why is superman in the movies so depressed , boring and nothing like the superman we know and love in the comic books ?

[simbob4000]

In rewatching BATMAN V SUPERMAN, I think I hate the portrayal of Superman even more. I'm just over it 100%.

It's just so boring and joyless. The movie isn't even having fun with its shitty take on Superman.

Maybe a Superman that stoically hates being Superman could be interesting, but it sure wasn't interesting in Batman vs Superman. Everything about how this Superman is built seems like it wasn't really thought of much. Man of Steel seems like it's build on the idea of showing you what it would look like if someone with the power of Superman was actually punching shit, and it does this in a tone that's constantly telling you: Think of this realistically and seriously. But there's no way in hell WB would let you take that idea were it would need to go to work in a $225 million movie starring Superman. So what's even the point of going in that direction if you really can't go there?

[brettc1]

It's just so boring and joyless. The movie isn't even having fun with its shitty take on Superman.

Maybe a Superman that stoically hates being Superman could be interesting, but it sure wasn't interesting in Batman vs Superman. Everything about how this Superman is built seems like it wasn't really thought of much. Man of Steel seems like it's build on the idea of showing you what it would look like if someone with the power of Superman was actually punching shit, and it does this in a tone that's constantly telling you: Think of this realistically and seriously. But there's no way in hell WB would let you take that idea were it would need to go to work in a $225 million movie starring Superman. So what's even the point of going in that direction if you really can't go there?

What MOS and BVS emphasize is what the comics have been working hard to do for over a decade - that only a crazy person would want to live in the same world as Superman.

Sure we see him saving people in BVS. Floods, fires, rocket accidents, stranded ships. He saves... What? Maybe a thousand people. Two thousand?

Now compare that to the body count in Metropolis in MOS. The "realistic estimates" of having that much of a major modern city pulverised have run into the tens of thousands. Supermans world has all the woes of our PLUS lunatic alien gods descending to unleash death on a massive scale. They will eventually be turned back, but only after a body count that makes any real world disaster less horrifying than the bombing of Hiroshima look like a bad gastro outbreak.

In away, Pa Kent's ghost in BVS is right. No matter what Cavilles Superman does, the consequences of him and therefore his enemies existing means that his world is worse off than our where they are just fictional.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement for the man who is supposed to wear the symbol that means hope.

[Osiris-Rex]

What MOS and BVS emphasize is what the comics have been working hard to do for over a decade - that only a crazy person would want to live in the same world as Superman.

Sure we see him saving people in BVS. Floods, fires, rocket accidents, stranded ships. He saves... What? Maybe a thousand people. Two thousand?

Now compare that to the body count in Metropolis in MOS. The "realistic estimates" of having that much of a major modern city pulverised have run into the tens of thousands. Supermans world has all the woes of our PLUS lunatic alien gods descending to unleash death on a massive scale. They will eventually be turned back, but only after a body count that makes any real world disaster less horrifying than the bombing of Hiroshima look like a bad gastro outbreak.

In away, Pa Kent's ghost in BVS is right. No matter what Cavilles Superman does, the consequences of him and therefore his enemies existing means that his world is worse off than our where they are just fictional.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement for the man who is supposed to wear the symbol that means hope.

But really isn't that just a plot device to show a lot of stuff getting destroyed because the producers were given a ton of money to do special effects? I mean was there really any reason for a long, drawn out fight with Zod and Superman crashing through building after building other than the producers had the money to do it? When Superman fought Zod in Superman 2 a few buildings got damaged but they didn't destroy half the town. When Clark fought Zod in Smallville they didn't destroy half the town. When Non put everyone under mind control it was hope that freed everyone in Supergirl. Plus Supergirl kept a chunk of falling building from hitting the civilians In each case they were happy to be there to stop the threat and went out of their way to keep innocent bystanders from getting hurt.

[Carabas]

But really isn't that just a plot device to show a lot of stuff getting destroyed because the producers were given a ton of money to do special effects?

No, it is very clearly a creative choice made on purpose by the writers/director. Having a collosal budget doesn't mean you have to kill a city worth of people. The Avengers movies didn't.

[brettc1]

No, it is very clearly a creative choice made on purpose by the writers/director. Having a collosal budget doesn't mean you have to kill a city worth of people. The Avengers movies didn't.

Exactly.

There are certainly times when a limited budget dictates certain creative choices. MOS didn't have that problem.

Mind you, it depends what Avengers movie you are talking about. Age of Ultron, we find out in Civil War, had some pretty serious casualties. But even then, Whedon took pains to show his heroes acting to save lives and limit damage. Thor Dark World has two pretty heavy hitters slugging out without Hundreds of Londoners ending up in the Morgue.

People will talk about a Superman who is still learning and a director taking a "more mature" approach to the subject matter. The end result is still the same. Civilians living in the DCEU are damned to an existence of trying to function in between massive body counts and wondering when it will be their turn to become a statistic in a casualty report. We see the same thing in Suicide Squad.

So much for hope.

[Agent Z]

What MOS and BVS emphasize is what the comics have been working hard to do for over a decade - that only a crazy person would want to live in the same world as Superman.

Sure we see him saving people in BVS. Floods, fires, rocket accidents, stranded ships. He saves... What? Maybe a thousand people. Two thousand?

Now compare that to the body count in Metropolis in MOS. The "realistic estimates" of having that much of a major modern city pulverised have run into the tens of thousands. Supermans world has all the woes of our PLUS lunatic alien gods descending to unleash death on a massive scale. They will eventually be turned back, but only after a body count that makes any real world disaster less horrifying than the bombing of Hiroshima look like a bad gastro outbreak.

In away, Pa Kent's ghost in BVS is right. No matter what Cavilles Superman does, the consequences of him and therefore his enemies existing means that his world is worse off than our where they are just fictional.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement for the man who is supposed to wear the symbol that means hope.

So no different than the comics then?

[Agent Z]

No, it is very clearly a creative choice made on purpose by the writers/director. Having a collosal budget doesn't mean you have to kill a city worth of people. The Avengers movies didn't.

Um yeah they did. It's been acknowledged that people did die in large numbers in New York and Sokovia.

[Agent Z]

Exactly.

There are certainly times when a limited budget dictates certain creative choices. MOS didn't have that problem.

Mind you, it depends what Avengers movie you are talking about. Age of Ultron, we find out in Civil War, had some pretty serious casualties. But even then, Whedon took pains to show his heroes acting to save lives and limit damage. Thor Dark World has two pretty heavy hitters slugging out without Hundreds of Londoners ending up in the Morgue.

People will talk about a Superman who is still learning and a director taking a "more mature" approach to the subject matter. The end result is still the same. Civilians living in the DCEU are damned to an existence of trying to function in between massive body counts and wondering when it will be their turn to become a statistic in a casualty report. We see the same thing in Suicide Squad.

So much for hope.

Again, this is no different than the comics so why is it an issue?

[Midvillian1322]

Um yeah they did. It's been acknowledged that people did die in large numbers in New York and Sokovia.

77 and 175 or whatever the exact number was isnt high numbers in comparison. Any entire city was destroyed and the avengers and SHEILD saved everyone except for 175 people. And the first avengers was a full on alien invasion in the middle of Manhattan and only 77 people died. The avengers werent even there in the beginning so who knows how many of those 77 died before the avengers got there.

[brettc1]

So no different than the comics then?

Again, exactly. The DC comic universe has it even worse. How many thousands must have drowned in THRONE OF ATLANTIS. What was the death toll from Darkseid's parade on onslaught, a joy that the climatic universe civilians still gave to look forward to?

Superheroes are supposed to make the world better, but certsinly in the DCEU the death toll seems to soar even higher.

Again, this is no different than the comics so why is it an issue?

Because the thread is about why Superman in the movies is so bleak. Maybe it's because he looks at the world and thinks it would be better if he didn't even exist.

And tragically, the math seems to bear out that thinking. His world has all the problems of ours plus almost yearly mass deaths from supervillains attacks. And by mass I mean MASSIVE. Cities decimated.

Our real world is better off for Superman being fictional.

[Mr. Mastermind]

The problem with these film's Superman isn't that he's not heroic, it's that Synder and Goyer insist on him doing things which just aren't fun to watch.

Who goes into a Superman film wanting to see Superman's battles recreate 911 and kill hundreds of thousands of civilians? Who wants to see the resolution of the film be a neck snap? And why does the tone of the film dramatically change just after that scene? Making a Superman film be this ultra grim sci fi film is just a weird and bad idea.

In BvS he mops around for good reasons, but you have to ask why the filmmakers want him to. You just get tired of Superman and want to go back to Batfleck. He doesn't do anything at the end to redeem this either, he just punches Doomsday and dies.

It's completely the filmmakers and their insistence of having Superman go on this "grand" arc from being a terrible superhero to a good one. Sounds nice in theory but in practice means you have to wait 5 years for Superman to stop being a pain to watch.

[simbob4000]

What MOS and BVS emphasize is what the comics have been working hard to do for over a decade - that only a crazy person would want to live in the same world as Superman.

Sure we see him saving people in BVS. Floods, fires, rocket accidents, stranded ships. He saves... What? Maybe a thousand people. Two thousand?

Now compare that to the body count in Metropolis in MOS. The "realistic estimates" of having that much of a major modern city pulverised have run into the tens of thousands. Supermans world has all the woes of our PLUS lunatic alien gods descending to unleash death on a massive scale. They will eventually be turned back, but only after a body count that makes any real world disaster less horrifying than the bombing of Hiroshima look like a bad gastro outbreak.

In away, Pa Kent's ghost in BVS is right. No matter what Cavilles Superman does, the consequences of him and therefore his enemies existing means that his world is worse off than our where they are just fictional.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement for the man who is supposed to wear the symbol that means hope.

It sounds like you're saying Superman and Superman related comics have been shit for a decade.

Superman saving people in Batman vs Superman is the weirdest moment I think I've ever seen in a superhero movie. Framing big heroic moments as a major bummer as a completely straight faced unironic totally serious thing was so stupid I'm not even sure where to even begin with it. Here you go kids, Superman fucking hates being Superman. It's like a comedy gag, only the director doesn't actually know it's funny.

And like I said, the movies don't even have fun with the concept they're pushing. It's such a half-assed take that doing that take is completely pointless. It's also so joyless about everything that it's just tiring to watch. Why are these fucking Superman movies more afraid of levity than serious movies? These movies try so hard to be serious with these characters that it just comes off as super dumb. Like, who the hell do they think they're fooling? Then again it seems they've got some people fooled.

[Dr Will Hatch]

And you'd be wrong about that.

http://www.manofsteelanswers.com/zac...o-is-superman/

How can you love a character when you consistently portray that character as the exact opposite of all of their character traits?

Frank Miller says he loves Superman too. It doesn't seem like it when Frank never skips a beat in making him look like a fool.

[Doctor Know]

77 and 175 or whatever the exact number was isnt high numbers in comparison. Any entire city was destroyed and the avengers and SHEILD saved everyone except for 175 people. And the first avengers was a full on alien invasion in the middle of Manhattan and only 77 people died. The avengers werent even there in the beginning so who knows how many of those 77 died before the avengers got there.

Yeah, Marvel backtracked on the death toll from both Avengers and Age of Ultron.

From Daredevil and Jessica Jones.




Does anyone find it odd and or funny that Malcolm Merlyn killed more people in season 1 of Arrow, than Loki and his army in Avengers, Ulton and his army in AoU, and showdown between the Avengers and HYDRA at SHIELD in TWS?

Total casualties of the Undertaking was 500.

Total casualties from Avengers, AoU and the final battle in TWS is 354, give or take a few. I didn't count how many people died during Hawkeye's assault on the Hellicarrier.

TPTB at Marvel have stated they were/are very conscious of the MOS and TF3 backlash to heavy casualties, and have gone on since to retroactively scale back the death toll, while not really scaling back the mayhem in their movies.

[Dr Will Hatch]

That's another feather in Marvel's cap: Their heroes are objectively better at saving people than DC's.