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

[Old Man]

That's better.

[aylwin13]

Are you calling us layabouts?

 

I would have gone with "slackers", but that works too.

[zslane]

I'm sure there are folks out there who want Superman to be kind and gentle and pacifistic or something, but that certainly isn't me. There's a difference between being honorable and virtuous and being completely non-violent.

 

Is Superman violent? Of course he is. He fights with the energy output of major nuclear weapons. Will there be collateral damage? Of course. These are superhero/supervillain fights he's getting into. There's going to be a lot of material damage, but comics tradition typically dictates that the cost in human lives is pretty minimal, even if that isn't terribly "realistic".

 

Can Superman get angry? Of course he can. But if that turns him into an angry man, that's different. Usually his anger gets channeled into a grim determination at worst. If he loses control and becomes reckless or hateful, then that's not Superman. Maybe it is Superman under the influence of red kryptonite or Braniac's mind control or something, but it isn't part of his core character.

 

Does Superman kill? Sure, when the writers have lost their way, IMO. Writers who understand and respect the core of his character will always find a way to avoid having him kill an adversary. Full stop. The fact that Supermam has killed before in the comics doesn't mean that killing is a core part (or even an acceptable part) of Superman's character, it only means that someone got it wrong (again, IMO). The same can be said of any film portrayal.

 

Was Superman born with a perfect moral architecture? Of course not. He learned that--or at least the human version of it--from Ma and Pa Kent. But the idea is that by the time he put on the blue supersuit he had integrated all the best features of "being human" and came to embody our ideal selves. Can he make errors in judgment and mistakes in action? Sure, but such moments should be rare, and they should be used merely to give Superman an opportunity to overcome those momentary lapses and return to the righteous path.

 

Should Superman be a light-hearted happy-go-lucky goof? Of course not. By the same token he shouldn't be a brooding, angst-filled figure of self-doubt. There is actually a middle ground that easily walks the line between the two, but I did not see that happening in MoS. I tend to see it in the animated versions of Superman (not all, but most). It's as if WB thinks that the only way to make Superman suitable for adults is to make him into an adult saddled with all the same neuroses as the writers tasked with making him fit the contemporary zeitgeist. Sorry, but I happen to think that is profoundly misguided.

 

The dramatic tension in a Superman story should never be one where the circumstances put him in a crisis situation and we wonder whether or not he will do the right thing, but whether or not he'll be able to do the right thing. His struggle should never be existential or ethical, but practical: Can he (find a way to) defeat Zod without hurting civilians and/or killing him, not will he choose to do so.

[Christopher R Taylor]

The dramatic tension in a Superman story should never be one where the circumstances put him in a crisis situation and we wonder whether or not he will do the right thing, but whether or not he'll be able to do the right thing.

 

Exactly.  Well stated overall.  The inability to comprehend or see this is a troubling reminder of how odd our culture has become.

[Iuz the Evil]

Those are really good observations.

 

“Sometimes when the corn was planted, it shot up too soon. The roots hadn’t taken hold, so the stock couldn’t support its own weight. The corn would turn sour. I don’t know if Clark knew how lucky he was growing up in a place like Smallville.”

 

I like that type of characterization a lot. Folksy wisdom from his farmer adoptive father, Clark as a genuinely good man who does the right thing because it's the right thing to do.

 

Ras al Ghul's name for him, "Icon" is strangely appropriate. Even if he meant it with irony. Superman, and Clark Kent, are supposed to be iconic.

[Cassandra]

This maybe a little off topic, but I'm putting it hear because I can't find the Agents of SHIELD thread.

 

I think it says a lot that no one had commented on the start of Season Four.

 

The best thing about the episode was the commercial for Designated Survivor.

 

And the reason they picked Ghost Rider because Gilbert Gottfried passed on playing Moon Knight.

[TheDarkness]

I'm sure there are folks out there who want Superman to be kind and gentle and pacifistic or something, but that certainly isn't me. There's a difference between being honorable and virtuous and being completely non-violent.

 

Is Superman violent? Of course he is. He fights with the energy output of major nuclear weapons. Will there be collateral damage? Of course. These are superhero/supervillain fights he's getting into. There's going to be a lot of material damage, but comics tradition typically dictates that the cost in human lives is pretty minimal, even if that isn't terribly "realistic".

 

Can Superman get angry? Of course he can. But if that turns him into an angry man, that's different. Usually his anger gets channeled into a grim determination at worst. If he loses control and becomes reckless or hateful, then that's not Superman. Maybe it is Superman under the influence of red kryptonite or Braniac's mind control or something, but it isn't part of his core character.

 

Does Superman kill? Sure, when the writers have lost their way, IMO. Writers who understand and respect the core of his character will always find a way to avoid having him kill an adversary. Full stop. The fact that Supermam has killed before in the comics doesn't mean that killing is a core part (or even an acceptable part) of Superman's character, it only means that someone got it wrong (again, IMO). The same can be said of any film portrayal.

 

Was Superman born with a perfect moral architecture? Of course not. He learned that--or at least the human version of it--from Ma and Pa Kent. But the idea is that by the time he put on the blue supersuit he had integrated all the best features of "being human" and came to embody our ideal selves. Can he make errors in judgment and mistakes in action? Sure, but such moments should be rare, and they should be used merely to give Superman an opportunity to overcome those momentary lapses and return to the righteous path.

 

Should Superman be a light-hearted happy-go-lucky goof? Of course not. By the same token he shouldn't be a brooding, angst-filled figure of self-doubt. There is actually a middle ground that easily walks the line between the two, but I did not see that happening in MoS. I tend to see it in the animated versions of Superman (not all, but most). It's as if WB thinks that the only way to make Superman suitable for adults is to make him into an adult saddled with all the same neuroses as the writers tasked with making him fit the contemporary zeitgeist. Sorry, but I happen to think that is profoundly misguided.

 

The dramatic tension in a Superman story should never be one where the circumstances put him in a crisis situation and we wonder whether or not he will do the right thing, but whether or not he'll be able to do the right thing. His struggle should never be existential or ethical, but practical: Can he (find a way to) defeat Zod without hurting civilians and/or killing him, not will he choose to do so.

This is a good post and a good summary of your view. I'm just curious: are there particular scenes in MoS that you could refer to to help me understand the angsty or neurotic Superman that you feel is depicted there? I am honestly curious, as it's just not one of the weaknesses I felt that film had, but acting performances can certainly be interpreted different ways, so I may genuinely be missing something.

[TheDarkness]

"Can he (find a way to) defeat Zod without hurting civilians and/or killing him, not will he choose to do so."

 

And if he can't? What is the acceptable resolution?

[TheDarkness]

I would have gone with "slackers", but that works too.

Are we supposed to be wearing slacks?

 

 

Awkward...

[TheDarkness]

This maybe a little off topic, but I'm putting it hear because I can't find the Agents of SHIELD thread.

 

I think it says a lot that no one had commented on the start of Season Four.

 

The best thing about the episode was the commercial for Designated Survivor.

 

And the reason they picked Ghost Rider because Gilbert Gottfried passed on playing Moon Knight.

Wait, what?

 

[begins rocking back and forth]

[zslane]

"Can he (find a way to) defeat Zod without hurting civilians and/or killing him, not will he choose to do so."

 

And if he can't? What is the acceptable resolution?

It is the writer's task to see to it that he always can. Somehow. Remember, the writer is always in control here.

 

In my view, a writer who has decided to tell a story in which the hero can not, and does not, find a solution to that dilemma has perhaps told an interesting story, but he (or she) has not told a Superman story.

 

By way of analogy, The Godfather is a brilliant story, but a lousy romantic comedy.

[sinanju]

As far as MoS goes, I didn't have too much of a problem with Supes killing Zod. He killed the 3 Kryptonian super-criminals post-Crisis. He had no choice.

 

The problem he faced in MoS is simple. What do you do with Zod? There's no super-prison to send him to. The phantom zone projector is gone. As soon as you let him out of the headlock, he's going to murder as many people as he can. He's just as strong as you, there's no guarantee you can get the advantage on him again.

 

The fight in the city, he's got very little choice there. The city-smasher thing is there, if you run off elsewhere the bad guys will just keep wrecking Metropolis. He got a little carried away during the fight, but that's more bad direction by Snyder than a decision on Superman's part.

 

The biggest problem I had with the movie was Pa Kent being a horrible role model.

 

I liked the film okay, but it's definitely an Elseworlds story.

 

I didn't like Man of Steel or BvS, but one defense of the fight in Man of Steel that I think I have concede has some merit, is that Superman's fight against the Kryptonians (and Zod in particular) was that it was his FIRST FIGHT EVER. And even if not his very first, certainly the first one ever against superpowered opponents. Given how he was raised by Pa Kent, I think it's safe to say he's never brawled with anyone, and never used anything close to his true power in a fight before. He's learning this in the middle of a life-and-death battle to save the planet. Mistakes are inevitable. A lack of tactical or strategic thought too, as he's completely inexperienced.

 

I don't entirely buy this argument, but I think reasonable people can disagree on the point.

[TheDarkness]

It is the writer's task to see to it that he always can. Somehow. Remember, the writer is always in control here.

 

In my view, a writer who has decided to tell a story in which the hero can not, and does not, find a solution to that dilemma has perhaps told an interesting story, but he (or she) has not told a Superman story.

 

By way of analogy, The Godfather is a brilliant story, but a lousy romantic comedy.

This is where we enter into the dangerous territory of selling an ideal over showing one.

 

There is a reason that Doctor Manhattan and DKR Superman are valid critiques of where this had already led Superman writers many times.

 

Further, most writers generally don't agree that they can subvert the materials at play in a story to obtain a desired result.

 

There was an element of my list on the last page that was pointing out the problem in the demands made on the moviemakers for this. Literally, Superman, to make the people happy who follow this view, cannot fight any equals over a city, but no one wants to see him fighting lessers. And the equals cannot ravage his city in his absence. And the fights can't all take place over cornfields, because people will be flying huge distances back and forth in CGI, which will make no one happy. Which means there is no way to actually make such a movie and make the fans happy.

 

The one solution would be to take all the people away, but the evacuation scenes would soon strain any suspension of disbelief.

[Cassandra]

"Can he (find a way to) defeat Zod without hurting civilians and/or killing him, not will he choose to do so."

 

And if he can't? What is the acceptable resolution?

 

Isn't it easier to knock someone unconscious than break their neck?

[TheDarkness]

Isn't it easier to knock someone unconscious than break their neck?

What do you do with an unconscious kryptonian?

 

I mean, other than the obvious.

[Old Man]

What do you do with an unconscious kryptonian?

 

 

Put their hand in a bowl of warm water?

 

Fill their hand with shaving cream and tickle their nose?

 

Shave off an eyebrow?

[TheDarkness]

Put their hand in a bowl of warm water?

 

Fill their hand with shaving cream and tickle their nose?

 

Shave off an eyebrow?

Am I correct that you'd get clowns for Batman's birthday party?

[Christopher R Taylor]

Isn't it easier to knock someone unconscious than break their neck?

 

Yeah this is a guy he couldn't hurt by punching him in the face so hard he knocked over a skyscraper but one twist of the neck?  Kryptonians have glass spines, or something

[TheDarkness]

Yeah this is a guy he couldn't hurt by punching him in the face so hard he knocked over a skyscraper but one twist of the neck?  Kryptonians have glass spines, or something

?

[zslane]

I'll turn this around and ask TheDarkness, how would you write the story so that Superman gets to defeat Zod without killing him? Treat it like a creative writing exercise. Surely you can come up with numerous satisfying solutions if you try.

[Doc Shadow]

?

 

I think what Christopher is saying is: if Superman's punch couldn't hurt Zod, he shouldn't have been able to break his neck either. The bit about glass spines was just sarcasm.

[Ternaugh]

Am I correct that you'd get clowns for Batman's birthday party?

 

Just one clown, really.

[Old Man]

But it'd be Mightybec.

[Doc Shadow]

Now there's a name I haven't seen around here in a long time. What ever happened to him?

[Bazza]

But it'd be Mightybec.

Thinking alike you.