-
[QUOTE=manofsteel1979;4285341]Of course the obvious difference Bruce Timm did it at the end of the series after several seasons of getting to know that Superman,while Snyder would be doing it basically as part of Superman's origin arc.
To be fair I'm not a fan of that story point regardless whether it's done by Snyder or Timm. However,I'm sure there are those who would give Timm a complete pass while completely savaging Snyder just on the basis of the fact it's Snyder.[/QUOTE]
I'm not totally against an "evil" Superman story, but it has to be done right, and the way Snyder tried was totally wrong, and just too soon for an story as dark as that. You are right, you try an story as that after many episodes (or a few movies) and only after Superman has been very firmly established as a beacon of hope and love in the world. I simply can't accept Injustice Superman or any variation of that as a good story for Superman. At least not for a mainstream story. Elseworld is ok I suppose.
-
[QUOTE=stargazer01;4285312]"Bruce Timm had Superman, under Darkseid’s control, try to pull the world into a despotic apocalypse... But Zack Snyder wasn’t allowed to? Ok."
Someone on twitter... Execution is key, and Snyder did it badly.
But I strongly feel that story was not needed at all in the Superman movies. At least not the way Snyder wanted to do it. "Evil" Superman in the JL we got was the right way to go as long as he didn't hurt any civilians in the Snyder cut...[/QUOTE]
One could argue that Bruce Timm shouldn't have done it, either. And furthermore, he definitely shouldn't have done it when he made the finale for [I]Batman Beyond[/I]...
I was thinking about [I]Superman III[/I], and as loathe as I am to seeing "EVIL SUPERMAN!" stories, it did one thing to make the concept more palatable: it told the metamorphosis from good to bad back to good all from Superman's point of view. I think a lot of writers think it's too hard to write a compelling good Superman, so they just say making him evil is a way to keep him powerful (see [I]Batman Beyond...[/I]) and just hope the narrative can focus on someone else (again, see [I]Batman Beyond[/I]). If you want fans to be invested in Superman, then stop making him the obstacle to overcome. Make it so that Superman has to overcome an obstacle, and that he doesn't just snap out of it because, look, Lois is in trouble/dead.
-
[QUOTE=DochaDocha;4285453]One could argue that Bruce Timm shouldn't have done it, either. And furthermore, he definitely shouldn't have done it when he made the finale for [I]Batman Beyond[/I]...
I was thinking about [I]Superman III[/I], and as loathe as I am to seeing "EVIL SUPERMAN!" stories, it did one thing to make the concept more palatable: it told the metamorphosis from good to bad back to good all from Superman's point of view. I think a lot of writers think it's too hard to write a compelling good Superman, so they just say making him evil is a way to keep him powerful (see [I]Batman Beyond...[/I]) and just hope the narrative can focus on someone else (again, see [I]Batman Beyond[/I]). If you want fans to be invested in Superman, then stop making him the obstacle to overcome. Make it so that Superman has to overcome an obstacle, and that he doesn't just snap out of it because, look, Lois is in trouble/dead.[/QUOTE]
Yep. It's also helpful if you want to draw new fans of the character, too. WB was b!+ching about Superman's relatability? Well, making him evil and detached with few script lines? I'm sure that'd work wonders to fix that problem. lol
It's like WB just can't get out of their own way. At times, I feel Black Adder has more sense than they do. lol
-
Cameron Cuffe put it perfectly for me:
[I]"Some people ask how I could possibly relate to Superman. They don’t get it. It’s not about the cape, or the powers. It’s just about caring. It’s about doing what you can to make the world a better place for others. How can you not relate to that?"[/I]
source: [url]https://twitter.com/thecameroncuffe/status/1092854668429062146[/url]
Superman fans get it. Some writers get it. Except Warner Bros.
I don't love Superman for the cool powers he has (and he does). I love him because he is a kind person. Because he doesn't abuse his powers to take advantage of the world. Because he won't stop fighting for what's just and right. I honestly think that's why people like Superman. This character is supposed to make us feel good and hopeful.
[IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DyqM512U8AAoYsu.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D1VKkXBWwAA33qO.jpg[/IMG]
-
[video=youtube;Y5S7rjUbC14]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5S7rjUbC14[/video]
-
Snyder was just trying to make kent into existentialist, utilitarian and moral libertarians.i mean the whole "be their hero, be their monument, be their angel. Or be none of it. you don't owe this world a damn thing. You never did" speech. Basically, reflects that. "maybe, There is more at stake than just our lives. There is the lives everyone around us. When the world finds out what you can do. It's going to change everything.our beliefs, our notions of what it means to be human " from pa kent also pushes that. It's pretty harsh utilitarian perspective.
[video=youtube_share;ujZlpciY_cI]https://youtu.be/ujZlpciY_cI[/video]
-
Clark jumping Zod for threatening his mother destroying a truck that belonged to a sexual harasser were one of many things in MoS criticized by Superman fans.
-
[QUOTE=Agent Z;4600733]Well, Clark jumping Zod for threatening his mother destroying a truck that belonged to a sexual harasser were one of many things in MoS criticized by Superman fans.[/QUOTE]
Guess I didn't see many comments about Clark's jumping Zod in Smallville (killing him, on the other hand...).
As for the truck, I thought it was overkill, too. I mean, it's an actual crime to do what he did, two wrongs don't make a right, etc.
-
[QUOTE=DochaDocha;4600720]I think this goes back into how Superman and his supporting characters get held to a higher standard than other heroes. Hippolyta seems to be allowed some moral grey area, but the Kents are supposed to be like Uncle Ben, the gold standard for parental and moral guidance. [/QUOTE]
It also helps that Hippolyta's actions aren't followed by Diana. I didn't mind Jonathan's attitude about Clark hiding his powers as much on [I]Lois & Clark[/I] where Clark and Martha seemed to think it was a bit extreme. I had more issue when it was something Martha and Clark shared in [I]Man of Steel[/I]. The Kents can have flaws, for me, but they need to be flaws that Clark recognizes in most cases as flaws. For example if we have to have Clark as athlete in high school addressed, I'd prefer it to be Pa rather than Clark enamored of the idea, and Clark rather than Pa who sees it as being an issue of misusing his abilities.
-
Ok. I don't understand what better here is. People keep saying that. What should clark's parents do? If clark doesn't want to "save lives and be a superhero" intead wants to be writer or something. How is that wrong? Shouldn't he get to have choices like the rest of us. I mean, how many of us do anything of service to the world or society. But, we all get to have our lives.
Ok. Clark saves the kid and his secret is out. Then what? Can anybody say it won't blow up in his face and kill more people than he saved in the bus. Mobs are stupid. We live in a world that has religious fanaticism. You don't know what effect a guy like clark walking the earth will have on those nut jobs. Some may even declare he is false prophet, satan or the anti christ. Some may even resort to unspeakable violence . On top of that, there will be governments trying to get their hands on the kid. Countries may even go to war for the kid. So, would saving the kids be worth it if the end result is more destructive.
I am just asking people to be a little utilitarian. Even if you don't believe in that. Just try to view it from that perspective.
-
The Kents “aren’t” utilitarian though. That’s the point of them, to instill in Clark a moral sense of responsibility that he needs to help people whatever may be the cost to himself. While Clark himself can fall short of that at times the Kents are supposed to at the very least teach him he can’t just ignore people who need his help.
The DCEU Kents don’t do this at all. Pa teaches Clark to hate and fear his “otherness”. Ma teaches him that he doesn’t have any responsibility to help if he doesn’t want to. They repeatedly warn him away from pursuing heroics to the point Pa gets himself idiotically killed because he is so terrified of outing his son. You might say that’s more “realistic” but then where is Clark’s moral fiber coming from? The answer in MOS is his space dad Jor-El who is everything the Kents are not: Rebellious against unjust authority, courageous, and principled. He’s the clear source of Clark’s “Superman” desire. He is also unsurprisingly the most popular character in the film based on the people I’ve talked to. He’s what Superman should be but isn’t.
-
They should have had the child actor playing Clark in the tornado scene. Maybe then I could’ve bought it. But grown up Cavill playing a supposedly 18 Superman or however old he was supposed to be? Just looked dumb to me.
-
[QUOTE=Vordan;4601074]They should have had the child actor playing Clark in the tornado scene. Maybe then I could’ve bought it. But grown up Cavill playing a supposedly 18 Superman or however old he was supposed to be? Just looked dumb to me.[/QUOTE]
If only they had MCU's de-aging tech we've seen a bit since 2016.
-
[QUOTE=stargazer01;4600841]We had no big expectation for how Hippolyta should be, but we do the Kents. We expect better from them.[/QUOTE]
We should really expect better from Hippolyta as well. Though I agree with the general stance that she has a lot more leeway in being complex.
The Kents are saintly figures who just need to find the baby, raise him and instill their values, and then leave the narrative. As symbols and origin story figures they are fantastic and indispensable, but they are just not interesting enough to stick around or add layers of complexity too. Same with the Els (put the baby in the rocket and get blown to kingdom come with the rest of their people) and the Waynes (get shot, Bruce is sad, let's get the ball rolling). Hippolyta on the other hand is a larger than life mythological figure with an epic background even before Diana is born, and she's long been established as sticking around as a prominent supporting cast figure.
Making her the queen of a nation of baby killers is a step way too far, but she can get away with more morally complex stories than the Kents, Els or Waynes and not have it be as big of a deal.
[QUOTE=Agent Z;4600733]Well, Clark jumping Zod for threatening his mother destroying a truck that belonged to a sexual harasser were one of many things in MoS criticized by Superman fans.[/QUOTE]
People had less of an issue with Clark jumping Zod and more crashing into a gas station and blowing it up without it being very clear if it was empty. Unlikely as there were cars at the pumps, upon rewatches (despite what I may wish otherwise) those civilians may be dead as doornails.
The truck thing I'm fine with. It's very Golden Age, and Reeve beat up a guy without powers. people should be able to roll with that one.
-
[QUOTE=SiegePerilous02;4601421]
People had less of an issue with Clark jumping Zod and more crashing into a gas station and blowing it up without it being very clear if it was empty. Unlikely as there were cars at the pumps, upon rewatches (despite what I may wish otherwise) those civilians may be dead as doornails.[/QUOTE]
That doesn't bother me, because this is a Clark who doesn't know what he's doing. It's one of those rookie mistakes, yknow? When everything starts in Smallville, we get a scene of Clark telling everyone to get indoors and lock their doors.....as if that's going to help in any way? The guy had never been in a fight, much less one against people on his level, so I have no issue with the mistakes he made in MoS. Like, everyone complains about the destruction in Metropolis but we can see Clark try to lure Zod away from the city and fail. He's clueless. So these mistakes are things I'm cool with.
But to the general audience that's a problem, because no one really thinks of Superman as being a rookie. We've had shows like Smallville and L&C tap into that, but those shows ran for years and years and both ended with a skilled, competent Superman who's early mistakes were a distant memory. In the movies, Clark spent years in space with his hologram dad learning how to do things. So, especially as far as movies go, no one is accustomed to rookie Superman and I think we judge his mistakes in MoS too harshly for that.
The public's perception of Superman is his greatest enemy; that's a legend the character cannot live up to and remain interesting.
