REVIEW: Wonder Woman Can't Save Dull "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice"

[Username taken]

How is Superman II an example of deconstruction for Superman? Genuine question.

From my POV, it's an example of Superman's selfishness getting the worst of him and the world and Superman himself suffering the consequences for his act.

The movie basically questions why Supes does what he does and the sacrifice he has to make to do it. I'm kind of looking at this as Superman I and II being one movie as Donner filmed both (or about 70% of part 2) at the same time.

Superman was being his Super self and all that but as the movie went on, we started to see that Superman has his own desires and feelings which kind of run contrary to his "position" as the world's greatest superhero (this was touched upon again in Superman Returns). He eventually gives it all up to be with the one person who he loves because he could never do so as Superman. That sub-plot in and of itself is questioning the superhero secret identity and what future lives these super people can actually live long before it became fashionable to do so. The movie is basically saying this guy isn't perfect.

Granted the movie did this all on the back of a romance but the issues the movie raised about a Superman and what it means to be Superman is still there. The movies don't necessarily question Superman's place in the world (somethings Snyder is trying but as I said very heavy handedly) as much as what it actually means to be Superman (if that makes any sense).

[Doctor Know]

The movie basically questions why Supes does what he does and the sacrifice he has to make to do it. I'm kind of looking at this as Superman I and II being one movie as Donner filmed both (or about 70% of part 2) at the same time.

Superman was being his Super self and all that but as the movie went on, we started to see that Superman has his own desires and feelings which kind of run contrary to his "position" as the world's greatest superhero (this was touched upon again in Superman Returns). He eventually gives it all up to be with the one person who he loves because he could never do so as Superman. That sub-plot in and of itself is questioning the superhero secret identity and what future lives these super people can actually live long before it became fashionable to do so. The movie is basically saying this guy isn't perfect.

Granted the movie did this all on the back of a romance but the issues the movie raised about a Superman and what it means to be Superman is still there. The movies don't necessarily question Superman's place in the world (somethings Snyder is trying but as I said very heavy handedly) as much as what it actually means to be Superman (if that makes any sense).

The problem I've always had with Superman II, is that neither it or the original define why Superman couldn't be with Lois and still be a hero. It just seems like an obstacle thrown in to further the "will they, won't they" subplot of TM, and plot of II.

[Username taken]

The problem I've always had with Superman II, is that neither it or the original define why Superman couldn't be with Lois and still be a hero. It just seems like an obstacle thrown in to further the "will they, won't they" subplot of TM, and plot of II.

But can Superman with all his power actually be with an ordinary woman? I would actually say he can't.

Besides the risks and possibilities of his enemies lashing out at Lois, I've always wondered how exactly Superman can "be" with a normal woman and have a child like the comics have done without him depowering himself.

[Doctor Know]

But can Superman with all his power actually be with an ordinary woman? I would actually say he can't.

Besides the risks and possibilities of his enemies lashing out at Lois, I've always wondered how exactly Superman can "be" with a normal woman and have a child like the comics have done without him depowering himself.

Superman isn't Spider-Man. Another character who says he can have a committed relationship because his enemies might target his loved ones.

Reed and Sue make it work. Family and two kids. It really just seems like something the writers don't care to define, because they don't like writing happy, committed relationships (see nearly every superhero couple ever) or relationships that feature children. Sue and Reed with Valeria and Franklin being the sole exception of making it work long term.

[Username taken]

Superman isn't Spider-Man. Another character who says he can have a committed relationship because his enemies might target his loved ones.

Reed and Sue make it work. Family and two kids. It really just seems like something the writers don't care to define, because they don't like writing happy, committed relationships (see nearly every superhero couple ever) or relationships that feature children. Sue and Reed with Valeria and Franklin being the sole exception of making it work long term.

I think Sue and Reed are an exception because they are both superheroes.

I do agree though that most writers don't want to write long term relationships.

Make no mistake, I'm actually enjoying the re-birthed Superman with his family but I just question how it would work under closer scrutiny. Granted Superman is far more powerful than Spider-man but what stops a Brainiac from scanning Supes brain and finding out about this loved ones? I think that story has been touched upon in the past with Matrix and Bizarro but in reality, it would really be very difficult to cope with.

[chamber-music]

People are ok with seeing heroes deconstructed. The Dark Knight trilogy was immensely popular and successful

[Doctor Know]

I think Sue and Reed are an exception because they are both superheroes.

I do agree though that most writers don't want to write long term relationships.

Make no mistake, I'm actually enjoying the re-birthed Superman with his family but I just question how it would work under closer scrutiny. Granted Superman is far more powerful than Spider-man but what stops a Brainiac from scanning Supes brain and finding out about this loved ones? I think that story has been touched upon in the past with Matrix and Bizarro but in reality, it would really be very difficult to cope with.

With SuperDad and Lois you have to keep in mind they were (re)introduced when DC already had a main Superman on several books. Ever since Lois and Superman tied the knot back in the 90s, the prospect of them having children was a once and again plot thread. Chris Kent, Cir-El, Jonathan Kent (grandfather's namesake), Kon-El etc. But DC always pulled back on making the kids mainstays, because they didn't want that family aspect. When DC You Superman (Truth) falling on it's face unexpectedly, DC burned all bridges with New 52 Supes and chose for SuperDad and his family to carry the main Superman books. They're now willing to give this a go.

[GhostPirate]

I honestly mean no offense but, while I can see where you're coming from I just think a lot of your points miss the mark. Since it seems a bit easier to understand when multiple points are addressed singly, instead of clumped together in a response, that's what I'll do. I'm going to take them a bit out of order though...

I guess in a way, it's a byproduct of comic book movies becoming mainstream. Avengers changed everything, for all the studios, including Marvel.

Exactly. In decades of movie-making, WB could only be bothered to get behind Batman after Batman movie, effectively wasting the rest of their lineup or, more accurately, relegating them to cartoon fodder. Other studios fought against the genre by bringing darker, or more "grounded", characters to the screen, or downplaying the super-hero CBM aspect of the characters, seemingly out of embarrassment that they were actually making super-hero CBMs (Fox). Marvel brought what feel like classic versions of comic book heroes to big screen, live action, big budget life, in ways that no studio had bothered to attempt since Superman II, did it in a way that felt like they were using the old school way of making classic action/sci-fi... and have been rewarded for it with a passionate fanbase and huge box office $$$.

Until that point, the MCU was known and was doing okay, but it wasn't earth-shattering. Kevin Feige's name was really only known in trade circles.

They weren't really earth-shattering to start because that's the definition of building something. What people constantly seem to ignore though is they did this with a roster of characters that other studios didn't want in the first place. They didn't have household names outside the Hulk, whom they still have to share rights with Universal, and who has proven notoriously difficult as a character to build a feature film, much less a film franchise, around. They did it with characters that could easily have come off as dated and campy (Cap), or just unrelatable and corny (Thor), but they not only made those characters work, they built the foundations for their mega-franchise around them.

Once Avengers made 1.5 billion dollars, they were mainstream which much more criticism and much more expectations. I am convinced that if BvS came out before Avengers did, it would not have received as much flack and it would have made more money

Sorry, but it's too easy to play 'what if'... especially because that really gives WB more credit than it has earned, or even deserves at all. WB had undisputed rights to the majority (if not all) of DC's lineup; they could have put Batman and Superman together any time they wanted to... and didn't... UNTIL Marvel led the way. The MCU took all the risks, and IMO deserves the way they've been rewarded. And sure, maybe BvS wouldn't have been AS critically reviled as it is, but I still don't see any way that movie would have been much more of a success. You said it yourself: the MCU and the Avengers brought super-hero comics MAINSTREAM; before then there was a much more limited ceiling. If WB put out the same movie pre-Avengers they would have still made the big opening weekend because it's an event film, arguably THE event film because Superman and Batman are such worldwide, generational, pop culture icons, and people would want to be part of that conversation; but the quality showed in that people saw it for the event aspect, then most didn't bother going back.

By the same token... how much faster would the MCU have become "earth shattering" by putting out the same caliber of films they have... but with Marvel Comics first stringers like Spider-Man, the X-Men, Fantastic Four, etc to build off of?

They were trying to catch up too quickly because they were afraid that by the time they got their big movies, the superhero craze would be over.

First fundamental flaw: they didn't need to "catch up" the way they did. They had long-standing cultural relevance and fan recognition from all their prior Batman and Superman films, from the various live action offerings (from Adam West's Batman to Lois & Clark to Smallville) to having consistently popular cartoons (because parents have kids, kids watch cartoons so parents are typically somewhat aware of those cartoons too) from the Superfriends to BTAS and STAS to the JL and JLU and Teen Titans. They could have used that established fanbase to build their shared universe in so many ways, and they chose what they felt was the safe way, and it has kinda backfired to this point.

I have no problem saying that Warner Bros is screwing this up on a massive level. What I do have a problem with is Marvel fans taunting the DC fans. That's not right. It's become Yankees-Red Sox and it's disgusting and hurtful. Jon Schnepp perfected what the Marvel DC relationship SHOULD be. DC is Forrest Gump and Marvel is either the girl or another person running. They should be encouraging EACH OTHER to do well.

But yet people that say this seem to have a problem when other people say this... and you admit right there by omission you don't have a problem with DC fans constant taunting of Marvel fans, which is why the hate has reached the proportions it has. Every DC/MCU debate (hell, every MCU/other studio debate) on this and every forum goes the same exact way:

MCU fan points out legitimate issues with the writing, plot, characterization, lack of respect for source material, etc
MCU hater responds with, "you just hate because they aren't 'haha kiddie fodder'", or makes truly ignorant stretches to justify absolutely terrible decisions on the part of WB with respect to characters that pretty much everyone on the planet has some knowledge of from past incarnations, not comprehending, apparently, that these movies could be done better/more tastefully and still attempt a serious/darker/grounded/etc tone.

I've typed the words so many times I guess one more won't hurt... the MCU has more than its fair share of weak points. I could spend days pointing out various problems I've had with what they've put out, but those concerns are a lit match next to the dumpster fire of mistakes and bad writing/decision making I keep seeing from WB and Fox again and again. Fans of those studios seem to delight in picking the smallest of nits and blowing them to outrageous proportions to make their points (which, once again, usually come down to "MCU = humor, humor is for kiddies; I r not kiddie"), all while ignoring, excusing, or outright explaining away the most egregious things in DC films.

I don't think anyone (yet) doesn't want these studios to do WELL, but AFAIC "well" isn't defending poorly-written, ponderous trash simply because it's dark or serious or melodramatic instead of sci-fi/action laced with humor. I don't care if Fox chooses melodrama and WB chooses dark, serious, gritty, grounded or whatever internet buzzword people want to use now, I want them to embrace the characters, give more thought to the stories, and stop expecting the names to carry the box office; I want the quality to carry the box office, like it has with the MCU.

I wish Kevin Feige would come out with a statement mentioning what they are doing at WB and supporting it, while not knocking their own product. The problem is corporate greed and pride get in the way. I'm going to post this in the other thread as well because I think it is very important to note.

Why should he? The pressure should be put on these other studios to make better movies that appeal to hardcore current comic fans AND longtime fans of the character who've fallen away because "modern" comics have become a convoluted, impermeable mess, AND the general audiences who have a passing familiarity with the character from previous iterations, and quit trying to cash in solely off of IP.

That's what many people don't seem to understand: what will bring about an early end to the super-hero CBM boom is simply too many bad, unappealing movies that feel like cash ins instead of good movies with stories to tell about these characters. Civil War felt like it had a story to tell; BvS felt like WB saying "people won't care what kind of crap we put up there, they'll buy it as long as it has Batman and Superman in the title".

[GhostPirate]

I think beyond the technical issues, which are fixed in the Ultimate Cut, the thing that people don't like, and Deborah Snyder said this, is seeing Superman deconstructed. It goes back to a fundamental problem that no one can seem to answer, save Richard Donner

How can you create drama for a character as seemingly invincible as Superman? The drama has to be internal

Good, creative writers throughout Superman's long history have found a way to create drama both physical and emotional, for Superman. Morrison in All-Star, Moore multiple times. Timm and Dini did a fantastic job in the previously mentioned STATS, JL and JLU series. Snyder & co had 75+ years of stories in various mediums to pick through and use for inspiration to create ONE movie... then later a second one which was more of a Batman reintroduction and JL prelude than a true Superman movie. There were plenty of ways it could've been done better, been more respectful to the history of the character and his fans, and still been a serious, grounded story.

It also wasn't "deconstruction", the word itself implies that there was an established character, when they were rebooting him, and it was more an example of poorly thought out and horribly applied, heavy-handed allegorical filmmaking than anything. They, intentionally or not, made Superman the worst, most destructive illegal immigrant allegory ever in MoS, who was basically told to fear the government and other people or he'd be found out, made him a recluse who balanced a spectacular good deed or two with sociopathic tendencies, let his dad die for no real reason except bad writing, stole from the US government, used what he stole irresponsibly and single-handedly almost caused extinction, then took no responsibility afterwards (guess the 10 guys he saved on the oil rig makes up for the hundreds of thousands killed in Zod's invasion because "serious/grounded" storytelling automatically means the fans of said writing can turn their brains off and dismiss these sorts of valid criticisms as fanboy support of "kiddie" MCU stories?), in fact causing more wanton destruction.

But watch, someone will come by to handwave all this terrible characterization of an iconic once-hero away, excuse it mainly by trashing on the classic Christopher Reeve Superman films made 35 years ago and probably point out some maybe valid, but certainly miniscule-by-comparison issue with the MCU, when the truth of the matter is if these movies had more thought put into them these sort of criticisms wouldn't be there to be made in the first place.

[Calighoula]

[Luke Cage]

How do you deconstruct a hero who never existed in the DCEU? He's never shown to be Superman long enough to deconstruct him. Just call the movie crap and move on. The Snyders have no clue who Superman is and they have no interest in brining him to screen. Superman is the freaking big blue boy scout, in a world of anti-heroes and cynical and dark heroes. He's a beacon of hope that people and heroes strive to emulate. Not the garbage we've been given. Instead, he's exactly the same as every other a-hole in tights. There's nothing to set him apart. That's what the WB and the Snyders have given us.

[Vanguard-01]

How do you deconstruct a hero who never existed in the DCEU? He's never shown to be Superman long enough to deconstruct him. Just call the movie crap and move on. The Snyders have no clue who Superman is and they have no interest in brining him to screen. Superman is the freaking big blue boy scout, in a world of anti-heroes and cynical and dark heroes. He's a beacon of hope that people and heroes strive to emulate. Not the garbage we've been given. Instead, he's exactly the same as every other a-hole in tights. There's nothing to set him apart. That's what the WB and the Snyders have given us.

The whole point is that Superman is supposed to grow into the character you describe, rather than just being that hero from Day One because.....reasons.

I find a Superman who actually struggles, learns, and discovers his true path much more interesting than a Superman who was just a beacon of hope because he somehow was just born that way.

And no, I don't think I will "call the movie crap and move on." Because it wasn't crap. It just wasn't the movie YOU wanted it to be.

[Luke Cage]

Superman is the hero is because of his upbringing. The core beliefs instilled in him from childhood. We see that in his origin and his influences from the Kents and small town upbringing. Not just "Reasons". And yes, the movie was crap.

[Calighoula]

We did get the "Freaking Big Blue Boy Scout" again. The movie's called Superman Returns. It's now ten years old. It didn't click.

So just because Man of Steel was far and away the more successful (if more divisive) of the two, that makes it crap?

Of course not.

[Vanguard-01]

Superman is the hero is because of his upbringing. The core beliefs instilled in him from childhood. We see that in his origin and his influences from the Kents and small town upbringing. Not just "Reasons". And yes, the movie was crap.

Okay. That's one interpretation of Superman's character. Doesn't mean that it's the only valid interpretation. It's just as valid to say that Superman grew up feeling alone and confused because of his alien nature and that he needed to actually LEARN how to be the hero he is supposed to be instead of just being that way because his dad taught him how to be Space Jesus from Day One.