The physics of Superman's feats. Does modern have to mean realisitc?

[Powerboy]

Yes, but many of those characters fit that type of storytelling. Not everything can be one or the other. Batman works better as a darker character, etc. But the 90's "all characters need darkness and leather!" is what's going away. Thankfully.

I liked MoS but, even sitting in the theater, I had a pretty good idea what the reaction of the majority of the audience was going to be, especially those familiar mostly with live action movie and television presentations of Superman. It just wasn't meeting their expectations and desires.

I've mentioned before that Tom Mankiewicz, who did extensive script doctoring for the first two Reeve Superman movies, was in a discussion with Warners back in the late 1980s in which they wanted to do Batman movies but wanted them to be light and fun partly because of the Adam West show but partly because of the success of the first two Superman movies. He was the one telling them it worked for Superman because he's Superman but, with Batman, you want to go as dark as you can get away with. Luckily, they were convinced to hire Tim Burton. While those movies may seem campy in a way today, they felt very dark at the time. But you get to recent years and the mentality of the business people is the same basic mentality. The Batman movies were successful and the recent Dark Knight stuff even more successful so that's what people want. They needed a Mankiewicz saying, "No. No. That worked because it's Batman. No matter how well made a dark, gritty Superman movie may be, it won't work for a huge segment of the audience."

I saw that you mentioned Supegirl, Flash, etc not doing well after season one... but the problem with those shows after the first season hasn't been the brighter outlook. It's been other factors. In fact, after the last season of Flash, they made a point to tell fans that they'd be going back to the feel of the first season because the reaction to them going darker for that long was NOT good. That should say pretty well that tastes are changing.

I liked a lot of the dark stuff myself when it was getting started in the mid 1980s. But we've had thirty years of it. I can easily see why the audience preference is moving in the other direction again.

For instance, the most recent season of "Arrow" that was on Netflix, the one with Adrian Chase, I was done with by the 16th episode. I just wanted Arrow to kill him or at least bring him in- The End. I would rather have had 6 or 7 one-shot stories to finish the season than plod through a half a dozen more episodes of Oliver Queen gets deconstructed again. As it was, after watching that much of the season, I wasn't going to stop but, rather than watching at a rate of one episode a week as I usually do, I just binged through the remaining season NOT because I desperately wanted to know how it ended but because I just wanted to get it over with and get on with taking my time enjoying shows I actually still liked.

It's not that one is more dated than the other... one has just been done so much that it's stale when applied in a "square peg, round hole" way. A take has to fit a character, or it won't work in the long run. Kinda like if Fox made Deadpool a PG movie. Imagine the fan-rage on that, and you're close.

That's actually a good point. Deadpool as a PG movie where he is deadly serious and has a code against killing. Looking at it that way, one can understand the anger at Superman presented in a way that goes so far against expectations of who and what the character is.

That's my observations just using basic psychology, really. They apply those more to Superman because they were conditioned to look at the films more "realistically". People wonder on the reaction to MoS vs Avengers - there's the answer. Seems obvious to me. Them blaming it on Superman is largely an emotional reaction to everything else. Yes, Superman is generally held to a higher standard, but that's not the full reason why the reactions were so different.

Exactly. Blaming all the death and destruction on Superman is irrational. But it's an emotional reaction to the overall tone of the movie. Superman goes through the movie helping people but, during the fights, he mostly doesn't even seem to consider that he and the other Kryptonians are steel in a world of tissue paper. Had the fights concentrated less on how impressive CGI is and how much CGI destruction is possible and instead focused on Superman desperately trying to move the fight out of the city (upon my fourth viewing, he barely even tries) or had him crying out, almost begging, "No. Those people. Don't do it", even though they would do it anyway of course, the reaction might have been different.

Sure there's tremendous destruction in the Avengers. But we have Cap forming a perimeter and focusing the story on the attempts to save people rather than on how much destruction is taking place. People have got to be dying right and left but we see the heroes desperately trying to prevent that. We know what happens overall but we also know that at least some of the heroes were thinking constantly about the threat to the people around them and trying to prevent it.

Watching the fight in MoS, I think the images that linger are Superman punching someone into a truck or train that explodes or dodging a truck rather than blocking it heedless that it takes out a building and explodes. Inexperience? Definitely. But I'm talking about audience perceptions. I honestly think that the reaction of most people in that world would be Bruce Wayne's reaction at the beginning of B v S. Buildings coming down, loved ones being slaughtered right and left and, when you look up in the sky, you see these all-powerful gods duking it out minus any concern of what it's causing. Yes Superman cared but not enough to make much of any effort to move the fight out of the city. Maybe lack of experience but I think most people in the audience or in that world would see it as his mind simply not being oriented to the safety of people being a major concern.

Needless to say, I kind of agree with Mark Waid's assessment. Lots and lots of good stuff in this movie worthy of respect. But where it really and truly loses me is the battles, NOT because of the destruction and not really directly because of Superman but because of the direction by Zack Snyder which seems focused on worshiping the destruction, the camera lingering longingly on it and making sure to include every possible bit of it even including planes flying into buildings. Then we have Jenny, after all that, emptily declaring, "He saved us". As opposed to the Avengers where you don't get the feeling the destruction is the main point but that what the heroes are doing to try to prevent it and save people is the main point.

Yes, but there's what people *say* and what they really *mean* or what they'll accept. Believe me, I've talked to enough people about this to know that large swatches of them said one thing and largely meant another. Not everyone, granted (like MovieBob). But a good number, I'd wager.

Quoted just for the truth of it. What people say and what they really feel is often two different things.

If that's what you see, than I'm afraid you're not seeing the full picture, imo. It's certainly not true for me. I talk about it because it's what's largely missing in the DCEU version. It's a VERY essential part of Superman, yes, though not the only one. But.... the reason everyone bitched about Batman fighting Superman is because we knew exactly how WB was going to handle that: with all the grace of a sugar-rushing toddler. Using lines from Miller's TDK guaranteed that reaction. Fans know very well what that did to Superman's social perception, and the book (and Miller) have a tainted reputation for it. To say Superman got no respect in BvS would be putting it mildly, imo. "Showing dominance at the expense of other characters" is exactly what they did with Batman to Superman - inadvertently making both characters look dumb in the process. So, yeah, to see Superman finally shown to have power and half of a brain does appeal to fans who've watched him get beaten down for a long time now just to lift up "insert character x here". That's not what fans "really want". It's just revenge for what happened in BvS. A better term escapes me, but that's blood-lust. Not the same thing.

Were there not a long history of Superman being disrespected, the reaction to his stomping everybody else in JL would have been different. What a jerk. What a dick. The standard remarks from people who don't like Superman to begin with only everybody would have said it. But it was catharsis. Hell, it was revenge. Finally, the tables turn and Superman is presented as the powerful and later smart hero he should have been all the time.

If JL is any indication, the power fantasy aspect is coming back with a vengeance - not the vs JL fight scene, but him flying a whole building of civilians down and his smarts in taking down Steppenwolf.

And note also that, when Superman appears, Batman effectively stops being the leader. He's relevant but Superman kind of unofficially steps into that role.

[JAK]

I liked MoS but, even sitting in the theater, I had a pretty good idea what the reaction of the majority of the audience was going to be, especially those familiar mostly with live action movie and television presentations of Superman. It just wasn't meeting their expectations and desires.

I've mentioned before that Tom Mankiewicz, who did extensive script doctoring for the first two Reeve Superman movies, was in a discussion with Warners back in the late 1980s in which they wanted to do Batman movies but wanted them to be light and fun partly because of the Adam West show but partly because of the success of the first two Superman movies. He was the one telling them it worked for Superman because he's Superman but, with Batman, you want to go as dark as you can get away with. Luckily, they were convinced to hire Tim Burton. While those movies may seem campy in a way today, they felt very dark at the time. But you get to recent years and the mentality of the business people is the same basic mentality. The Batman movies were successful and the recent Dark Knight stuff even more successful so that's what people want. They needed a Mankiewicz saying, "No. No. That worked because it's Batman. No matter how well made a dark, gritty Superman movie may be, it won't work for a huge segment of the audience."

The funny part is that a grittier take on a Superman story could actually work very well, imo. It just has to be done right, and Superman needs to be a stronger contrast to the world around him. People seem to think that life shapes us only one way, but that's not always the case. We either accept or reject outside influences. So that Superman rejects much of it initially - maybe by the end he learns to pay better attention to it as a story arc - and in so doing becomes a juxtaposition to his surroundings instead of a compliment. Superman "finding who he is" in this setting can be about him learning his origins/etc (ala Byrne's "Man of Steel") but won't work so well if he takes, say, two whole movies and neither he nor the audience fully grasps who he is. But anyway... lol

I liked a lot of the dark stuff myself when it was getting started in the mid 1980s. But we've had thirty years of it. I can easily see why the audience preference is moving in the other direction again.

For instance, the most recent season of "Arrow" that was on Netflix, the one with Adrian Chase, I was done with by the 16th episode. I just wanted Arrow to kill him or at least bring him in- The End. I would rather have had 6 or 7 one-shot stories to finish the season than plod through a half a dozen more episodes of Oliver Queen gets deconstructed again. As it was, after watching that much of the season, I wasn't going to stop but, rather than watching at a rate of one episode a week as I usually do, I just binged through the remaining season NOT because I desperately wanted to know how it ended but because I just wanted to get it over with and get on with taking my time enjoying shows I actually still liked.

Agreed - I liked that stuff then and can also enjoy it now, in the right context. Arrow got stale with it after awhile, but the first seasons are a pretty interesting take that's VERY different from the comics. I've also enjoyed Riverdale and that's very different, as well. Riverdale is an interesting experiment in particular; it really shouldn't work any better than MoS and BvS did with audiences, but it seems to be ok.. and I think that's largely because they keep most of the characters' core fairly stable and consistently call back to elements in the comics that keep the balance.

That's actually a good point. Deadpool as a PG movie where he is deadly serious and has a code against killing. Looking at it that way, one can understand the anger at Superman presented in a way that goes so far against expectations of who and what the character is.

Yep. And I imagine Fox/Disney are pretty happy Ryan Reynolds fought so hard to make sure that movie was done right. Superman needs somebody like that in his corner, honestly.

Exactly. Blaming all the death and destruction on Superman is irrational. But it's an emotional reaction to the overall tone of the movie. Superman goes through the movie helping people but, during the fights, he mostly doesn't even seem to consider that he and the other Kryptonians are steel in a world of tissue paper. Had the fights concentrated less on how impressive CGI is and how much CGI destruction is possible and instead focused on Superman desperately trying to move the fight out of the city (upon my fourth viewing, he barely even tries) or had him crying out, almost begging, "No. Those people. Don't do it", even though they would do it anyway of course, the reaction might have been different.

Sure there's tremendous destruction in the Avengers. But we have Cap forming a perimeter and focusing the story on the attempts to save people rather than on how much destruction is taking place. People have got to be dying right and left but we see the heroes desperately trying to prevent that. We know what happens overall but we also know that at least some of the heroes were thinking constantly about the threat to the people around them and trying to prevent it.

Watching the fight in MoS, I think the images that linger are Superman punching someone into a truck or train that explodes or dodging a truck rather than blocking it heedless that it takes out a building and explodes. Inexperience? Definitely. But I'm talking about audience perceptions. I honestly think that the reaction of most people in that world would be Bruce Wayne's reaction at the beginning of B v S. Buildings coming down, loved ones being slaughtered right and left and, when you look up in the sky, you see these all-powerful gods duking it out minus any concern of what it's causing. Yes Superman cared but not enough to make much of any effort to move the fight out of the city. Maybe lack of experience but I think most people in the audience or in that world would see it as his mind simply not being oriented to the safety of people being a major concern.

Funny that you mention that tanker truck - I use that as a perfect example of what the movie doesn't do. As you say below, there are a number of promising things in MoS - but for me, many of them are botched in the execution. Let's say the tanker part happens just as it did... but then Superman turns in shock/horror as it explodes (instead of being all "action-movie-stoic"). Then, show Zod's forces try it again, but this time he stops it. Him not knowing, I would think, if forgivable to the audience.... as long as he's shown to be actually learning. A perpetually "green" character, especially Superman imo, starts to look like a crutch showing that the writer can't handle a more seasoned one. It starts to feel (or at least it did to me) artificially held back.

Needless to say, I kind of agree with Mark Waid's assessment. Lots and lots of good stuff in this movie worthy of respect. But where it really and truly loses me is the battles, NOT because of the destruction and not really directly because of Superman but because of the direction by Zack Snyder which seems focused on worshiping the destruction, the camera lingering longingly on it and making sure to include every possible bit of it even including planes flying into buildings. Then we have Jenny, after all that, emptily declaring, "He saved us". As opposed to the Avengers where you don't get the feeling the destruction is the main point but that what the heroes are doing to try to prevent it and save people is the main point.

Oh, big time. After the 10th building fell in MoS, it was actually boring me from desensitization. If I'm rolling my eyes in the third act, it's not good, lol. At that point it goes from serious to self-serious. And it squanders much of the goodwill it's built up in other spots. That said, it's not just the battles that could have used better execution. I'll always point to Pa's death scene as the first moment that took me out of the movie. I didn't even fully realize it at the time, but on further reflection.. that's where the end of my enjoyment really began.

And the next director who ramps up the "Christ allegory" angle as much as these movies did is going to be beaten senseless with one of the extra copies I ordered of Action Comics 1000. I'm so sick of that, it's ridiculous. And also as much of a crutch as WB's usual "everything is Batman" garbage. lol

Were there not a long history of Superman being disrespected, the reaction to his stomping everybody else in JL would have been different. What a jerk. What a dick. The standard remarks from people who don't like Superman to begin with only everybody would have said it. But it was catharsis. Hell, it was revenge. Finally, the tables turn and Superman is presented as the powerful and later smart hero he should have been all the time.

Exactly. That's why I call it "cheap" in a way. Yes, it feels good, and yes, we cheered for it.. but that's not what we really want as fans.

And note also that, when Superman appears, Batman effectively stops being the leader. He's relevant but Superman kind of unofficially steps into that role.

Yep. And speaking of catharsis... Superman's complete 180-degree turn in JL was also something of a catharsis. Taken on it's own it's probably a bit much, but after two movies of a fairly depressed Superman, the change of pace smoothed over much of the "over-the-top" nature of his lines in JL. If we just had JL, you'd also hear many fans - probably myself as well - talking about how unbearably corny he was.