUCH BETTER.
In this world, we have an entire world who is questioning "Maybe Superman shouldn't be a thing?" and a Batman who is positive "Superman should DEFINITELY NOT be a thing"... So it makes perfect sense and balances things MUCH better if Superman takes the position of "Superman DEFINITELY SHOULD be a thing" to counter and underscore the point of them fighting..... Instead, Superman was also like "Maybe Superman shouldn't be a thing..."
So instead of the fight being an ideological fight between them, they had to add in the manufactured "Fight or I'll kill your mom" stuff which just cheapened it entirely
BvS really REALLY feels like 2-3 different movies that all should have come much later in the "DCEU" than it did. I would have LOVED to have had one movie of a more hopeful good Superman fighting Braniac, or maybe Parasite before going into BvS territory.
But no, gotta catch up to Marvel so, BvS AND JUSTICE LEAGE NOW GUYS!!!!
.... Ugh, this irritates me... But Wonder Woman shows they CAN do a good movie when Snyder isn't at the helm, and Geoff Johns is now the Kevin Feige of DC so MAYBE the ship can be righted from here? Maybe Justice League will be the last terrible DC movie?... Hell, maybe Joss Whedon can save it, as unlikely as that may be.
Looking at it that way and therefore not immediately assuming suckiness for any of it, here's what I think of all their upcoming movies:
ShazamCaptain MarvelShazam:
This one could be good, but they REALLY need to do it right. This one NEEDS to be light hearted. You can't adapt this character in a dark and gritty way and make it work. The entire pooint of the Big Red Cheese is that he's a kid. He is a little kid who gets changed into an adult to fight crime. This also shouldn't be like Wonder Woman where you have a more lighthearted character put into a really dark situation (WWI), this needs to be a fluff Superhero movie to work.
(I still hate the name change, even in comics…)Suicide Squad 2: The characters and the actors that played them (Except Joker and Enchantress) were excellent in the first one, which is why the movie around those characters being terrible makes me as sad as it does. That being said, we also know it was retooled last minute to be "More like the trailer" and that resulted in the jankiness and BS... a sequel shot with the new tone in mind while they are developing it COULD work.
Justice League Dark: No idea. Like, at all. This could work, but I have no idea what they're really shooting for with it...
Wonder Woman 2: Really excited for this one. Story by Geoff Johns and Patty Jenkins? Same folks who made the first one working on this one? Just straight up excited, no caveats or misgivings whatsoever.
The Batman: Everything seems good here so far. Batman was the second best thing about BvS (first was WW) So I know Affleck can do it good, and Matt Reeves has said "Noir Detective Story" and Geoff Johns said they're going back to the comic book roots... Everything about this screams "Yes" and Batman is the one franchise that WORKS with the Grim and Gritty take WB seems to love overall, so this one has me genuinely excited.
Batgirl: Not sure how I feel about them jumping into a Batgirl film so soon without establishing her in a Batman movie first, but Joss Whedon is on it and it's Bat family, so I'm pretty game for this.
Green Lantern Corps: Ok, Geoff Johns being involved in DC now is cool overall for a lot of this, but his movie in particular is why his involvement is so good. Geoff Johns is the best Green Lantern writer ever, so having him involved here is a GREAT thing.
The way this was described was: Lethal Weapon in Space" with Hal Jordan and my favorite GL, John Stewart as space cops on a buddy cop picture?... in SPACE?!?! How can WB possibly screw this u-"Written and Directed by David S. Goyer"
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
Flashpoint: This one threw me for a loop….. Honestly, Flashpoint is a really good story IMO, but it's also got a reputation as the one that rewrote the DC Universe.... but they're doing it so soon?... as the FIRST Standalone Flash movie?!..... Whut? Is... Is this how they're gonna write Ben Affleck out?…
I mean, if they just straight up adapt the story tho it could be good. Spoiler'd for spoilers:
! It does tie heavily into Flash's origin with the death of his Mom. Flashpoint is him going back in time to fix it and inadvertently creating a world teetering on the edge of destruction with Wonder Woman and Aquaman going to war in a way that will kill everyone. So he enlists the help of an Alternate Batman, Thomas Wayne to get his powers back so he can go back in time and stop himself from doing all of this….
This feels like it could work but it would need to be like, the LAST DCEU film after the slew of ones they have announced now… We need to introduce all these characters and get to love them so that seeing the alt versions of them work the way it does in the comic.
-
Again I don't call the whole superman beacon of hope a stretch because of the movie not showing it. I do it because the movie showed the opposite.
We were exposed to public opinion of the superman and a good chunk of people where still wondering how they should take him. The last piece of media before his death was the explosion that people were wondering if he participated in. The discussion with is parent was about how the world still didn't want to trust him and what he should do about it.
I am not saying in the movie universe he didn't help. I am saying that the movie clearly told us that superman was a polarizing figure until the end. Not because of comics not becasue of what they didn't show and tell but becasue of the endless discussion about him we were exposed to during the whole movie. People might have been stupid to not like him but he sure as hell was no Mandela or Luther king in this universe.
-
There's the fact that Superman was killed off way too early before he could truly become the beacon of hope that he should have been. Before his death there were debates among the people and media figures about his role on earth and whether or not he should act unilateally. In the comics, Superman acting unilaterally was not a question you asked unless you're someone like Lex Luthor because Superman was around for so long and saved people so many times he gained the people's trust that much.
Not so much in the DCEU. It felt like he was barely around. Which is why him dying WHILE people were still up in the air about how benevolent of a figure he actually was, was very stupid. Particularly because they wanted to frame Superman as this massively beloved figure after his death and completely overshadow any negativity people felt towards him while he was alive. But….wasn't that what most of what BvS was about???
But, still, there is plenty enough reason given in the movies to show why people would love him and why he would inspire hope. There's this scene in MoS where one of the reporters from the Daily Planet mutters, "He saved us" after Superman flies down from the sky carrying Louis Lane.
Skip to 58-59 second mark.
And that's a reporter so you know the word is going out. For me, MoS did a much better job of showcasing why people would love Superman as there are even more examples, like when he told people to go indoors to stay safe in Smallville, or when he caught that helicopter pilot falling to the ground, or when he killed Zod in order to save that family in the museum. He chose the people of earth over "his own" people. And those examples weren't just cobbled together montage scenes either. Those were scenes integrated into the overall picture flowing with the natural progression of the movie and Superman's character. And of course, it can be emphasized enough, the sheer magnitude of saving the entire planet does leaps and bounds for your reputation. I don't see how that's not showing why people would look up to him.
I agree those BvS clips felt…hollow and tacked on, like, a lot of his Superman activities were done off screen after MoS. Remember, BvS took place 18 months after MoS so during that time Superman was being, well, Superman but we didn't get to see any of it. We just assume the people of that universe were being slowly introduced to it. They should have done a proper sequel to MoS before killing him off in BvS.
-
Huh? It literally can't be impossible unless you're forgetting what exactly the movies showed us. Superman saved every single man, woman, and child on earth.
I think that you and Martin are kind of saying the same thing but getting caught up in semantics. I don't think that Martin was trying to say that nobody felt inspired or appreciative of Superman. There were glimpses of that in Batman v Superman.
But… That's it. Like I said, there were just "glimpses". Martin was talking more about us as an audience being properly invested into those feelings of liking Superman. Not just seeing the actions Superman does and shifting the entire process of how to positively interpret his worth onto us instead of the actual public. The movie never actually focuses on dedicating a fitting amount of time to how and why people process Superman's heroics as a good thing, rather than only showing Superman's heroics (and really quick clips of those heroics). We're just supposed to buy into how his actions of saving people and lifting heavy things inspire people solely by seeing Superman do those things for a few seconds, which is totally possible, but without actually focusing on reactions and interactions with the citizens for more than a few brief Jesus symbolism clips.
The movie doesn't really do a good job at immersing into how and why people like Superman in actually showing that. At least enough to give actual competition to all of the focus on how many people freaking hate him because that is the only side I can buy into. That's even what the two main antagonists, Batman and Lex, completely center around. The only people we get supporting Supes with an ample amount of screen time are Lois and Martha Kent, but... they're his girlfriend and mother. They're biased due to being involved in his personal life. They alone can't be used as an example of properly buying into Superman being admirable to some parts of the public. People liking Superman gets treated as more of a footnote than actually getting the proper time into it that it deserves so we can believe in people coming to rally him at the end.
At the end of the movie though, no one who questioned or was against Superman's role on earth was given any screentime in reaction to Superman's death. All of a sudden everyone loves him. Ok, maybe the death of a beloved figure, in much of the world's eyes, would keep you silent publicly, but how about showing some private moments? How about a drunken tirade at a bar about how someone's glad Superman is dead? Anything to show what the first 3/4 of the movie was showing. That Superman was a divisive figure in those times. Surely, not everyone felt bad that Superman died but that's the very impression the ending left us with which was a jarring contrast to the rest of the movie.
A scene like that could have totally worked. But we don't just need it there. We need more instances of scenes like that throughout the movie. Rather than this one debate scene of people saying "I like him, I hate him!" with mostly sophisticated philosophical wording to sound more complex. Like Rin said, this movie needs to show a lot more than it mostly only tells.
Inspiring people by saving the day while mostly off-screening how the public positively feels about you over time is still going to feel more lucky than really feeling earned or appealing. It's like you said in your latest comment. Superman's heroics and people rallying around him feels hollow and tacked on. I'm not saying it doesn't make sense as much as that I can't find myself invested in that effort and reward with what we got.
The resolution of his character arc was SUPPOSED to be him accepting that and coming to terms with it. This was the scene of him putting on the suit, it was underscored by the scene at the end where he crumples up that drone and says to the general "I know you guys don't fully trust me, but screw you, I'm Superman and I'm here to stay".
I agree with everything you said, but I do have something to add when it comes the concept of Superman evolving into becoming a more hopeful and inspiring superhero.
I don't like that ending scene of Man of Steel. It's just way too much of a humorous and lighthearted scene shift after killing Zod and dealing with the weight of both being forced to kill and choosing to exterminate any and every link Superman has to his home world. In addition dealing with the new pressure of seemingly the entire world blaming you for collateral damage and lost lives in Metropolis. Suddenly shifting into becoming completely confident is too jarring for me to get into because it's difficult to see any person instantly having that much composure and self assurance. We SHOULD have seen at least a trace of Superman becoming authentically hopeful, but I don't necessarily think he needs to make the full 180 yet. Man of Steel's about building up the will to stand out and make yourself known while Batman v Superman's about dealing with, well, BEING known. It's the movie dealing with Jon Kent's fears about how the world handle Superman existing as a known presence.
So when talking about the concept of Superman doubting himself sometimes in Batman v Superman, and assuming that a Man of Steel 2 is inexplicably impossible for some dumb reason so we don't have time for proper character development, I don't really mind that (I'm only talking about the concept on paper, not the execution in the movie because it's a whole irredeemable mess). If anything, it makes the concept of Superman and Batman's hostility towards one another more compellingly complex and insightful because it makes the conflict between them more interesting than two arrogant brutes butting heads screaming "I'm good, you're bad!" the entire movie without even considering and understanding the merits of the other side. You don't have to agree with an opposing argument to understand why it makes sense to some people, and it's completely human to have some doubt about whether your argument is right or not when you face pressure.
Some of my favorite superhero moments are when heroes struggle with moral decisions and self-esteem because it makes the opposing argument feel like it is more genuinely realistic instead of looking solely prejudicial or out of line. Like Netflix Daredevil struggling with deciding whether to kill or not kill throughout his first two seasons, and the same even goes for Jessica Jones in a way. Daredevil has his whole "to kill, or not to kill" character arc covered in the first season, but the Punisher still provided himself as a compelling antithesis by being a reflection of Daredevil as a vigilante and exposing how irredeemable criminals can potentially be, which is still a next big step for Daredevil to tackle in how he fights crime. You can talk the talk, but walking the walk as you get further and further into the darkness is something else that can still make you hesitant and slip up here and there, or maybe even become a different person compared to how initially hopeful you may have originally been for a while. It's a constant struggle. Not that you can retcon character development for the sake of it willy-nilly, but it can be pushed and even broken with increasing stakes without feeling too repetitive.
But by the time that Superman faces off against Batman in the movie, yeah, he should have finally come to a conclusion about being sure in himself and doing away with those doubts. Maybe even taking some inspiration from Batman on how to operate without completely succumbing to his perspective of himself only being a threat to humanity. Not learning anything by then really does feel like he was stuck at square one the whole time. I'm not justifying Superman being mopey and boring the entire movie, that totally sucks. But a few moments of self-doubt, wondering about what he could have done to reduce collateral damage in Metropolis or finding a way to not kill Zod, and thus learning to affirm new principles on how to operate while still being inexperienced and still perhaps being prone to mistakes? I'm open to that.
Man of Steel dealt with whether or not Superman was willing to try becoming coming out of hiding to become a savior, but a Man of Steel 2 or a better written Batman v Superman could have effectively tackled if he could actually develop himself to become a savior. The first movie's about being willing to try to be a hero for the first time, the second could have been about if he actually has the potential to truly do so and improve.
So instead of the fight being an ideological fight between them, they had to add in the manufactured "Fight or I'll kill your mom" stuff which just cheapened it entirely.
Ironically, that's kind of how I felt about the final battle in Civil War. As well as Zemo's antagonist role in general.
BvS really REALLY feels like 2-3 different movies that all should have come much later in the "DCEU" than it did. I would have LOVED to have had one movie of a more hopeful good Superman fighting Braniac, or maybe Parasite before going into BvS territory.
We definitely needed that. And just Braniac in a movie in and of itself. Seriously, why hasn't he been adapted in a single Superman movie yet? The closest we got to that was that cancelled Nicolas Cage/Tim Burton movie lol.
-
@Count:
I think that you and Martian are kind of saying the same thing but getting caught up in semantics. I don't think that Martian was trying to say that nobody felt inspired or appreciative of Superman. There were glimpses of that in Batman v Superman.
But… That's it. Like I said, there were just "glimpses". Martian was talking more about us as an audience being properly invested into those feelings of liking Superman. Not just seeing the actions Superman does and shifting the entire process of how to positively interpret his worth onto us instead of the actual public. The movie never actually focuses on dedicating a fitting amount of time to how and why people process Superman's heroics as a good thing, rather than only showing Superman's heroics (and really quick clips of those heroics). We're just supposed to buy into how his actions of saving people and lifting heavy things inspire people solely by seeing Superman do those things for a few seconds, which is totally possible, but without actually focusing on reactions and interactions with the citizens for more than a few brief Jesus symbolism clips.
The movie doesn't really do a good job at immersing into how and why people like Superman in actually showing that. At least enough to give actual competition to all of the focus on how many people freaking hate him because that is the only side I can buy into. That's even what the two main antagonists, Batman and Lex, completely center around. The only people we get supporting Supes with an ample amount of screen time are Lois and Martha Kent, but... they're his girlfriend and mother. They're biased due to being involved in his personal life. They alone can't be used as an example of properly buying into Superman being admirable to some parts of the public. People liking Superman gets treated as more of a footnote than actually getting the proper time into it that it deserves so we can believe in people coming to rally him at the end.
If we're just using BvS as the example then I wholly agree the "Superman gave us hope" line comes off as incoherent and disjointed, but people's reaction to Superman is an accumulation of 2 films, MoS and BvS. The former being the main argument as to why people would be inspired and look up to him as their literal savior.
Because MoS gave us more than glimpses of Superman being a hero, right? The whole last act was him being a hero. Both in the battle of Smallville and Metropolis. Really, the only glimpses we got in MoS was of Clark Kent, before he became Superman, traveling around the world helping people while looking for answers to his origin. But Superman himself was shown saving people. As much damage as he was involved in, in the battle of Metropolis, he did far more good. BvS did a terrible job of giving us a heroic Superman and while I know people have problems with Superman in MoS there's really no argument that convinces me we were invested in any of the people Clark saved in his little montage in BvS. They were just brief faces in a 30 second mash-up. Sometimes they weren't even faces but vessels like that ship he was dragging across the ice or the space shuttle.
But I remember the exact reason why Superman killed Zod in MoS, the helicopter pilot Superman caught after falling from the sky, that small moment in Smallville where Superman told everyone to go inside and lock their doors for safety. It's separate moments like those that immersed us into Superman's character and helped us understand why people would paint "S" symbols on their roofs and crowd Superman after saving a little girl from a burning building.
-
If we're just using BvS as the example then I wholly agree the "Superman gave us hope" line comes off as incoherent and disjointed, but people's reaction to Superman is an accumulation of 2 films, MoS and BvS. The former being the main argument as to why people would be inspired and look up to him as their literal savior.
Because MoS gave us more than glimpses of Superman being a hero, right? The whole last act was him being a hero. Both in the battle of Smallville and Metropolis. Really, the only glimpses we got in MoS was of Clark Kent, before he became Superman, traveling around the world helping people while looking for answers to his origin. But Superman himself was shown saving people. BvS did a terrible job of giving us a heroic Superman and while I know people have problems with Superman in MoS there's really no argument that convinces me we were invested in any of the people Clark saved in his little montage in BvS. They were just brief faces in a 30 second mash-up. Sometimes they weren't even faces but vessels like that ship he was dragging across the ice or the space shuttle.
But I remember the exact reason Superman killed Zod in MoS, the helicopter pilot Superman caught after falling from the sky, that little moment in Smallville where Superman told everyone to go inside and lock their doors for safety. It's separate moments like those that immersed us into Superman's character and helped us understand why people would paint "S" symbols on their roofs and crowd Superman after saving a little girl from a burning building.
To clarify, I'm only talking about Batman v Superman lol. Although I understand how that feels flawed, to only look at the sequel and not both that and the first installment. But the sequel should also do a good job of reminding us about the integral qualities of the protagonist and his effects on the world is that is the focus of the story, rather than only telling the audience "you better remember those scenes from the first movie" and brief hollow less than a minute scenes in the film.
On the topic of Man of Steel in and of itself, I can agree with you.
-
@Count:
To clarify, I'm only talking about Batman v Superman lol. Although I understand how that feels flawed, to only look at the sequel and not both that and the first installment. But the sequel should also do a good job of reminding us about the integral qualities of the protagonist and his effects on the world is that is the focus of the story, rather than only telling the audience "you better remember those scenes from the first movie" and brief hollow less than a minute scenes in the film.
On the topic of Man of Steel in and of itself, I can agree with you.
But at the same time BvS is 18 months later. If we are talking in how the world view Superman at the moment of his death it makes sense to focus on that.
"World without hope" I really can't buy it (And I bought the low ball number of death in Metropolis).
-
But at the same time BvS is 18 months later. If we are talking in how the world view Superman at the moment of his death it makes sense to focus on that.
"World without hope" I really can't buy it (And I bought the low ball number of death in Metropolis).
And because BvS is 18 months later, it should show more of how Superman acts as a hero and interacts with the public post-Metropolis instead of limiting that to montages and talk show commentary. It should get us invested in the perspective of how he's an honest hero trying his best who deserves support and sympathy instead of moping for most of the movie and his only focused on moments of heroism are in a foreign country and sacrificing at the end of the movie. We should focus on how the world views Superman at the moment of his death, but we need to be as emotionally invested as they are when it comes to how they feel about Superman. Unless the movie wants to go for some tragic ending where Superman dies but is tragically viewed as a villain or something.
Of course the world can have hope, but give a proper amount of time to showing us how and why that hope works. Rather than skimming through that and just quickly saying some people have hope because Superman did these acts that barry get focus outside of a montage.
-
Same thing here. Superman saves people, we've known that since Man of Steel. But Superman isn't somebody that saves people. He's somebody that saves a plane falling from the sky and says "hope this doesn't ruin your traveling experience. Statistically, it still is the safest form of travel".
You know now I see why people tend to single Superman out sometimes.
@Count:
T
We need scenes like that to buy into Supes becoming an iconic, inspiring symbol for the DCEU so his death actually feels meaningful.
Hopefully without the casual and somewhat cheesy part of him revealing his identity and witnesses vowing not to blow his cover.
Imagine if Empire Strikes Back had featured a Han Solo who was still complaining that he wanted a reward for all he's doing for the Rebellion. It would have felt shitty, and would have completely negated his character development in Star Wars, especially his moment at the end where they LITERALLY say to him "I knew there was more to you than money!"
And cold bloodily shooting bounty hunters simply doing their jobs:ninja:.
Green Lantern Corps: Ok, Geoff Johns being involved in DC now is cool overall for a lot of this, but his movie in particular is why his involvement is so good. Geoff Johns is the best Green Lantern writer ever, so having him involved here is a GREAT thing.
The way this was described was: Lethal Weapon in Space" with Hal Jordan and my favorite GL, John Stewart as space cops on a buddy cop picture?… in SPACE?!?! How can WB possibly screw this u-"Written and Directed by David S. Goyer"
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
Well at the very least you can hope that it won't be as bad the first GL movie they made, but that might be asking a bit too much.
@Count:
I think that you and Martian are kind of saying the same thing but getting caught up in semantics. I don't think that Martian was trying to say that nobody felt inspired or appreciative of Superman.
What kind of Martian is Martin a white or green:ninja:.
@Count:
We definitely needed that. And just Braniac in a movie in and of itself. Seriously, why hasn't he been adapted in a single Superman movie yet? The closest we got to that was that cancelled Nicolas Cage/Tim Burton movie lol.
That definitely would've been something to see….especially the complaints about the potential tone, and Nicholas Cage being an ill fit.
-
Hopefully without the casual and somewhat cheesy part of him revealing his identity and witnesses vowing not to blow his cover.
Well of course lol. I'm not the biggest fan of the Raimi movies (that's only putting it mildly) but it was the only fitting superhero/civilian interaction scene that could come to my mind at the time. The only other choice was that scene in Spider-Man 1 where the New Yorkers on the Brooklyn Bridge throw garbage at the Green Goblin, but I think that's even more cheesy than the train scene.
What kind of Martian is Martin a white or green:ninja:.
Oh goddamnit, I can't believe I made a typo that looks as stupid as that lol.
That definitely would've been something to see….especially the complaints about the potential tone, and Nicholas Cage being an ill fit.
Can't be any worse than the Burton Batman films. :ninja: