DC Movies- if at first you don't succeed...

[TheDarkness]

 

I heard someone once explain the popularity in America of Superman and Spider-Man as follows: 

• Superman is who we wish we were - omnipotent and with the highest ethical standards
• Spider-Man is who we think we are - great power with great responsibility, muddling through while fighting the good fight

 

That's actually a great summary!

 

I tend to think of Superman as what we tell ourselves about what we are, and that's also why it often worked so well for propaganda. Which fits in well with the assessment you cite above.

[Iuz the Evil]

Well this has been wrangled at least three different ways ranging in a continuum from "the DC movies were a good revisionism and lend fresh perspective to stale characters" to "the DC movies were bad and clearly ignore core character and tonal concepts that have made these properties stand the test of 75 years", with a couple stops along the director/actor/scene way for comment. Really interesting read.

 

I enjoy the "classic" versions as depicted in the Dini and Timm animated series, the Donner Superman movies, etc. Man of Steel annoyed me but doesn't fill me with rage (anymore). Not likely to see other DC movie products or care whether they succeed or fail barring a shift to my consumer preferences. Whether that works out well for DC depends on a lot of other people having different views than mine, which may indeed be the case.

 

Interesting read in this thread though. Thanks for the brain candy.

[Lord Liaden]

TheDarkness, you make some very good points regarding several of the characters you mention. However, I do dispute a few of your conclusions, which I will cherry-pick from your earlier post:

 

I'm going to assume that the thing I wasn't commenting on is that a few feel these movies are an appropriation of their favorite characters. So I'll respond to that.

 

[sNIP]

 

Captain America, as he was originally written, would NEVER NEVER NEVER have gone against anything the U.S. government deemed worthy.

 

[sNIP]

 

One problem of the Superman character is, quite frankly, there is no motivation for him to act evil. There is absolutely no advantage in it for him. There is really nothing for him to gain. Social relationships are quite literally the only thing he might struggle with, assuming no evil Kryptonians are around. And the physics of the genre basically have him acting as a thug with consistently good results. No one he punches will die.

 

[sNIP]

 

If you really want a story about him making the right moral choices, you have to make a character capable of making the wrong ones. and almost no writers have managed to do that with Superman.

 

If you are referring to the version of Captain America appearing in the movies, I agree that during WW II, and when he first "thaws out" in the present day, he would follow the orders of his government almost without question. He even has a line to Tony Stark to that effect in the first Avengers movie. But that's the beauty of his story arc from his first film to the recent Civil War. This version of Steve Rogers has seen his world change dramatically. Even before the revelation of HYDRA, he conflicted with the ethics of SHIELD. He has come to recognize that his ideals don't always match the priorities of modern governments, and has chosen to stand by his ideals.Within the context of what's happened in his movies, this change of perspective makes perfect sense. And it has much precedent from the comics, going back to the Vietnam War era and Steve's adoption of the identity of Nomad, when he felt he could no longer in good conscience act as a symbol of his country.

 

The reason Superman would have to act evil is that, for all his power, he thinks and feels like a human being. Can you imagine what the vast majority of humans would do if they had the power to take anything they want, kill anyone who bothers them, without fear of punishment? That's what Superman would have to gain -- literally whatever he might desire. What's compelling about Superman is that the only thing keeping him from doing that is his profound belief that it would be wrong; that all his power doesn't make him fundamentally better than anyone else. There have been a number of Superman story lines where he's been sorely tempted to cross the line he sets for himself (see Superman vs The Elite for one example), and various alternate-world stories where he has (such as the recent Injustice: Gods Among Us video game).

 

Superman not only has to hold himself back emotionally, but physically as well. He's acutely aware that his punches could kill people, and he's trained himself to use only the minimal force necessary. (Check out his, "I live in a world made of cardboard" speech from the last episode of the Justice League Unlimited animated series.)

[Lord Liaden]

I think I'll provide some illustrations of my points from the examples I cited above (WARNING: Spoilers for people who haven't seen those stories.)

 

 

[TheDarkness]

Well this has been wrangled at least three different ways ranging in a continuum from "the DC movies were a good revisionism and lend fresh perspective to stale characters" to "the DC movies were bad and clearly ignore core character and tonal concepts that have made these properties stand the test of 75 years", with a couple stops along the director/actor/scene way for comment. Really interesting read.

 

I enjoy the "classic" versions as depicted in the Dini and Timm animated series, the Donner Superman movies, etc. Man of Steel annoyed me but doesn't fill me with rage (anymore). Not likely to see other DC movie products or care whether they succeed or fail barring a shift to my consumer preferences. Whether that works out well for DC depends on a lot of other people having different views than mine, which may indeed be the case.

 

Interesting read in this thread though. Thanks for the brain candy.

I can totally understand this perspective. Totally. Similar reasons have kept me from enjoying most of the X-Men movies I've seen, as I felt they took the surface but not the soul of the characters, and replaced the core with nothing in a lot of cases. Granted, there are two recommended to me that I am looking forward to watching, just the ones I have seen at this point were disappointing to me, but other viewers may find them more akin to THEIR X-men, and there's nothing wrong with that.

[TheDarkness]

TheDarkness, you make some very good points regarding several of the characters you mention. However, I do dispute a few of your conclusions, which I will cherry-pick from your earlier post:

 

 

If you are referring to the version of Captain America appearing in the movies, I agree that during WW II, and when he first "thaws out" in the present day, he would follow the orders of his government almost without question. He even has a line to Tony Stark to that effect in the first Avengers movie. But that's the beauty of his story arc from his first film to the recent Civil War. This version of Steve Rogers has seen his world change dramatically. Even before the revelation of HYDRA, he conflicted with the ethics of SHIELD. He has come to recognize that his ideals don't always match the priorities of modern governments, and has chosen to stand by his ideals.Within the context of what's happened in his movies, this change of perspective makes perfect sense. And it has much precedent from the comics, going back to the Vietnam War era and Steve's adoption of the identity of Nomad, when he felt he could no longer in good conscience act as a symbol of his country.

 

The reason Superman would have to act evil is that, for all his power, he thinks and feels like a human being. Can you imagine what the vast majority of humans would do if they had the power to take anything they want, kill anyone who bothers them, without fear of punishment? That's what Superman would have to gain -- literally whatever he might desire. What's compelling about Superman is that the only thing keeping him from doing that is his profound belief that it would be wrong; that all his power doesn't make him fundamentally better than anyone else. There have been a number of Superman story lines where he's been sorely tempted to cross the line he sets for himself (see Superman vs The Elite for one example), and various alternate-world stories where he has (such as the recent Injustice: Gods Among Us video game).

 

Superman not only has to hold himself back emotionally, but physically as well. He's acutely aware that his punches could kill people, and he's trained himself to use only the minimal force necessary. (Check out his, "I live in a world made of cardboard" speech from the last episode of the Justice League Unlimited animated series.)

I think where I'm taking a different view on Captain America is, in the comics, unfailingly supportive of the government Cap is a different iteration. Questioning authority Cap is a rewrite, it is literally people deciding the change the character. That said, I think it has made him a more believable and relatable character, and so how that reimagining of the character plays out as viewed as one character's arc works well.

 

I think my point with Superman at least partially still stands. There is literally no object on Earth of any real interest to Superman. He is not subject to the weather, so the comfort difference of the antarctic or a mansion are about the same, and in the former he has a lot more room to play. A car is, effectively, as useful a means of transportation as a dogsled to the man of steel. If he wants caviar, in a nanosecond he could have fresher caviar than any human can get to him. He has absolutely no attachments, a rock or a pillow are equally soft to him. Money is just to buy things he doesn't need or have reason to want, anyway. So there really is no moral question for these things, the least efficient way for him to get objects is through immoral means. The entire rational for morality in such cases 100% does not apply to him, and so any story about how moral he is in this sense makes no sense.

 

This is what I alluded to in reference to only social relations being a field in which he can possibly display moral success or failure, including your example of not murdering annoying people(which, being super intelligent, one could argue, he would then listen to even more annoying people complaining about his murdering, and so, mathematically, not killing annoying people is the more efficient use of his time . ) Further, he is largely portrayed as morally complete from the get go, which I find to be one of the weaknesses of the Superman character. As powerful as he is, his moral errors during the time when he was learning to be who he becomes should be near globally disastrous. Instead, we are usually given stories where he struggles with morality, but ultimately is never shown as being capable of making the wrong decision, so it feels a little false to me.

 

As far as holding back his strength, and I also like the reference to a world made of cardboard, but the reality is, in comics, he has frequently, especially in the past, put people through walls who would really not survive that. It is the physics, in those cases, that prevent his morality from proving failed, not the quality of his actions. Mind you, in modern iterations, he isn't so often punching normals, so not as big and issue.

 

Reading this conversation and taking part in it have actually made me think a lot about the nature of the character. Applying most human ethics to Superman makes no sense, as most of the ethical situations humans find themselves in are situations in which Superman would not gain anything of value to himself by choosing to act corruptly. Social interactions stand apart.

[Lord Liaden]

I could cite more examples of Cap in the comics not being "unfailingly" supportive of the government beyond the Nomad one I already mentioned, but I get the feeling they wouldn't carry enough weight for you. I also sense we have a fundamentally different perception of what "wanting" entails, for Superman or anyone else. The debate between us has probably reached an impasse, so if we can agree to disagree, I shall withdraw.

[TheDarkness]

I could cite more examples of Cap in the comics not being "unfailingly" supportive of the government beyond the Nomad one I already mentioned, but I get the feeling they wouldn't carry enough weight for you. I also sense we have a fundamentally different perception of what "wanting" entails, for Superman or anyone else. The debate between us has probably reached an impasse, so if we can agree to disagree, I shall withdraw.

I don't think it's an impasse, I recognize what you're saying on Cap, I was simply stating that the character was rewritten, the early era would never have him questioning his government, a later era of writers changed the character. I was using this as support for changing an established character, but it is certainly simultaneously true that the original character was different than later iterations, AND that they did a good job of incorporating that into later iterations seamlessly.

 

As for wanting, my point was merely, most of the normal human opportunities for inequity simply don't have the same meaning for Superman, and so fall outside of the realm of morality for him. Money is the least efficient means for him to get what he might want. Power? He could not possibly gain more power. Luxuries? Luxury assumes an escape from toil, and absolutely nothing on Earth tires him or has the slightest chance of making him physically uncomfortable except for social interactions. So to write him as a moral character, social interactions are the only things that won't feel false. This is mostly my own rumination on the character, not a critique of something you are saying. Only when I was saying that how his morality was most often shown, as being fully formed and unfailing at any point in his history, seems to me to be a weak approach to writing a moral character: it begins to feel like just another super power, at which point it is hard to laud him as a good example of morals, if that is the case.

 

I actually enjoyed the counterpoint of your post. Murdering annoying people is actually spot on for the sort of moral decision he could face(or bullying, what have you).

[TheDarkness]

Thinking about it, Superman's main and consistent character weakness is that whenever he gets down, he has to escape to the Fortress of Solitude.

 

As a total aside, I'm actually starting to think that what could be used as a strong suit to his characterization is that he's boring. He's a boring person. Really. I think there could be a charm in that, a human touch. It reminds me of Snape in Harry Potter. Snape is such an uncommon characterization. He is, without question, the most selfless of all characters DESPITE his character flaws. He is the only character who, from before Harry's birth, knows what he is in for and does it anyway. For a woman he loves who he will never have that love returned. He is socially a bit of a pain. And he dies covering up the facts from those who would harm his loved one's son. He has the greatest social failings of almost all the characters, and yet he's the bravest of them all.

[TheDarkness]

That said, I'm not trying to force you into debate on the topic, I'm mostly just jabbering on. My wife, when having difficulty sleeping, will say, "Tell me about what you're working on there" and in ten minutes, she's out. Especially if it's martial arts related. I've never tried my theories on the possible characterizations of Superman, I suspect I might be able to put her out in five.

[Lord Liaden]

Okay, I guess I can jump back in for a minute.

 

The difference I see is that "wanting" at base has nothing to do with "inequity." When I can sleep just fine on a cot, why would I choose to buy a king-sized bed? Why would I own more clothes than I need to wear, more cars than I need to drive, more houses than I need to live in? Why horde artwork and jewelry where only I can enjoy them? If I'm dictator of a country, why do I have to have my name inscribed on everything, my image plastered on the walls, statues of myself raised? Because "I" (as in "every human being") want things. The particulars differ, but the instinct is universal. There's no "intelligence" at play here, the desire is non-rational. If someone has something I want, and I could take it away without consequence to myself... how many people would choose not to?

 

I also have to question your thesis that Superman feels no physical pleasure from things because he's invulnerable. I can enjoy the warmth of the sun on my face short of it being intense enough to burn me. I still feel pleasure from soft linen and mattress on my bed even if it wouldn't hurt me to lie on the floor. A person's skin isn't hard enough to damage me, but it feels very nice against mine.

[TheDarkness]

Okay, I guess I can jump back in for a minute.

 

The difference I see is that "wanting" at base has nothing to do with "inequity." When I can sleep just fine on a cot, why would I choose to buy a king-sized bed? Why would I own more clothes than I need to wear, more cars than I need to drive, more houses than I need to live in? Why horde artwork and jewelry where only I can enjoy them? If I'm dictator of a country, why do I have to have my name inscribed on everything, my image plastered on the walls, statues of myself raised? Because "I" (as in "every human being") want things. The particulars differ, but the instinct is universal. There's no "intelligence" at play here, the desire is non-rational. If someone has something I want, and I could take it away without consequence to myself... how many people would choose not to?

 

I also have to question your thesis that Superman feels no physical pleasure from things because he's invulnerable. I can enjoy the warmth of the sun on my face short of it being intense enough to burn me. I still feel pleasure from soft linen and mattress on my bed even if it wouldn't hurt me to lie on the floor. A person's skin isn't hard enough to damage me, but it feels very nice against mine.

I think it's the 'the particulars differ' part where the particulars differ a lot. We need shelter, clothes, and food. From those needs, since we have to have them, we develop preferences. Other animals need things, and want things, but not necessarily the same things.

 

The specific reasons we need the first two, Superman totally lacks. His need for them is to pass for someone who needs them. He never needs them. A car is absolutely useless to him, except for to pass for one of us. I would suggest that, as far as characterization goes, he is much more likely to want the common forms of things we have, and he has never been shown to have any taste for the ostentatious versions, so it's hard to imagine a set of circumstances where he has desire of a physical object that then creates a moral challenge to him, not because his morality is so high, but because what he desires is to have a home and a people, and he emulates that home and people in its most common, ordinary way.

 

That said, the key ones that would qualify as something of some meaning to him, including passing for human, would be the dictator inscribing their name on everything, having someone in your bed, etc, which all also happen to be social in nature. Yes, depending on how one interprets the character, he may feel pleasure from the sun on his face, likely so. But, there is very little opportunity in that desire to create compelling moral dramas, and the character is based on morality, even if, as I argue, it has previously been a veneer of morality underpinned by a physics that covered up moral excesses of the character under certain writers.

 

I suppose the simpler question would be, if Superman was evil, what would he steal that was not really about relations with people?

 

I had never really thought about it before, but he is simultaneously a symbol of America and the least materialistic, least interested in commodities of any sort, character I can think of right now. He must buy clothes that are what Clark Kent would buy. He buys glasses because of his disguise.

 

I really don't think he cares about stuff. No record collection, no team shirts. He's the guy who owns nine versions of the same suit.

 

I think you are correct, anyone can desire anything. But, I would posit that Superman has consistently shown not a moral strength versus doing the wrong things to get things, but absolutely no interest in things aside from ties, white shirts, and glasses, all of the most ordinary variety.

 

I'm now certain someone will break in with the official listing of Superman's record collection, and all my rumination will have come to nothing.

[TheDarkness]

And now I will go to bed, have a good one!

[Christopher R Taylor]

Yeah Cap has over his long career repeatedly disagreed with and acted against the government.  Being mindlessly obedient has never been a core character issue.  There may be other examples of core stuff I'm willing to waver on, but that's not a good one.

 

The truth is though, its not so much core character issues that are the problem here.  Its the core character issues that make the character work and be who they are.  Captain America's core character issue is that he's unfailingly heroic, self-sacrificing, and never gives up no matter what the odds or situation.  He's really reluctant to kill, but will and has in the past (particularly in the war), so if he kills someone its not a violation of his core.  But if he just gives up because things are too hard or lets someone die because he'd rather not be bothered, that is a serious problem.

 

I'll never understand why movie makers will do a film about a character, using that character's surrounding world setting and support cast, based on that character's existing stories, then do something really different and violating the entire thing.  Why didn't you just make a different film with your story?  I mean, if someone had made Hancock but instead called it Superman it would have sucked not because the story was bad, but because its not freaking Superman.

 

I would posit that Superman has consistently shown not a moral strength versus doing the wrong things to get things, but absolutely no interest in things aside from ties, white shirts, and glasses, all of the most ordinary variety

 

I think that says more about your moral system than Superman though.

[zslane]

Superman doesn't have to turn evil to be out of character; all it takes is straying noticeably from the path of high virtue. There's a reason he's called the Big Blue Boyscout...

[massey]

 

I heard someone once explain the popularity in America of Superman and Spider-Man as follows: 

• Superman is who we wish we were - omnipotent and with the highest ethical standards
• Spider-Man is who we think we are - great power with great responsibility, muddling through while fighting the good fight

 

 

And sometimes we're the Hulk.  Scary powerful and easy to provoke.

[Nolgroth]

I think I'll provide some illustrations of my points from the examples I cited above (WARNING: Spoilers for people who haven't seen those stories.)

 

...

 

Thematically speaking, how is the first video all that different than Man of Steel in terms of the collateral damage. Not quite as epic, but you have Superman knocking Darkseid (?) through buildings without concern to who might be in his path. Sure, he didn't snap Darkseid's (?) neck at the end of it, but I am confuzzled a bit.

 

They picked the wrong person to voice Superman in the second video. Superman, in this layman's opinion, should never sound like a stereotypical computer nerd. It just sounded.....wrong.

[massey]

The only Cap who would unfailingly do what the government asked him to do, was the Cap from the 1940s.  And to be fair, the only thing the government asked him to do was fight Nazis.  They were simpler comics where the government was always good, the bad guys were always bad, and Cap can punch Hitler in the jaw on the cover.  That government would not ask Cap to do anything evil (or even questionable) because that's not what kind of comic it is.  That would be as out-of-character as having Superman murder a bunch of people.

 

Once Cap was introduced into a genre of comics where political issues were tackled, where the government might be wrong, from that point forward Cap became a symbol of American idealism.

[Bazza]

 

 

 

It's like watching Man of Steel in animated form.  

[Lord Liaden]

I had a feeling some people would bring up the collateral damage in that clip.

 

I admit it looks less than ideal out of context; but to be fair, the city was a war zone under attack from Darkseid's forces, and most civilians had already been evacuated from the vicinity, while the Justice League (and a bunch of supervillains who wanted to help) fought to contain the enemy.

 

But let's be honest: if you can't punch a villain through at least a few buildings, it wouldn't be a comic-book fight.

[Lord Liaden]

Thematically speaking, how is the first video all that different than Man of Steel in terms of the collateral damage. Not quite as epic, but you have Superman knocking Darkseid (?) through buildings without concern to who might be in his path. Sure, he didn't snap Darkseid's (?) neck at the end of it, but I am confuzzled a bit.

 

They picked the wrong person to voice Superman in the second video. Superman, in this layman's opinion, should never sound like a stereotypical computer nerd. It just sounded.....wrong.

 

Answer to first above.

 

The voices are raised in pitch in that YouTube video from the original recording, to avoid copyright infringement.

[DasBroot]

I had a feeling some people would bring up the collateral damage in that clip.

 

I admit it looks less than ideal out of context; but to be fair, the city was a war zone under attack from Darkseid's forces, and most civilians had already been evacuated from the vicinity, while the Justice League (and a bunch of supervillains who wanted to help) fought to contain the enemy.

 

But let's be honest: if you can't punch a villain through at least a few buildings, it wouldn't be a comic-book fight.

 

That's not collateral damage. THIS is collateral damage.

 

[Bazza]

I had a feeling some people would bring up the collateral damage in that clip.

 

I admit it looks less than ideal out of context; but to be fair, the city was a war zone under attack from Darkseid's forces, and most civilians had already been evacuated from the vicinity, while the Justice League (and a bunch of supervillains who wanted to help) fought to contain the enemy.

 

But let's be honest: if you can't punch a villain through at least a few buildings, it wouldn't be a comic-book fight.

 

I remember watching the episode, and it was a great episode. 

[Iuz the Evil]

I also have to question your thesis that Superman feels no physical pleasure from things because he's invulnerable. I can enjoy the warmth of the sun on my face short of it being intense enough to burn me. I still feel pleasure from soft linen and mattress on my bed even if it wouldn't hurt me to lie on the floor. A person's skin isn't hard enough to damage me, but it feels very nice against mine.

It is canonical that while Superman doesn't need to eat, he sure does love ma's pie (and beef bourguinon with catsup). He's capable of experiencing pleasure.

[Starlord]

The only Cap who would unfailingly do what the government asked him to do, was the Cap from the 1940s.  And to be fair, the only thing the government asked him to do was fight Nazis.  They were simpler comics where the government was always good, the bad guys were always bad, and Cap can punch Hitler in the jaw on the cover.  That government would not ask Cap to do anything evil (or even questionable) because that's not what kind of comic it is.  That would be as out-of-character as having Superman murder a bunch of people.

 

Once Cap was introduced into a genre of comics where political issues were tackled, where the government might be wrong, from that point forward Cap became a symbol of American idealism.

 

Honestly, almost every superhero invented before the late 50s-early 60s had the exact same personality and motivation.  Namor, the Sub-Mariner being a significant (and extremely rare) exception.  Until comic writing added a level of sophistication and accepted the reader might want more than cool pictures, everyone was exactly the same.  For example, Timely Comic Captain America was simply a war propaganda machine.