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

[Grailknight]

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.

 

I see why we're crosstalking here. The main problem with BvS isn't the protrayal of Superman. He has few scenes where he is the focus and while his presence is subdued, it's in character. 

 

BvS is ruined by the terrible portrayals of Batman and Luthor. Luthor is jarring in each of his scenes and Batman is a hot mess of epic bad writing and mischaracterization.

[TheDarkness]

I see why we're crosstalking here. The main problem with BvS isn't the protrayal of Superman. He has few scenes where he is the focus and while his presence is subdued, it's in character. 

 

BvS is ruined by the terrible portrayals of Batman and Luthor. Luthor is jarring in each of his scenes and Batman is a hot mess of epic bad writing and mischaracterization.

Luthor is the best example of a large change in a characterization. Ironically, the canon Lex Luthor was entirely derived from a previous Superman villain.

 

Lex Luthor was, in most instances, not my favorite Superman villain. His motivations were often a little problematic. Hair loss, fortunately, went away as his reason to be, but it's always, "If you're so smart, why are you messing with the most powerful man in the world if you can avoid it?" Some versions dealt with that well, some didn't. This one, with his apparent anguish over what he calls a paradox, "Those with knowledge not having power" being apparently his driving force, did suffer a bit from the apparent goal of portraying him as befuddling to those he was dealing with. Not to mention I'm not really impressed with that actor.

 

As for having Luthor crazy, I'm undecided on whether it bothers me asides from the overplaying of it, but that is given that I only ever liked a few iterations of the character.

 

Batman, well, his actions are not particularly out of character for many versions of Batman, it's the results shown that differ the most. Dark Knight Returns, which is clearly the model here, drove tanks through gangs. They just weren't shown dying. I think the biggest problem is just whether or not we accept the logic that Superman must die or the consequences will be unavoidable as easily as Batman accepted it.

[TheDarkness]

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.

It's a fair critique. Another aspect to that is that, if someone as powerful as Superman, and who has a solid moral grounding, is spending all their time helping people, there is a possible result of a better world beyond the viewer's experiences. If Superman is saving people and preventing a substantial amount of the political shenanigans of the world, it would have an effect. But writing that story will make less fans, because few want to accept their own countries having shenanigans that Superman is stopping.

[TheDarkness]

It's a fair critique.

To clarify, I've, for a number of pages now, been in discussion with a number of people, so my posts are often including the general trends of the thread alongside responses to the various topics.

 

EDIT: Somehow got the wrong quote and can't seem to change it. This was in response to GrailKnight's comment on how we are crosstalking.

[TheDarkness]

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.

My experience has been that what pressure people crumble under is often widely different, and most such people are quite strong when examined from one form of pressure, and weaker against another form of pressure. The group of recon marines I know certainly qualify. One of my closest friends was utterly reliable, considered strong in character and physicality, a great fighter and truly honest guy, but most people didn't realize how nearly unbearable social life was to him.

 

I can agree that Superman is probably in the camp who more naturally deals with danger. This rarely means that other pressures are as easy for such people, or that what he gets done should not have any emotional impact on his character, assuming he is written as emotionally human.

 

If not, then I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with most on the virtue of writing an ideal as a character. It feels good, but almost always, under close scrutiny, appears less virtuous than its exposition claims. Now, if we write a story about an alien who is, by its nature, always good and without real failings, and their influence and experiences on Earth, that would be interesting.

[bigdamnhero]

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. 

I don't even mind permanent changes to characters, as long as they're organic and make sense from within the character & story. That's called "growth." Not letting characters grow and change is just about the worst thing you can do to any fictional series.

 

...Almost as bad as saying "We're going to remake Superman as an emo douche because it's edgy!"

 

It reminds me of that Samaritan story from Astro City.

Amen. Kurt Busiek understands Superman better than most people writing Superman. (PS - You know there's more than one Samaritan story, right? It's been interesting watching how he's allowed that character to evolve while staying true to his core.)

 

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.

Exactly. There are people like that in real life. The ones who can't handle it don't last long as heroes.

[Christopher R Taylor]

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. 

 

That's part of the answer and part of it is that its mythical, not gritty, as has been noted too.  And yeah, not everyone gets moody and depressed under stress, some benefit from it and are even more cheerful.  I get that this kind of Superman doesn't appeal to everyone, but its true to his character and concept, rather than dark skies and grim demeanor.  But there are some who'll never be reached with this simple truth, because it just isn't what they want to see.

[TheDarkness]

Exactly which movie version of Superman has a grim demeanor, because, while elements of the latter third of MoS are grim(pretty much one scene), and BvS is definitely grim, Superman is not exactly grim in either movie, especially not MoS, which is uncharacteristic, as he should have been mad that his father's death was pretty much a plot device.

 

In fights, he sometimes is shown looking severe, but that is canon, happens all the time in the comics from the seventies on as I recall.

 

And angst ridden actually doesn't occur in MoS unless one counts him as a child/teenager, or the moment after Zod's death.

 

I'm just not seeing much actual substantiation that the character ISN'T a canon depiction of Superman. Would it be better if he smugly broke Zod's hand then threw him to his apparent death, like in the Christopher Reeve version? Or turned back time AFTER brooding and raging, again, like the Christopher Reeve version? How is that faithful and this not?

[aylwin13]

Isn't it possible that peoples' definitions of grim, dark, gritty, angsty, etc. are just that different; and that no one is ever going to have the same opinion of character depictions.

 

Some will like them and others won't.

 

 

Just sayin'.

[Starlord]

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

 

Yes, he embarrassed a bully.  Good job, Clark.

[Old Man]

Exactly which movie version of Superman has a grim demeanor, because, while elements of the latter third of MoS are grim(pretty much one scene), and BvS is definitely grim, Superman is not exactly grim in either movie, especially not MoS, which is uncharacteristic, as he should have been mad that his father's death was pretty much a plot device.

 

In fights, he sometimes is shown looking severe, but that is canon, happens all the time in the comics from the seventies on as I recall.

 

And angst ridden actually doesn't occur in MoS unless one counts him as a child/teenager, or the moment after Zod's death.

 

I'm just not seeing much actual substantiation that the character ISN'T a canon depiction of Superman. Would it be better if he smugly broke Zod's hand then threw him to his apparent death, like in the Christopher Reeve version? Or turned back time AFTER brooding and raging, again, like the Christopher Reeve version? How is that faithful and this not?

I think the problem is that we only saw angry, brooding, fighting Supes, and we didn't see optimistic, outgoing, role model Supes.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I think the problem is that we only saw angry, brooding, fighting Supes, and we didn't see optimistic, outgoing, role model Supes.

 

Right.  The Superman depicted in the Donner films was consistent with the comics, and overall cheerful and uplifting.  Then, when you saw exceptions to that, you knew they were momentary, driven by plot, and exceptional.  You were confident that, true to the comics, Zod wasn't dead because dude, nobody dies in comics.

 

If all you get is angsty, conflicted, angry and violent Superman, and he kills someone blatantly and outright after destroying small towns and cities alike without the slightest wince of regret... that's a different perspective entirely.

[Nolgroth]

Yes, he embarrassed a bully.  Good job, Clark.

 

I typed out (and deleted) a long post that basically said what you just did in two sentences. 

[Bazza]

I think the problem is that we only saw angry, brooding, fighting Supes, and we didn't see optimistic, outgoing, role model Supes.

Truth, Justice and The Brooding Way.

[TheDarkness]

I think the problem is that we only saw angry, brooding, fighting Supes, and we didn't see optimistic, outgoing, role model Supes.

Definitely on the fighting front, I agree. I like the first Captain America movie better than the second because they spent the time on set-up more than merely making and action movie, I think that would have been good here.

 

But, when does he brood as an adult in MoS? And mind you, he's an adult in the vast majority of the movie. In MoS, he is only angry when his mom is thrown. And as a child. Those are literally the only two times in the whole movie.

 

The first half to two thirds of MoS, he's saving an oil rig, investigating a ship(and saving Lois in the process), smiling and happy that he learned of his people while reassuring his mom she's still awesome in his book, smiling as he learns to fly, and so on.

 

As for role model Supes, both canon Supes and MoS Supes kill Zod. No one else was in immediate danger from Zod when Superman killed him in the comics, whereas MoS Zod was actually trying to kill people at the time. Other than killing Zod, exactly what did Superman in MoS do that was not a moral decision?

 

Broken down to his actual actions seen in the movie, there's really nothing he does that isn't related to helping people. I'm not sure where we're missing role model Superman.

 

It's a mediocre movie, but not because Superman was far off from canon. He was pretty consistent. He broods exactly one time as Superman, after he kills Zod. There is literally not a single scene that comes to mind of him as an adult brooding beyond that. He literally spends half the movie saving people.

 

The mediocrity of that movie has more to do with the death of his father as an unnecessary plot device and the whole codex plot device as an excuse for Zod to have anything to do, among other things. But if you break it down by scenes, I think you'll find that he is not played as a brooding character, although you will also not find him to have Christopher Reeve's humor, but that was never consistent canon in the comics. Some issues, yes, some, no.

[TheDarkness]

Right.  The Superman depicted in the Donner films was consistent with the comics, and overall cheerful and uplifting.  Then, when you saw exceptions to that, you knew they were momentary, driven by plot, and exceptional.  You were confident that, true to the comics, Zod wasn't dead because dude, nobody dies in comics.

 

If all you get is angsty, conflicted, angry and violent Superman, and he kills someone blatantly and outright after destroying small towns and cities alike without the slightest wince of regret... that's a different perspective entirely.

 

Exactly how was breaking Zod's hand driven by the story? It wasn't, it was wish fulfillment, let the viewers see the bad guy suffer and the good guy be strong. But it's entirely what you don't like about the new Superman depictions, right there in a depiction you approve of. He crushed a man's hand for no reason.

[TheDarkness]

Yes, he embarrassed a bully.  Good job, Clark.

And crushed a man's hand for no reason.

[TheDarkness]

Isn't it possible that peoples' definitions of grim, dark, gritty, angsty, etc. are just that different; and that no one is ever going to have the same opinion of character depictions.

 

Some will like them and others won't.

 

 

Just sayin'.

I can totally see this. However, the words still mean something. It seems to me that the complaints are actually better defined as he didn't smile enough and have a light tone of humor like Christopher Reeve's brought to the character. Superman, in the comics, sometimes had this, sometimes didn't, but was generally not grim pre-eighties.

 

MoS Superman is incredibly consistent with this. As Superman, he really doesn't get grim in that movie except for after killing Zod. I mean, not at all, and even then, more anguished, like in the Christopher Reeve movies when Lois dies, but here he doesn't alter time.

 

There's no relative scale to read. He was working a fishing boat. He was saving people on an oil rig. No particularly grim visage there. He was investigating a Krptonian ship. He was happily talking to his mom. He was talking to Lois about wanting to stay secret. He was turning himself in to save humanity. Then, he was slightly grim-faced, but no more so that Christopher Reeve in the second movie at several points. After that, he was pretty much in one constant fight. There was literally no chance to avoid or mourn the damage caused, nor a single thing he could have actually done to avoid it.

 

Grim and not particularly humorous are different things. Any close viewing of the movie reveals the latter much more than the former.

 

I mean, really, as Superman, when in MoS was he being grim?

[TheDarkness]

But there are some who'll never be reached with this simple truth, because it just isn't what they want to see.

Hm.

 

You seem to have missed that no one else is defining what must be based on what they want.

[TheDarkness]

Here's the catch-22s for writers trying to write what would make certain fans happy:

 

1) There can be NO collateral damage

 

This one has three parts. First, Superman cannot be part of a harm, even if he's actually lessening the harm. Second, Superman cannot not care about the results, but cannot be shown to have an emotional response to them for fear of being 'angsty'. Third, Superman cannot be fighting villains so under his power level that he can dictate all the terms of combat, as this would not be exciting at all.

 

Therefore, all movie fights, to make certain fans happy, must take place in space, Pluto, or Indiana.

 

2) Superman cannot be shown to have learned morality

 

This is simple. To show his family teaching him, as was repeatedly done in MoS, would require him not knowing how to solve a situation himself and responding in an emotional way to it as a child, and that is emo. Therefore, the Kents are relegated to brief scenes of young Clark using his powers and exposition. No actually moral teaching can ever be shown that would suggest that Clark was not always perfect. Since these scenes in MoS were the vast majority of the scenes that could be described as brooding Clark or angsty Clark, even if the scenes end with him wiser, let's not make that mistake again.

 

3) Superman must always have a sense of humor, even if, from early on, this wasn't always the case

 

Remember, part of exceptionalism is not having to have a good reason.

 

4) No anger, even if every iteration of him had this, including all of the movies

 

5) No killing to a greater extent than in the comics, but occasional gratuitous hand crushing is fine, as long as he's got a good sense of humor about it

 

6) Perpetual application of the Comics Code, because really, that's where this came from

 

7) More fighting against villains who are stereotypes, like 'the Japs', so that we can be sure of the moral high ground that ALWAYS comes with ideals posited as positive characters

 

8) If anyone disagrees, suggest it is a failing of their morals, as nothing spells moral high ground more than attacking the morality of anyone who might disagree with you over Superman, even if they point out the moral pitfalls of the Comics Code and characters posited as ideals, do not address their points, just attack their morality

 

9) Reference to myths as simple and not gritty while ignoring that this only applies to comics. Important to not mention anything about Zeus, his lovers, Venus cheating on Vulcan, Hera's entire story, Loki, Baldur, Ragnarok, or the Rape of Persephone here. Also avoid Nezha. And anything that points out that the myths of older cultures invariably include more and more human characterization over time.

 

10) Once you manage to make this movie, just sit back and bask in the wealth that will surely come. And Indiana, this means you, too: soon, everyone will be coming to film their fights over the long stretches of your corn fields in order to avoid collateral damage, even if this will mean more CGI.

 

11) No CGI

 

CGI is evil. Whenever possible, use catapults.

[Nolgroth]

Wow Darkness, you are really passionate about this topic. If I may be so bold, might I suggest that those on the opposite side of the discussion feel just as strongly about their opinions. I agree with much of what you are saying, but I don't think either of us are going to convince anyone to change their mind. Don't get so wrapped up in it. Just an observation and suggestion.

[Ternaugh]

"You sly dog! You caught me monlologuing!"

[TheDarkness]

Wow Darkness, you are really passionate about this topic. If I may be so bold, might I suggest that those on the opposite side of the discussion feel just as strongly about their opinions. I agree with much of what you are saying, but I don't think either of us are going to convince anyone to change their mind. Don't get so wrapped up in it. Just an observation and suggestion.

Totally good advice, and thanks.

 

I'll be clear, this is mostly just banter. For example, Old Man, totally reasonable individual and while I disagree with Old Man on MoS having at all an angsty characterization, it will not lessen my view of Old Man at all. He's one of my favorite members.

 

I actually don't think it's a great movie, I just think there's a different standard being applied to that movie than to pretty much all the other comic book movies by some people, but it's not a big deal. I'll debate that, but I certainly don't let it lessen my opinion of people.

 

I suppose what I'm passionate about is the freedom for writing to take the elements of a character to new places. That's where a lot of this is coming from on my part, I suppose.

 

That last post was the result of the THIRD time on this thread that someone suggested that people who don't agree with them on exactly how Superman should be depicted, those people are morally questionable or deficient in character. The first two times were quite specifically directed to me, while ignoring my whole point on why writing an ideal as a character has often lead to highly questionable moral content.

 

I can totally deal with the fact that as we argue on the internet, we might gloss over important points the other makes. Making declarations about each other's lack of morality is simply not something that any reasonable person is going to do when arguing the moral virtues of a particular character, so I, for my part, didn't enter into that pit of unchecked irony.

 

I basically ignored the first two. I allowed myself one response, it's now done.

 

I'll probably continue to point out scene by scene summaries of the marked absence of angst in MoS, etc.

 

So, to be clear, yes, they may feel passionate about this, but I haven't, one single time, suggested that anyone's morality is lacking for any reason, and most of those I've been arguing with have not done so either. Those who have, well, I'll just assume they had a bad day and move on.

 

Thanks for your reasonable response.

[Old Man]

You know, on any other message board this topic would have devolved into name calling, ragequits, and bannings weeks ago.

[TheDarkness]

You know, on any other message board this topic would have devolved into name calling, ragequits, and bannings weeks ago.

Are you calling us layabouts?