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

[NeoStar9X]

Y'know, Empire Strikes Back wasn't very well received when it first came out due to how dark it was compared to the first, but once everyone saw Jedi and saw how the story concluded in a lighter, redemptive way, the perception of the second film changed and now it's regarded as a classic.

I definitely don't think BvS will ever achieve the status Empire has because the main problem was the butchered theatrical cut and it's still hardly a masterpiece, but if JL concludes the story in a way similar to Jedi, maybe it's reputation will become less toxic. The darker middle chapter of a trilogy usually becomes more bearable once the whole thing is concluded and a happy(ish) ending is assured.

I certainly agree that is likely what is going to happen and yeah it's not going to hit Empire status for many people but will go through a similar change. Added to the fact that more and more people have seen and are seeing the Ultimate Edition of the film and that's clearing up issues they might have had with the theatrical cut. We're in the middle of an arc and no one knows how it will end but we know what the potential end goal is. Then when taken as a whole (MoS, BvS, and JL) I would imagine the end result is going to be positive for many people.

I imagine by the time we get the official Superman sequel he'll be closer to the version many expected. The problem then becomes for those people is that if WB is smart they won't let him stay still and he will go through another development arc. As said people have rarely seen Superman become Superman. Christopher Reeves Superman literally skips that chunk of time in Superman 1. He goes into the fortress and then leaves years later. We never see Dean Cain's Superman grow up and see his changes. Smallville was the first time we saw a significant modern arc for Clark/Superman and it took 10 years and was a success (yes it had it's ups and downs). There are people that want this but they're not out there making the most noise. They're buying the tickets and buying the blu-rays/dvds.

[SiegePerilous02]

It was a Batman movie. It was called Batman v Superman. Not Superman v Batman. It was basically a rehash of The Dark Knight Returns, a Batman story.

The Dark Knight Returns was as story with Batman (naturally) being the protagonist and center of media attention instead of a villainous antagonist for most of the duration while the media discussed Superman non-stop. It also didn't feature Lois Lane, Martha Kent, Perry White, Doomsday and Lex Luthor as a main villain. Gadot's Wonder Woman also wasn't calling men sperm banks and generally just being all around unpleasant until Superman gave her a good, righteous lay to silence her uppity feminism.

If anything, this movie was a big middle finger to Frank Miller and his visions of Batman and Superman. A clumsy one, but one nonetheless.

[MikeP]

It was a Batman movie. It was called Batman v Superman. Not Superman v Batman. It was basically a rehash of The Dark Knight Returns, a Batman story.

No, in BvS, Batman is the antagonist and Superman the protagonist. Batman is pretty blatantly a bad buy until the end.

[unholyrevenger72]

It was a Batman movie. It was called Batman v Superman. Not Superman v Batman. It was basically a rehash of The Dark Knight Returns, a Batman story.

You've obviously never read The Dark Knight Returns otherwise you'd know Snyder did take visual queues and did some frame perfect recreations but the story is nothing alike.

Who said anything about Superman Returns?

You did. Right Here.

So we get one mediocre Snyder Superman movie that didn't do much better than the poorly done Brandon Routh Superman

Can you deny that Superman and Superman II both made more money, adjusted for inflation?

No, i don't refute factual statements. I refute bullshit ones like the one above about MoS only doing slightly better than Returns.

[Amibo_Amore]

a good example would be the final two eps of STAS. supes gets kidnapped by darkseid, brainwashed into thinking he's his son, and turned on earth at the head of a invading army. at the end, the world has lost trust in superman because, despite the fact that he was brainwashed, he still turned against them and that scares them. he spent a long time trying to get the world to trust him again and they did, for the most part. but just look at dr. hamilton for this. he was once superman's closest ally, next to lois and dan turpin. after that whole mess, not only did he fear superman, he worked actively with cadmus to bring him down, along with the league, simply because they saw him a threat.

According to Bruce Timm, the two part finale was originally supposed to be the opening of a new season, which would have mainly focused on Superman regaining the trust of Earth. However, that season was scrapped, since production for Batman Beyond was underway. Too bad we never got to see how Supes gained everyone's trust again...that I would've liked to see.

[Osiris-Rex]

You've obviously never read The Dark Knight Returns otherwise you'd know Snyder did take visual queues and did some frame perfect recreations but the story is nothing alike.
.

I obviously did so read it.

[Midvillian1322]

@Vanguard

Sry on phone too hard to quote just certain parts.

Yes fear is rational, some peoples reactions to it is irrational.

And superman doesnt need to smile all the time, TAS one was serious and agressive at times. Its just the tone set within the story and the situation they put supes in. I think the sad look ppl complain about is suppose to show is lack of confidence and internal conflict. So yea bring him back as man who knows what he stands for and has confidence in himself and beliefs. Similar to cap in the MCU, except cap is a solider while supes is a harbinger of hope. If they can get supes to make me feel like Jor el's speech in MoS did then ill be 100% behind supes.

[brettc1]

Once again, you're comparing a show with hundreds of hours of screentime with a movie that had two and a half in theaters. And not all of those two and a half hours were dedicated to Superman. Smallville still had some very dark periods. Heck, they had a few whole SEASONS that were pretty dark.

Other characters? Her name is Lois "I'm So Awesome" Lane. Granted, they cut a lot of her good stuff in the movie too. But she was still a high point.

Lois? yeah I vaguley remember her being saved a lot.

Her high points were falling off things but Superman ALWAYS knows when she's in trouble; bet him mom wishes he was that observan.

The hyperbole is strong with this one.

Hyperbolic is the default setting for 11 year olds.

I was talking about the fight with Zod, but whatever.

And that wasn't Jimmy Olsen. Snyder can say whatever he wants. CIA Agents DO NOT use their real names while under cover.

Maybe Jimmy Olsen was NEVER real.

That was your takeaway from the horse story? That explains a lot. My takeaway was that your actions have consequences and if a farmer trying to save his farm can cause so much devastation without meaning to, then a godlike being has to be FAR more cautious when deciding his course of action.

Considering it was coming from the guy who suggested maybe it was better to let a bus load of innocent kids drown? yeah, that was my take away. you suck, PaKent.

You're also leaving out bathtub lovemaking,

Splash splash

calls to his mom,

Sadly never when she's been kidnapped. super hearing and x-Ray vision? what are those?

Alfred's quips, and Diana making Bruce look like a drooling idiot (TWICE!)

thank Hera for Wonder Woman. When I do eventually get the DVD FROM THE $9 bin she will be the reason to spend money on it.

Just so we're clear? The VAST majority of Superman's most iconic stories also involve a lot of pain, angst and moral struggle. Batman stories? Even more so. So maybe you went into this movie with a completely unreasonable set of expectations? Particularly given that we were told THREE YEARS AGO that this was Superman on a journey and not Superman as you think he should be?

Yes, it's my fault. I stupidly thought I could just go to the movie and enjoy it without reading studio releases from years before that told me what to expect. Otherwise I would have known it would be six years before I actually saw Superman. My bad for not doing the homework reading necessary to understand the two and a half hour Christ metaphor with occasional fight scenes.

Of course, then again, I like character development and a Superman who acts like a human being, rather than an infallible god with only one emotional state. So what do I know?

I'll pass over the subtle inference that I am shallow in my viewing preferences, secure in the knowledge that movies have to gel as a whole and some ways of presenting human being on screen work better for me than others.

[Vanguard-01]

Lois? yeah I vaguley remember her being saved a lot.

Her high points were falling off things but Superman ALWAYS knows when she's in trouble; bet him mom wishes he was that observan.

You're forgetting the fact that she singlehandedly exposed Lex Luthor's plan and saved Superman's life.....twice.

Considering it was coming from the guy who suggested maybe it was better to let a bus load of innocent kids drown? yeah, that was my take away. you suck, PaKent.

He said "Maybe." A word that by definition suggest a lack of certainty. EVERYTHING about his body language, facial expression, and tone of voice made it clear to me that he didn't believe what he was saying for a minute. He was a father who, in a moment of weakness, put his son's welfare above the welfare of others.

Frankly, I'm surprised that you, as a father yourself, can't relate to that. Are you really telling me that if you saw one of your children in some kind of danger, and then a bus full of other children in similar danger, you wouldn't be at least strongly tempted to prioritize your own child over a bunch of other children?

The important thing is that he did not encourage Clark to let people die. He had a moment of doubt. That's also called "being human."

Sadly never when she's been kidnapped. super hearing and x-Ray vision? what are those?

One? X-ray vision doesn't help him watch over his mom. You're thinking of telescopic vision.

Two? His mom was living quietly in a sleepy little town in Kansas where everyone knew her and cared about her. She wasn't like Lois, who routinely puts herself in dangerous situations as part and parcel of her job. His identity was not known to anyone outside of his circle of friends. He had no reason to assume his mother would ever find herself in danger again. Stands to reason he wouldn't deem it necessary to spy on her periodically just to make sure she wasn't in trouble.

Yes, it's my fault. I stupidly thought I could just go to the movie and enjoy it without reading studio releases from years before that told me what to expect. Otherwise I would have known it would be six years before I actually saw Superman. My bad for not doing the homework reading necessary to understand the two and a half hour Christ metaphor with occasional fight scenes.

You spend a great deal of time on this forum. You've been involved in MOS debates from way back. Zack Snyder's statements about Superman's journey were plastered all over this place during those three years. It is THE primary defensive weapon used by the "defender" camp. You didn't have to do any research at all, honestly.

And I wasn't trying to blame you for anything. My point is that you seem to be judging the movie based on the fact that it wasn't what you wanted it to be, rather than judging it for what it actually WAS. This movie wasn't about Superman being the guy you want him to be. It was supposed to be another step forward toward that goal. The fact that Superman showed clear signs of having learned from his past mistakes is proof enough of that.

Now, was this approach the best idea? Maybe not. Long-term character development doesn't work quite as well in movies because movie audiences tend to like a big payoff at the end. You've only got so long to tell your story, and if the ending isn't satisfactory, then a lot of people won't be happy. In TV and comics, long term character development is much more acceptable to the audience, because they already know, as a matter of course, that they're investing in a longer term story.

So, yeah. I won't deny that in retrospect, Snyder probably did err in this approach. As I've said, even my patience is wearing a bit thin. I am expecting Justice League to be a big payoff for the journey on which we've been. If it doesn't deliver, then even I might start to change my tune.

[brettc1]

Honestly I usually dont bother with directors comments about their movies. Maybe thats lazy, but my feeling is if you have to explain I a separate venue why your movie is good then for me you haven't done your job.

And while I would never want my son in danger he certainly has permission to slap my face if I ever suggested he let a bunch of innocent children die when he could do something about it.

Oh and telescopic vision doesnt let you see through intervening barriers so I guess you need both. But considering his superhearing is so good he can be battling Doomsday and hear a generic non descript thumping on a piece of concrete under a fallen building and recognise it as Lois, youd think he'd know mom is in trouble.

Did Lois save him twice? Its been months and I could only sit through it it the one time.

[Totoro Man]

Because in comics the civilian population of the planet are never a character. They are just a thing heroes have to save.

In movies the civilian population is a character and their opinions are heard.

sort of. part of what I enjoyed about "Watchmen" and "the Dark Knight Returns" is that the civilian population is given a sort of character and personality through all the different bystanders (innocent or guilty) being allowed to have a voice in the story. in Miller's work it was used for comic and satirical purposes. in Moore's book it was used to add some extra impact to the implementation of the villain's master plan.

so..., as a general rule, I would agree. but sometimes the nameless rabble of victims is allowed to be a little bit more.

[Vanguard-01]

Honestly I usually dont bother with directors comments about their movies. Maybe thats lazy, but my feeling is if you have to explain I a separate venue why your movie is good then for me you haven't done your job.

It wasn't so much an attempt to explain why the movie was good. He was clarifying that this was his approach. He was answering the fans who were calling him out for not making Superman the Chris Reeves version (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) right from the start.

Personally, I figured it out on my own, but to hear Snyder reinforce my interpretation did much to convince me that this would be a journey worth taking.

Now, again? I will admit that Snyder made yet another mistake in letting his new direction for Superman be yet another surprise for the audience. He didn't start talking about this "evolving into Superman" thing until after he started taking heat for MOS. The trailers certainly didn't lead us to believe that that was the direction the movie would go. Snyder just kind of assumed that everyone would see the movie, get what he was doing, and accept it without complaint. Instead, clearly a lot of fans felt betrayed because they went into a movie expecting lighter Superman, and instead got newbie Superman on a mission of self-discovery.

I think if he had done more to prepare the audience ahead of time, his approach may have been met with more acceptance, because at least the audience could have gone into the movie better prepared for what they were going to see. It wouldn't have seemed so jarring.

And while I would never want my son in danger he certainly has permission to slap my face if I ever suggested he let a bunch of innocent children die when he could do something about it.

If he really loves you, I think he'd decline that invitation because I would hope he would understand that you were just being a father and a human being.

Oh and telescopic vision doesnt let you see through intervening barriers so I guess you need both. But considering his superhearing is so good he can be battling Doomsday and hear a generic non descript thumping on a piece of concrete under a fallen building and recognise it as Lois, youd think he'd know mom is in trouble.

His super hearing is one of his most inconsistent powers in his entire repertoire. It's another power that, if it was used to it's full potential in every story, Superman would be practically impossible to challenge.

It's long been established that his super hearing is "always on." He doesn't "activate" his super hearing. He just lowers his defenses and lets everything flood in at once. He actually does make a conscious decision to basically ignore the sounds of people suffering all over the world, because he can't save everybody. Filtering things out is the only way he avoids going insane. He tends to hear things to which he his more attuned. Things like the sound of his name being called, or Lois in danger, since he hears that sound so often.

It makes sense that he wasn't assigning too much attention to his mom, because he had no reason to think she would ever be in trouble. For that matter? What would he really have heard? We just saw Martha being grabbed and quickly tossed into a van. She didn't have time to make much noise beyond a startled cry. Even if Superman heard her, he could easily assume she just cut herself while cooking or maybe she stumbled or something. There are plenty of reasons why he just didn't hear her.

Did Lois save him twice? Its been months and I could only sit through it it the one time.

Yep. Saved him from Batman, and then she saved him from drowning after he jumped into the water to retrieve the spear.

She also singlehandedly exposed Luthor's plot with no help from Superman at all. In the Extended Cut, she gets even more screentime as she does this, and you really get to see her intelligence and deductive reasoning on full display.

[brettc1]

Saved him from Batman. Oh yeah "MARTHA... WHY DID YOU SAY THAT NAME? WHAY DID YOU SAY THAT NAME?!"

Gods that was painful to watch. But I admit as meme fodder it's solid gold. Lol

The extended cut. Hmmm. Why would Luthor people with bullets that could ONLY be traced back to him. I hope the explanation was stupid underling syndrome.

Sometimes I think I should watch the movie again, but then I remember what happened when I went back after 18 years and watched Batman and Robin to see if it could really be as bad as I remembered, and it was worse. I pay for Netflix already, so I'm not giving WB any more cash if I just wait.

[Francisco]

No, in BvS, Batman is the antagonist and Superman the protagonist. Batman is pretty blatantly a bad buy until the end.

Superman still got his ass kicked... And begged his would be killer to save his mommy

[Francisco]

According to Bruce Timm, the two part finale was originally supposed to be the opening of a new season, which would have mainly focused on Superman regaining the trust of Earth. However, that season was scrapped, since production for Batman Beyond was underway. Too bad we never got to see how Supes gained everyone's trust again...that I would've liked to see.

For whatever reason Batman seem to always get in the way of Superman's development. They always chose Batman over Superman.