Superman in BvS Film

[stargazer01]

I found this article interesting. Batman V Superman fans say and insist this movie has a lot of hope.. I strongly disagree with that. Sure, the ending is pretty hopeful, but the journey and the execution? The majority of the film is not. Superman is too depressed in most of it, and no wonder why many general audiences didn't care for it. I think they expected more optimism from Superman. Batman too is very dark in it, but he is much darker than Supes in general. It's more his thing. I don't hate this movie. I like its ambition and some of the action is intense, but as a Superman fan, it leaves me disappointed.

Please read the whole article. I agree with most of it, except a few things.

"The world needs a more hopeful hero than we get in 'Batman v Superman'"

https://www.dallasnews.com/arts-ente...an-v-superman/

[Lokimaru]

Did you pay attention to Clark Kent at all in that movi? You do know he's Superman right.

[Jackalope89]

I found this article interesting. Batman V Superman fans say and insist this movie has a lot of hope.. I strongly disagree with that. Sure, the ending is pretty hopeful, but the journey and the execution? The majority of the film is not. Superman is too depressed in most of it, and no wonder why many general audiences didn't care for it. I think they expected more optimism from Superman. Batman too is very dark in it, but he is much darker than Supes in general. It's more his thing. I don't hate this movie. I like its ambition and some of the action is intense, but as a Superman fan, it leaves me disappointed.

Please read the whole article. I agree with most of it, except a few things.

"The world needs a more hopeful hero than we get in 'Batman v Superman'"

https://www.dallasnews.com/arts-ente...an-v-superman/

Its why I didn't care much for Snyder's take on Supes in either BvS or Man of Steel. The Batman stuff in BvS, while on the borderline of extreme at times, still at least felt like Batman. Supes, not so much.

Its also a big reason why I get annoyed with those that try and demand the Snyder version of Justice League to be released.

[manwhohaseverything]

Its why I didn't care much for Snyder's take on Supes in either BvS or Man of Steel. The Batman stuff in BvS, while on the borderline of extreme at times, still at least felt like Batman. Supes, not so much.

Its also a big reason why I get annoyed with those that try and demand the Snyder version of Justice League to be released.

It depends on what your definition of what superman is, actually.I don't particularly care for Snyder's superman. But, i refuse to believe that hollow husk of a character in joss Wheddon is "better".Its basically two face in a cape.As for Snyder's superman there were things that felt very superman.

[Soubhagya]

Good that this thread started. I wanted some discussion on the DCEU films. I like Man of Steel. But i have always been 50-50 about it. I like the action sequences, but i did not find the characters very interesting. Recently, i watched a video which gives an opinion about why Man of Steel failed. I would like to hear other's opinions but i think the video makes me see clearly why i wasn't so warm with DCEU Superman.



The video's main argument is that in Man of Steel, Superman is a passive character. Showing example of Luke Skywalker in New Hope, the story of a hero's journey has a beginning phase when a hero refuses the call to action. Luke initially refuses to go with Obi Wan Kenobi as staying at home was safer. But on finding that his uncle and aunt are dead, he goes on his adventure. This is a very small part in the hero's journey. Clark Kent refuses the call for half the movie. This makes him a passive character in the narrative where events happen to him. Instead of him shaping the events around him.

This brings to my first problem. I haven't seen him stop any criminals in these movies. Why isn't he fighting people who aren't superpowered beings? In fact, at one point he helps some criminals escape because he stops Batman from chasing them. Okay dude, Batman is a dangerous vigilante in your eyes. But the people he was following had guns too. They didn't seem like law abiding citizens. Why isn't Superman stopping these obviously dangerous people?

The one time he fought someone like this was when he saved Lois from that terrorist leader in BvS. Which is fine. I love the scene. An effective reintroduction of Supes as well as showing Lois trusting Supes. But why on Earth did he flew away after that? This was obviously a ghastly scene with many people already dead. There could be someone else in danger who needs his help. But who cares. Lois is safe. WTH? Its like the only person he cares about is Lois Lane. It isn't surprising that Luthor managed to frame Superman for killing these people.

That is my second problem. It maybe unintentional but by showing Superman saving Lois again and again in impossible scenarios and not showing him save and interact with other people he saves, he comes across as an uncaring jerk. There are no Regan like moments from All Star. He would rather kiss Lois Lane over rubble of Metropolis instead of searching and caring for survivors.

I don't care so much for this symbol of hope thing. A bit of cynicism is fine. Every superhero has to have some or else you can't function in this world. The intention of filmmakers was to show hope and optimism amidst a cynical and bleak world. That should be powerful. But in my opinion they really dropped the ball in their execution. Superman fails in the very nature of being a hero.

[Soubhagya]

The third and main problem with me is they did not show Superman in his prime. Case in point this montage from Amazing Spider-man 2.



Towards the twenty second mark there's a short segment showing him help out a kid being bullied and walk him off. Why is Spider-man doing this and not Superman? Except for the part about someone trying to commit suicide its pretty much the Regan scene because its heart warming. Something as jampacked and messy as this movie got that, but not BvS.

Imo instead of forcing grandiose ideas like hope, messiah symbolism etc, they would do far better if they thought him as a superhero frst.

[Agent Z]

One of the first things we see Superman doing is saving some people from a burning oil rig. Later he defends a woman being sexually harassed. He later seeks out the ship after learning of it and actively opposes Zod. This idea he is a passive character is inaccurate and relies on a tortured definition of passive to even be believable.

[Agent Z]

This brings to my first problem. I haven't seen him stop any criminals in these movies. Why isn't he fighting people who aren't superpowered beings? In fact, at one point he helps some criminals escape because he stops Batman from chasing them. Okay dude, Batman is a dangerous vigilante in your eyes. But the people he was following had guns too. They didn't seem like law abiding citizens. Why isn't Superman stopping these obviously dangerous people?

They had guns but he didn't see them doing hurting anyone with them. Batman was the one who attacked them and he's known as a dangerous vigilante.

The one time he fought someone like this was when he saved Lois from that terrorist leader in BvS. Which is fine. I love the scene. An effective reintroduction of Supes as well as showing Lois trusting Supes. But why on Earth did he flew away after that? This was obviously a ghastly scene with many people already dead. There could be someone else in danger who needs his help. But who cares. Lois is safe. WTH? Its like the only person he cares about is Lois Lane. It isn't surprising that Luthor managed to frame Superman for killing these people.

Why would he stick around? Did it ever occur to you he just didn't find any survivors. The one person who was alive ended up killed by Luthor's men and she was being paid/pressured to say Superman killed her family.

That is my second problem. It maybe unintentional but by showing Superman saving Lois again and again in impossible scenarios and not showing him save and interact with other people he saves, he comes across as an uncaring jerk. There are no Regan like moments from All Star. He would rather kiss Lois Lane over rubble of Metropolis instead of searching and caring for survivors.

This is an absurd way to spin Superman into a villain here.

But in my opinion they really dropped the ball in their execution. Superman fails in the very nature of being a hero.

Only if you have absurd and unreasonable expectations as to what qualifies as a hero.

I found this article interesting. Batman V Superman fans say and insist this movie has a lot of hope.. I strongly disagree with that. Sure, the ending is pretty hopeful, but the journey and the execution? The majority of the film is not. Superman is too depressed in most of it, and no wonder why many general audiences didn't care for it. I think they expected more optimism from Superman. Batman too is very dark in it, but he is much darker than Supes in general. It's more his thing. I don't hate this movie. I like its ambition and some of the action is intense, but as a Superman fan, it leaves me disappointed.

Please read the whole article. I agree with most of it, except a few things.

"The world needs a more hopeful hero than we get in 'Batman v Superman'"

https://www.dallasnews.com/arts-ente...an-v-superman/

This article strikes me as incredibly obnoxious and self-entitled and like with many criticisms of the movies, relies on a lot of hyperbole and ignoring of context just to make it's version of Superman seem like a villain.

[manwhohaseverything]

I am confused. are we talking bvs or mos? Anyways, Wisecrack guy sure put forth pop culture superman."the ultimate good guy", "always does good", "the ideal" cough! Cough! The saviour. Behold! The problem with Superman. The character has been typecasted to being the boyscout aka the Savior. So much so that anything less and boyscout himself will be rejected together. Even if a portrayal gets passable grade, it would be hot air and say nothing, mediocre in quality , be safe like the bogus jl movie superman . How great?!! Btw, That guy seriously hasn't read superman books from 1938. Superman is the hero that emerged from depression, i doubt the guy can fathom that.Maybe i should make a comment, Not that it will matter.He got his views, without doing much research. Atleast, zack snyder did the research . Most things in mos is right from comics.

It sucks that the champion of the oppressed became the saviour of whatever.From a swashbuckling rootin tootin son of a gun idealist to a boyscout. Btw, batman and superman share the same source of inspiration Zorro. And lois was petrified of the alien strongman who smashed a car right infront of her for giggles.

Anyways, i agree with superman being reluctant hero in both mos and bvs.The passive part is also true for me. I would also agree the man of action should lead with and in action.i disagree with the notion that superman should be cosy with government. I also disagree with notion that zack snyder placed superman as parallel to jesus,he was clearly inverting the symbolism. Also, don't particularly buy that there should be no collateral damage when superbeings collide. But, i do agree that lose was quickly glossed over.Also, there is a scene smallville where the soldiers accept superman. The acceptance part was slowly building.All in all, i understand criticsm but this blatant hate for the movie is unreasonable. Why? Because you guys don't treat many of the schlock that comes out every year the same way.

[Soubhagya]

One of the first things we see Superman doing is saving some people from a burning oil rig. Later he defends a woman being sexually harassed. He later seeks out the ship after learning of it and actively opposes Zod. This idea he is a passive character is inaccurate and relies on a tortured definition of passive to even be believable.

I don't think its a tortured definition of a passive character. He was indeed active. He did all these things. But from the point of view of a character within a narrative don't you think that Superman was a bit too inactive? I will divide his actions into two kinds. Helping people. Something he wanted to do due to his good nature. And second in trying to find the purpose of his existence on Earth. Something his father Kent told him.

He helped people whenever he could. He saved people on the rig. But that was because he was nearby. He defended the woman from sexual harassment. But he was there. Its not like he was actively trying to help people. I would have preferred if he was actively trying to help others. Not just because he was in the right time at the right place and had a good heart. What i am suggesting is that it would have made the character a lot more heroic and cooler if he was helping people in secret. If he was searching out for places where he was needed. And use his talents to do good. Kind of a proto-Superman. Doing 'Supermanny' things even when he did not have the costume or the idea which was solidified by Jor-El.

This leads to the second type of activity. He was moving here and there. The film does not show what he was doing and what he was searching for. But i can guess that he was searching for his origin. Why he was present on Earth? What was his purpose? That was what Jonathan told him after revealing his alien origin. Find out the reason why he was sent here. That was why he sought out the ship. Jor-El told him about him what he needed to know. And he tried to inspire him. You know that line from All Star. About trying to inspire people who would initially stumble but will later come around. That is generally the ideal of Superman. About using one's abilities for the good of others. And inspiring them to do the same.

Wouldn't it have been much better if this was what Clark was doing already? He already was doing the Superman stuff as he had a good heart. But he was fearing to come out in the open. Because of Jonathan Kent's belief that the world wasn't ready. By taking on Jor-El's ideas and costume he was finally ready to be Superman.

Actively opposing Zod illustrates the problem. Now Clark found out who he was. But coming in front of the world as Superman was not his own choice. He came out because General Zod was threatening the world. By the way i really like the reveal. He doubts what to do about Zod. His decision to come out in the open may not stop Zod and while he wanted to save the world he did not trust it. He choses to surrenders to the people of Earth. That is very well done. I love it. But the fact remains that he did not come out by his own personal choice.

If Zod attacked after a few months it could have made the character much better. All this while he was helping out people. More actively but still hidden. A sort of urban legend. Attack of Zod was what forced him out to the open.

Overall, i mean to say that while Kal-El was active throughout the movie, his heroism was forced unto him. Which makes sense considering his upbringing. Within the context of the movie it totally works. But it makes him a more passive and thus boring character. A character to whom things happen. Instead of him taking the inititative.


In contrast, take Batman written by the same writer. He wanted to kill Joe Chill as he wanted revenge. He wanted to go against Carmine Falcone as he was destroying the city his parents wanted to protect. He left Gotham because he found out that he couldn't take on the likes of Falcone. He trained under League of Shadows to return back to Gotham and clean the city. He left the League when he found their methods were extreme. He tried to do make something bigger then the usual system, as it wasn't working. He slowly developed his Batman idea and then was ready to take down the likes Falcone.

The difference from Superman is that apart from being very busy, all these decisions were made by Bruce Wayne. He made a lot of mistakes. But they were his own. We know about someone's character by knowing what decisions they take.

[Soubhagya]

They had guns but he didn't see them doing hurting anyone with them. Batman was the one who attacked them and he's known as a dangerous vigilante.

That was an illustration. We don't see Superman fight crime. Criminals, terrorists, etc. I would so wish to see Clark going against some corrupt politician or industrialist like he went against Batman. He maybe fighting those elements but the films show him tackling disasters and monstrous enemies only.

And the fact that he allowed those people to get away makes him look very stupid. Try to place yourself in his shoes. I see guys armed with weapons. Who don't look like cops. They are definitely suspicious people with guns. From my research i have found that Batman is a vigilante. His methods are outside the law and he should be checked. But i know that he goes after criminals. That is either stupid or very careless.

Again my point is Superman does not fight crime in these movies. I don't need a whole scene with him fighting gangsters firing upon him. That could be boring unless done in a way like Superman Returns where one guy shoots him in the eye at close range.

Why would he stick around? Did it ever occur to you he just didn't find any survivors. The one person who was alive ended up killed by Luthor's men and she was being paid/pressured to say Superman killed her family.

Definitely. He has super senses. But why don't we see him use that? It is a big incident. Since Superman wasn't in this problematic area, he have to assume that he does not interfere in such hotspots of conflict. This is an exception due to Lois.

He saves Lois so many times in several impossible scenarios. But we don't see him save and interact with other people as often.

This is an absurd way to spin Superman into a villain here.

Not absurd imo. We see so much destruction. But after killing Zod everything ends abruptly. It would have made the film much better if they gave some sort of aftermath scenes. Something similar to Avengers.

And it would have made Superman appear more caring and thus cooler as well as heroic, if he helped some people. Remember he loves Earth. And chooses Earth over Krypton. I get that the destruction was the fault of Zod. But he is powerful enough to do something in its aftermath.

Only if you have absurd and unreasonable expectations as to what qualifies as a hero.

I think you are right about this. I tend to have more expectations from Superman then somebody like say Spider-man. But that is sort of his thing. He has so much power. Some of the things like helping clear the rubble or rescuing trapped victims is very easy for him.

[lotchj]

I didn't like BvS movie!! To be honest I was disappointed they would make a movie that was so disrespectful to both characters!! That wasn't superman or Batman, I have no idea who those characters were!!

[Flash Gordon]

Superman isn't a character in BvS, he's a prop for the plot to happen.

The movie is also far too muddled and messy to give a solid reason for Superman to exist.

[Agent Z]

Neil Gaiman once said that when people say they hate something they're usually right but when they try to explain why they hate it they're usually wrong.

I think this applies very much to the conversation about BvS.

[ssupes]

Neil Gaiman once said that when people say they hate something they're usually right but when they try to explain why they hate it they're usually wrong.

I think this applies very much to the conversation about BvS.

No offense to Neil Gaiman but i've often found the opposite to be true. And while I have no problem with people enjoying the film, to say that people can't find flaws with a film that is heavily flawed a bit baffling.

Superman isn't a character in BvS, he's a prop for the plot to happen.

The movie is also far too muddled and messy to give a solid reason for Superman to exist.

All of supermans arc after man of steel he was a plot point, from being resurrected in justice league to hanging out with literal storm troopers he was supposed to be this symbol of hope that the general audience would have forgotten, as he just stood there a did things without saying much of anything. How spiderman got more lines in a film in which he guest starred in compared to a character that had his name attached to the film is a decision that baffles me to this day.