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

[TheDarkness]

To be clear, I am not the one complaining that a 'traditional' depiction of Superman should not occur.

 

I'm saying there is more than one interpretation of what that is, and there always have been. You can only claim it is one character written one way from a distance, any close scrutiny strains that claim.

 

I'm saying it's really not a problem if one interpretation is depicted that is different from another.

 

It is other people saying that only their idea of it is valid. I'm stating that different interpretations allow for more views of the issue, and that, for the character of Superman, that is a good thing.

 

Who Superman is has always been answered based on when one read Superman, watched his films(George Reeves? Christopher Reeve? Totally different characters in some ways...), etc. The values and choices that he made with care or not changed over time, and, being often an ideal played by a person, always had areas that had to be left unexamined for fear of thinking too much about the morality of his actions and revealing the pulp background of the moral play.

[bigdamnhero]

The thing is, this tendency to keep messing with the Superman recipe in the comics leads to a distinct lack of consistent vision for him in the movies as well.

Given the relative dollar values involved, I suspect it mostly goes the other direction, ie - the New 52 comics made Superman a dick at least partly because that's the direction they were planning to go with the movies. (New 52 came our before MoS did, but the latter would've already been in development.) In general, I think Warner has made it pretty clear they don't really care how these characters are portrayed in the comics and see no need to stay faithful to anyone else's vision, so I don't see that being much of a factor.

[Cassandra]

I feel rather strongly that if they are going to "tweak" a character's core essence to a really substantial degree, then they should just make it a new character (with a new name). Yes, that means they wouldn't be able to exploit name recognition in order to facilitate their creatively hollow cash grab, but I believe integrity ought to be more important than short-term profit.

 

I could not agree more with this.  It seems a lot of people are pushing their personal agendas by revamping existing characters rather then starting with original ones.  This turns off the original fans and never really draws in the expected new ones.

[Bazza]

Reminder that Lex Luthor was conceived as a mad scientist and decades later revamped as a corporate tycoon (after Crisis IIRC).

 

Never consistently read Superman, so someone who is, feel free to jump in and confirm or correct the above statement.

[Old Man]

I'm a bit on the other side of the fence.  I don't mind temporary tweaks to characters, because I do like to see some variety even with established characters.  But it needs to be temporary, especially where personalities and values core to the character are concerned. 

 

But that's in the comics.  In the movies, which are much more mass market and heavily exposed, we really ought to be seeing something pretty close to the "standard" portrayal of a character, because that's going to be the baseline for the character for way more people.  Odds are, someone who barely knows anything about Superman probably expects to see the optimistic, moral, goody-two-shoes guy.  If you instead show a movie about an omnipotent, brooding alien loner, then 1) that might turn them off and 2) it doesn't tie in to the comics very well.

[Starlord]

I'm a bit on the other side of the fence.  I don't mind temporary tweaks to characters, because I do like to see some variety even with established characters.  But it needs to be temporary, especially where personalities and values core to the character are concerned. 

 

But that's in the comics.  In the movies, which are much more mass market and heavily exposed, we really ought to be seeing something pretty close to the "standard" portrayal of a character, because that's going to be the baseline for the character for way more people.  Odds are, someone who barely knows anything about Superman probably expects to see the optimistic, moral, goody-two-shoes guy.  If you instead show a movie about an omnipotent, brooding alien loner, then 1) that might turn them off and 2) it doesn't tie in to the comics very well.

 

Exactly.  BTW the Dark Knight comics were stand-alone/what-if stories.

[Cassandra]

It says a lot that the movies have nothing to do with the successful TV series on the CW.  The difference is that the TV shows are being produced by Comic Book fans with some knowledge of the characters.  

 

Case in point is Supergirl.  I was surprised that the Master Jailer showed up in an episode, primarily because he was actually a villain who took her on four times in the pages of Superman Family back in the 1980s.  Now that's almost as cool as having Garrett Morris in Ant-Man.

[Cassandra]

Reminder that Lex Luthor was conceived as a mad scientist and decades later revamped as a corporate tycoon (after Crisis IIRC).

 

Never consistently read Superman, so someone who is, feel free to jump in and confirm or correct the above statement.

 

Actually Lex Luthor was a wealthy Businessman and Inventor way back in the 1950 Serial Atom Man vs. Superman.

[Greywind]

Exactly.  BTW the Dark Knight comics were stand-alone/what-if stories.

 

DC's term is "Elseworlds".

 

Son of the Demon (Elseworld) gave us Damian Wayne. Who is now in the mainstream. Miller's The Dark Knight Returns was Elseworld. The Watchemen was Elseworld and now we have them being the reason DC's reality got f'd up.

[TheDarkness]

Exactly.  BTW the Dark Knight comics were stand-alone/what-if stories.

I think the important point about Dark Knight is not how canon the events in it are, but how much it has definitely shaped how the character is portrayed after it. It was a huge influence in the first Tim Burton movies, all the ones with Christian Bale, and, of course, BvS. As far as characterization, it and Killing Joke are canon for any gritty Batman story. Add in Batman: Year One for some stories.

 

I totally can understand the issue with killing Zod for many people. What surprises me is the issue for anyone with the portrayal of Superman in BvS. I can totally get other complaints about the movie, I enjoyed it, but I don't see it as being without flaw, but Superman in it is fairly traditional Superman. The character has, in comics, been brooding on many occasions, and he is not exactly brooding all through BvS, and more often seems portrayed as a bit nonplussed with the issues coming from things he clearly did not cause. The Moore annual has him living a normal life on Krypton that is rather dismal at the time. Perez certainly did not veer away from occasionally having him brood. His whole world is dead, he lives in a world where he loves the people, but by circumstance, is a bit different in a way that puts those he cares about in danger.

 

Heck, the Flash show even had to recognize that perpetually happy go lucky wears thin narratively. Now, I think they could do slightly less of Barry's brooding, but some is totally necessity for writing a good, believable character.

[zslane]

Dragging superheroes like Superman down to our level is fraught with all kinds of deconstructionist pitfalls. I don't want my Superman to be brooding or pensive or full of self doubt or any of the other neurotic ills that afflict normals humans. I need my Superman to be a steady rock of confidence and a moral compass that always points to true north. That is only ever boring when the story surrounding him is boring.

 

If a publisher wants a Superman character who gets consumed by rage, guilt, jealousy, indecision, or any number of other petty traits we normally associate with "real people", then they should go for it, but they should give him a new name, a new costume, a new origin story, and his own title. Calling him Superman is disingenuous, no matter how strong your legal hold on the IP is.

[Iuz the Evil]

Brooding people wracked with emotional angst are boring. Well, they are when the story isn't good. Good writing in my opinion is what carries the day.

[TheDarkness]

Dragging superheroes like Superman down to our level is fraught with all kinds of deconstructionist pitfalls. I don't want my Superman to be brooding or pensive or full of self doubt or any of the other neurotic ills that afflict normals humans. I need my Superman to be a steady rock of confidence and a moral compass that always points to true north. That is only ever boring when the story surrounding him is boring.

 

If a publisher wants a Superman character who gets consumed by rage, guilt, jealousy, indecision, or any number of other petty traits we normally associate with "real people", then they should go for it, but they should give him a new name, a new costume, a new origin story, and his own title. Calling him Superman is disingenuous, no matter how strong your legal hold on the IP is.

If the exposition of a character is that they are emotionally and mentally the same as human, but they cannot have any of the normal emotional or mental traits of a human because that would change the character(which you allude to above), the character is, by definition, going to be shallow. Fortunately, the good writers who have written Superman have always ignored that.

 

And in neither of the two latest movies is Superman predominantly consumed by doubt or angst or anything. MoS, there's only four scenes that stand out for his emotional response. One, he's a child, another, he's a teenager, the third, his mother was thrown, the last, he's pleading with Zod not to kill the family. Of those, the longest emotional response is as a child, when he's freaked out by his vision. The others, the response is literally less than five seconds long. And they're not even the same emotional responses, just normal responses. Hell, the argument in the car is a very mild response for a teenager.

 

Oh wait, there's a fifth, he's pumped when he figures out how to fly.

[TheDarkness]

Watched MoS again out of curiosity. There is almost no angst, and it is entirely contained during one short scene when he is a child and is confused by what is happening to him, and one short argument as a teenager about not wanting to run the farm. Absolutely none of it from adult Superman in that movie. There is also a shortage of it in BvS. Mostly him trying to decide how to deal with the blowback from the shootings at the beginning(one of the points of the story that bugged me- there really was not much reason to assume he had anything to do with that),

 

As far as anger, the only two times he shows any is when his mother is attacked, and against Batman when he's trying to get him to stop.

 

Collateral damage, honestly, it's more about the effects being shown, as fighting and punching people through buildings and being punched through buildings is a standard feature of Superman. In the case of MoS, which I don't hate, but had not really been itching to watch(which has nothing to do with the characterization of Superman, more just it hadn't made a big impression the first time for various reasons related to the story, reasons that are common in both comics and movies), his enemies pretty much gave him no option, especially in regards to the fight in NY. And collateral damage in both Marvel and DC movies have pretty much been approached the same way, with blowback coming back on the heroes, even when it doesn't make much sense given the circumstances.

 

Now, quick reference:

 

Comic book Superman killed Zod and all the denizens of the Phantom Zone. MoS Superman only killed Zod, because he happened not to be on the ship with the other Kryptonians who were sent back to the Phantom Zone. And after Zod repeatedly mentioned his new plan of just killing humans in revenge, starting with anyone nearby. And Superman pleaded with Zod not to do it.

 

Christopher Reeves Superman crushed Zod's hand totally unnecessarily. And used selective brain damage to make Lois Lane forget his identity.

 

Let's say that again. Crushed Zod's hand. For nothing but dramatic effect. No reason to do it. No need for it. Just straight up crushed his hand. And asphyxiated the person he loves for her protection. The latter we can chalk up to comic book science, the former was straight up Superman crushing a normal person's hand, villain or no.

 

Christopher Reeve Superman broods a bit before deciding to remove his own powers. No one cries foul. Teenage Superman and child Superman in MoS have short scenes in which they have totally human reactions to things, aside from the neck break the ONLY trait in the whole movie that has been cited as being un-Superman like in character, and it's some huge change in the character. BvS Supes, without a neck break, pretty much acts like standard Superman.

 

MoS Superman loses his temper when his mother is quite forcibly thrown. Bad Superman. Christopher Reeve makes the world spin back in time out of total and complete anguish over the death of Lois. Good Superman. No cumbersome brooding there, I guess?

 

I mean, literally, MoS Superman is only brooding or anguished in flashback, and not for very long, two quite short scenes. The rest of the movie, he is quite literally spending every moment saving people. Even when he's talking to Lois, it's generally after saving her. He does nothing else for literally the whole movie, save for a few very short conversations with his mother in between saving people.

 

Really, if I were to pick a complaint that makes sense about that movie, it's that the whole codex thing was not well fitted in the story, and just seemed there to give Zod something to do.

 

I can understand, for those who insist on Superman never killing ever, not liking that part, even though it's a character Superman killed a version of in the comic. But, every other part of the characterization is stock Superman, and,as far as the characterization, the points most liable to raise complaints are not that different than comic versions that everyone seems to be fine with.

 

I mean, I think most of the X-Men movies are meh, and wish they had kept the best parts of Rogues back story and not made her one of Wolverine's students, I mean, that's an ACTUAL and total rewrite of both the story and the character's personality, but I'm not, well, brooding and angsty about it. I certainly wouldn't take the approach that a couple people standing up for the ethical infallibility of Superman have taken on here, suggesting that my not agreeing with their points on the character merely reflects something about my morality, not actual problems in making a character who is supposed to be human but is not allowed to have any human traits that they would naturally need to have to actually HAVE moral conundrums that shape them as a person. It's a comic book character, the characterization is, in almost every way, not far off from the comic. There's always going to be the kids version, and more adult versions. The version in these two movies only varies from the comics in how he killed Zod, not that he killed Zod. And he certainly is well in line with emotional responses seen in both the comics and the Christopher Reeve depictions.

 

Batman is certainly leaning toward Miller Batman, which is what all the successful Batman movies have done since Tim Burton's. Regardless of what events are canon, Miller's Batman and Miller and Moore's Joker are clearly the canon for characterization of those characters now.

[TheDarkness]

A point I forgot to bring up, re: MoS

 

The only reason we see the two scenes most suitably called 'angsty', and the content of them:

 

Memory:  Him as a schoolboy freaking out because of his x-ray vision suddenly kicking in

Reason: He, as a man, is not dwelling on the angst at all, he is thinking of his mother's influence, as she ends up talking him through it

 

Memory: Him, as a teenager, having an argument because he wants to help people with his powers, not run the farm, which is his father's way of keeping him from revealing himself.

Reason: This is actually a scene done to avoid exposition. He is relating it to Lois, explaining that his father did not want him saving him because his father did not feel he should reveal himself. Again, not dwelling on the angst of that argument, but the memory of his father to explain to Lois why he doesn't want her to reveal his existence.

 

There is another memory about the bus, which, again, is him remembering his parents. And a memory about some bullies, which again, ends with it being really about his father.

 

In each, the memory does not end in angst, but in teaching from his parents. 'Learned morality from the Kents', but done as actual story telling, not stock exposition.

 

In essence, most of the first half of the movie is him saving people while remembering what his parents taught him. If he had simply ended the movie by getting Zod in the Phantom Zone and then destroying the Phantom Zone, thus killing Zod, this would probably be the most faithful canon representation of post-depression Superman ever put on film, with far more time put into showing, instead of telling, why he was good than in other movies.(Gonna skip over the collateral damage thing, because all of these movies have it, all of them deal with it the same way, and that way is equally annoying in all of them, Marvel or DC)

 

To be honest, the movies' 'present', the period that is actually occurring and is not flashback, has zero angsty or brooding Superman scenes. And that is most of the movie. And the context of the scenes with brooding had everything to do with how the Kents got him out of that state and shaped him, and nothing to do with 'let's make him brooding, the girls in the audience will love pouting petulant Kal El', he was mostly a grade schooler during the scenes that description might apply to.

 

Now, doing it all in flashback, not sure what I think of that. However, given how Captain America was viewed by many as too slow(whereas I strongly suspect that, over time, it will hold up better than the second movie), I'm not surprised that they didn't simply do a chronological telling.

 

The codex thing, I cannot find a good reason for. At all.

[zslane]

If the exposition of a character is that they are emotionally and mentally the same as human, but they cannot have any of the normal emotional or mental traits of a human because that would change the character(which you allude to above), the character is, by definition, going to be shallow.

I agree. Of course, that is not what I was saying. I'm not sure if you just oversimplified my point to draw up a straw man, or if I was being too subtle. In either case, let me clarify.

 

The range of human emotions is quite broad. Not all heroes need display every single human emotion. The more noble and virtuous will, by definition, avoid all of the uglier emotions and behaviors. It will simply not be in their nature to succumb to those tendencies (if they have them at all, which is arguable if the subject isn't even human to begin with).

 

I don't subscribe to the notion that if a character does not display the full range of human emotion that they are "shallow". They are just more crisply defined. And when we're talking about a myth-level archetype, it isn't necessary for him/her to be the Everyman that stands in for us all. He (or she) may stand in for all our hopes and dreams (i.e., the wish fulfillment angle), and could be far more valuable as an aspirational paragon than as a metaphor for the human condition.

[Greywind]

We also had a repowered Superman-as-Clark go back to the diner to settle up with the obnoxious trucker.

[Christopher R Taylor]

You know what I'd do if I woke up every morning with boundless strength, bulletproof skin, a ripped physique, stunning good looks, and the ability to fly?

 

Smile.  I'd smile all day long.  I'd smile constantly. I'd be upbeat and cheerful and happy all the time.

 

Not frowning and worried and cloudy skies.

[Greywind]

Just like Peter Parker under the influence of the symbiote.

[TheDarkness]

I agree. Of course, that is not what I was saying. I'm not sure if you just oversimplified my point to draw up a straw man, or if I was being too subtle. In either case, let me clarify.

 

The range of human emotions is quite broad. Not all heroes need display every single human emotion. The more noble and virtuous will, by definition, avoid all of the uglier emotions and behaviors. It will simply not be in their nature to succumb to those tendencies (if they have them at all, which is arguable if the subject isn't even human to begin with).

 

I don't subscribe to the notion that if a character does not display the full range of human emotion that they are "shallow". They are just more crisply defined. And when we're talking about a myth-level archetype, it isn't necessary for him/her to be the Everyman that stands in for us all. He (or she) may stand in for all our hopes and dreams (i.e., the wish fulfillment angle), and could be far more valuable as an aspirational paragon than as a metaphor for the human condition.

I can agree with the gist of what you're saying, but I must point out that, by the definition used by quite a few people on this thread, your definition here is totally not canon, and is also rewriting the character. They are insisting that that character is totally human regarding their psyche. You are not so hardline, and frankly, if one takes the approach that he's not, then it opens up opportunities for real characterization. If one takes the stand that he is, and then complains about a movie in which his emotional responses are pretty much how every human would respond to the situation(anger over his mother being attacked, fear as a child over seeing people's skeletons, anguish over being bullied but not being able to defend oneself as a child, frustration as a teenager over your father holding you back for your own good), the claim of his humanity is a bit disingenuous.

 

One minor point. People with strong morality do not lack the emotional responses that others have that prevent them from doing the right thing. Courage is a good example. Courage is putting fear in it's proper place, not lacking fear. Writing ideologies as characters has a very sordid history, and is most successfully used in satire, and most dangerous when used for inspiration, imo.

[TheDarkness]

We also had a repowered Superman-as-Clark go back to the diner to settle up with the obnoxious trucker.

Yes. Forgot that one.

[TheDarkness]

You know what I'd do if I woke up every morning with boundless strength, bulletproof skin, a ripped physique, stunning good looks, and the ability to fly?

 

Smile.  I'd smile all day long.  I'd smile constantly. I'd be upbeat and cheerful and happy all the time.

 

Not frowning and worried and cloudy skies.

So you want his characterization to be Spiderman with more powers?

 

He's not notably frowny in MoS, except in his childhood, and it's not really notable there, either. He's not super smiley, but there is a difference between not smiling and brooding, and they don't really play him as brooding. He smiles at Lois, smiles with his mom. The rest of the time, he's just doing stuff.

 

I think there is a distinction that some people miss. Christopher Reeve Superman was portrayed with Christopher Reeve's slightly cheeky sense of humor, so he's more that way. That is not how Superman always is in comics. MoS Superman is largely consistent with portrayals in the comics as far as how often he uses humor, smiles, etc. Some comics have him lighter, some have him serious, but not dark, some have him dark. This portrayal, as far as characterization of Superman, is pretty far from dark ahd brooding, more the mostly serious Superman that has often been seen in the comics.

[TheDarkness]

Just like Peter Parker under the influence of the symbiote.

Ah, you beat me to it!

[zslane]

You know what I'd do if I woke up every morning with boundless strength, bulletproof skin, a ripped physique, stunning good looks, and the ability to fly?

 

Smile.  I'd smile all day long.  I'd smile constantly. I'd be upbeat and cheerful and happy all the time.

 

Not frowning and worried and cloudy skies.

It's hard not to think that way. But I really have no idea what it would be like to have every victimized, brutalized, or oppressed population on Earth crying out for my help every moment of every day. It reminds me of that Samaritan story from Astro City. It takes a Christ-like degree of compassion, patience, and indomitable will to do what is asked of heroes like Superman or Samaritan.

 

And I think that's why it is difficult to take a "realistic" approach with these characters. They would quickly implode from the sheer implausibility of their circumstances. I just feel that humanizing a character like Superman (too much) undermines his ability to actually do the job assigned to him.

[Iuz the Evil]

Some people are naturally more suited to responsibility than others. There are in fact, people who drive great satisfaction from extremely high stress, critical jobs that can involve personal risk. I've met people who thrive and practically glow in these circumstances.

 

I've met people who absolutely crumble under pressure as well.

 

I'm going to go with a preference Superman is in the former camp.