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

[Bazza]

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

On Facebook.

[Old Man]

Poor bastard.

[Bazza]

He has all his sheep as his Facebook-Friends.

[Lord Liaden]

And crushed a man's hand for no reason.

 

A man who had threatened and tried to kill many innocent people, and probably did kill some; as well as conquer the Earth, beat ruthlessly on Superman himself, and terrorize the woman Superman loves.

 

Yet Superman limited his satisfaction for all that to crushing Zod's hand, when at that moment he could have effortlessly killed him. I call that, yes, superhuman self-restraint.

[Cassandra]

What do you do with an unconscious kryptonian?

 

I mean, other than the obvious.

 

Red Solar Radiation Cell in the Fortress of Solitude.

[Cassandra]

A man who had threatened and tried to kill many innocent people, and probably did kill some; as well as conquer the Earth, beat ruthlessly on Superman himself, and terrorize the woman Superman loves.

 

Yet Superman limited his satisfaction for all that to crushing Zod's hand, when at that moment he could have effortlessly killed him. I call that, yes, superhuman self-restraint.

 

And let's not forget what he did to Samantha Eggar.  (Obscure Movie Reference!)

[Twilight]

A man who had threatened and tried to kill many innocent people, and probably did kill some; as well as conquer the Earth, beat ruthlessly on Superman himself, and terrorize the woman Superman loves.

 

Yet Superman limited his satisfaction for all that to crushing Zod's hand, when at that moment he could have effortlessly killed him. I call that, yes, superhuman self-restraint.

Or rather it would have been, had he not proceeded to toss the man down an icy canyon then stood by and watch Lois do the same thing to Ursa.  Then to top it off, not bat an eye as Non leaps to his death.

[Bazza]

We interrupt to bring you this important message from a sponsor:

 

Catherynne Valente (@catvalente): "I hate how many superhero movies could be resolved by the application of preschool conflict resolution techniques. #batmanvssuperman"

 

https://twitter.com/catvalente/status/779869931974295553

[Greywind]

Or rather it would have been, had he not proceeded to toss the man down an icy canyon then stood by and watch Lois do the same thing to Ursa.  Then to top it off, not bat an eye as Non leaps to his death.

 

The three Kryptonian villains are arrested in the TV version. In The Richard Donner Cut, Superman reversed the rotation of the Earth to keep the three Kryptonian criminals from being freed from the Phantom Zone.

[Christopher]

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

 

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.

That is actualy one of the few consistent and regulated parts about him. He is always stronger then the late arrivers.

Even in the old 2, he was able to beat the combined power of 3 Kryptonians (Zod, Ursa, Nurn).

 

I think it has been established he get's his powers largely "from the yellow sun".

Well, Superman has been on the planet since he was a baby. While all others are all Newcommers (even his cousin reached the planet when already a teen; Powergirl just came there from anotehr reality, and at least Kryptonite is often Universe bound - why not solar radiation?).

He always seemed to be "more powerfull" then even fellow Kryptonians that just arrived.

Also, the world of Cardboard Speech:

 

The three Kryptonian villains are arrested in the TV version. In The Richard Donner Cut, Superman reversed the rotation of the Earth to keep the three Kryptonian criminals from being freed from the Phantom Zone.

Did he seriously just wipe out the entire plot? I mean saving even the astronauts and those people in the city (he was not aware had died), okay.

 

But that is like undoing his whole story. His whole struggle with giving up his powrs for Lois, then struggling agaisnt impossible odds to get them back. The one redeeming factor this film actually had for me.

 

That is exactly why they needed to get rid of that power and never re-introduce it again. It is like the difference between the Avengers and X-Men Quicksilver in speed. HISHE shows well why that is such a bad, plotbreaking idea to have such powers.

 

FYI, it is not "reversing the rotation of the earth".

It is making a Star Trek IV style Timejump, just over shorter distance and using the lower mass earth rather then the sun.

Both are just applications of the basic concept behind a tipler cylinder, using more speed (FTL and way, way past) to compensate for lower (not infinite) mass.

[TheDarkness]

That is actualy one of the few consistent and regulated parts about him. He is always stronger then the late arrivers.

Even in the old 2, he was able to beat the combined power of 3 Kryptonians (Zod, Ursa, Nurn).

 

I think it has been established he get's his powers largely "from the yellow sun".

Well, Superman has been on the planet since he was a baby. While all others are all Newcommers (even his cousin reached the planet when already a teen; Powergirl just came there from anotehr reality, and at least Kryptonite is often Universe bound - why not solar radiation?).

He always seemed to be "more powerfull" then even fellow Kryptonians that just arrived.

Also, the world of Cardboard Speech:

 

Did he seriously just wipe out the entire plot? I mean saving even the astronauts and those people in the city (he was not aware had died), okay.

 

But that is like undoing his whole story. His whole struggle with giving up his powrs for Lois, then struggling agaisnt impossible odds to get them back. The one redeeming factor this film actually had for me.

 

That is exactly why they needed to get rid of that power and never re-introduce it again. It is like the difference between the Avengers and X-Men Quicksilver in speed. HISHE shows well why that is such a bad, plotbreaking idea to have such powers.

 

FYI, it is not "reversing the rotation of the earth".

It is making a Star Trek IV style Timejump, just over shorter distance and using the lower mass earth rather then the sun.

Both are just applications of the basic concept behind a tipler cylinder, using more speed (FTL and way, way past) to compensate for lower (not infinite) mass.

This is actually the problem with imprisoning Zod in the film. There is no way to do it. Anywhere he could be held would also be imprisoning Superman, except, with the loss of the phantom zone option, there is no such place.

 

Trying to imprison him in a red solar projected room still requires holding him there until the residual yellow radiation is out of his system, and if there's anything the fights in the movie established, it's that any twelve seconds two kryptonians are fighting requires approximately ten square miles. No such place in the movie.

 

The fact is, all applications of imagination are not equal. Forcing an out for Superman for every situation has not been a feature of the best Superman stories. One can either write a moral character who strives to do their best, or make a world in which there are no challenges to the character being perceived as moral, but the latter is, by definition, merely a veneer or morality, and not as deeply moral a story as the first approach. If you are going to compel most adults to see a Superman film not just as something to bring their kids to, the former is more compelling characterization for adults. Otherwise, they can merely have Michael Bay write all the Superman movies and end up with an appropriately plot armored Superman who is never actually given a real moral challenge, but is portrayed as perfectly good in exposition, but not characterized as such.

[TheDarkness]

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.

I do not consider deus ex machinae as satisfying, and given the world provided in the movie, there is no solution that does not qualify as such. Kryponite would also kill him, and isn't available. There is no feasible way, given the world provided, to imprison him without introducing a new element at the last minute solely to avoid the problem. Which I would consider to be bad writing.

 

The main solutions are solving the problem in plotting but avoiding having to face the characterization(make it so the conundrum never comes up, and so Superman's morality is clean by not facing a plot that forces any moral choice that might test it, not by it's depiction in and of itself), introducing a handy solution at the last minute(oh, we can fix the phantom zone projector, which is poor writing), or just accepting that if you are going to do the characterization of a moral character, that means that sometimes the best available option is not the ideal.

 

There are plenty of sources for the first two for those who are okay with that, neither is a particularly strong use of writing skill, and pose serious problems when depicting an ideal, as they sell the ideal, not define, exalt, or examine the ideal.

 

I believe this part started with a question to the extent of "The question is not whether Superman will choose to do the right thing, but if he will be able to." If the writers always write out all situations where choices are constrained, the question itself becomes moot, there is no question. He will always be able to do both, because only those things that fulfill both are allowed. In which case, this is entirely not a claim about how to depict the character, but how to plot the stories to always fulfill those two points. Effectively, a character with limitless power also must have limitless plot armor. This does not seem like good writing to me, and certainly avoids most of the situations that allow deep and real characterization. I really don't see most of the best Superman stories having followed this at all.

 

This would assume consistency on the expectations of those who are not happy with perceived changes to the depiction. Considering that breaking a man's neck who intended to kill many at the time, and who the story provided no way to contain otherwise, and not feeling good about that, is not acceptable, but, in a different version of the same story, crushing his hand as payback when he poses zero threat and enjoying it is somehow a more moral character true to the Superman stories? (Not saying you believe this, just pointing out the inconsistency).

[Christopher]

@TheDarkness:
I asume you are in the group saying "not a bad movie" either. I belong there too, firmly. Should have not cut that much on either of the two, but otherwise they were a solid start for the DC Live Action Universe.

 

Superman not killing was always a "stated character trait". He just always had a CvK. It somehow even applied when he was brainwashed or controlled. But they never delved into why. Men of Steel exactly goes into that area.

 

Actually I recently stumbeled over thise video, that deals with a lot of the criticisms:

[bigdamnhero]

That is actualy one of the few consistent and regulated parts about him. He is always stronger then the late arrivers.

Even in the old 2, he was able to beat the combined power of 3 Kryptonians (Zod, Ursa, Nurn).

It also makes sense that he's had time to get used to having/using his superpowers, whereas the latecomers have been normals until 5 minutes ago and are still learning how to use their powers.

 

That's actually one thing that bugs me a little bit in most Superman continuities: that everyone else in the galaxy automatically equates Kryptonian with Unstoppable Baddass, when pre-diaspora Kryptonians were completely normal-powered. And while yes the K-Folk were pretty technologically advanced, it's not clear that they actually had space travel or visited other yellow-sun planets. (If they had, it begs the question why there weren't other colonies of superpowered Kryptonians on other worlds that survivied the planet's destruction.) Once Superman has shown up, then I can see people forming that association. But typically when he first shows up somewhere everyone is like "Oh, a Kryptonian!" in awe. Just never quite made sense to me. [/OT nitpick]

[zslane]

In that "Cardboard World" fight with Darkseid, the writer(s) contrived the physics of the fight so that the nuclear bomb-level shockwaves that would have resulted from Superman's strikes did not damage Metropolis in a way that jeopardized any civilians. Even the few that you see standing around on the streets and watching never faced any real danger. Had this fight been staged by Snyder, the devastation would have been Michael Bay-ish in scale and the cost in civilian lives nauseating. It always comes down to how you choose to portray the situation, and "realism" is a misguided aesthetic in this case.

 

I guess I would say that any writer who does not know how to create tension and drama from the appearance of limited choices (usually by witholding the "solution" until the climax of the scene/film) shouldn't be given the responsibility of writing for superheroes in general and Superman in particular. "Deep characterization" is a phallacy in the superhero genre, unless you are Alan Moore and you are deliberately trying to unravel it by pulling on one of its most vulnerable threads.

 

There seems to be this naive assumption that every genre is capable of being a vehicle for every kind of storytelling, but the truth is that genre conventions lay down constraints that make that assumption false by nearly every measure.

[TheDarkness]

@TheDarkness:

I asume you are in the group saying "not a bad movie" either. I belong there too, firmly. Should have not cut that much on either of the two, but otherwise they were a solid start for the DC Live Action Universe.

 

Superman not killing was always a "stated character trait". He just always had a CvK. It somehow even applied when he was brainwashed or controlled. But they never delved into why. Men of Steel exactly goes into that area.

 

Actually I recently stumbeled over thise video, that deals with a lot of the criticisms:

Thanks!

 

I actually, only after the second viewing, 'like' the movie. I put that in the single quotes for the same reason I say I 'like' kung fu flicks: action movies and horror movies, story wise, get a bit of a break, and it drives me crazy a bit when people do the same, and then magically break that seemingly randomly. Kung fu flicks, it doesn't happen as much on. Nobody is like, hey totally unrealistic long chains of choreography and death touches.

 

That video makes exactly the point I'm talking about, regarding the fact that not writing him as a moral character, but as an ideal, basically means choosing only those plot elements that actually avoid any moral test of the character, and hollow out the story from any moral content.

 

Again, thanks! Here's the same people presenting the argument for the more extreme responses to BvS being wrong.

 

 

An interesting point. I'm currently in China, and the comic book movie that people seemed to complain the most about in the last few years is the second Avengers movie. Many people see all of these movies, but people seemed to universally agree that they considered that one weakest on story.

[Christopher R Taylor]

That is actualy one of the few consistent and regulated parts about him. He is always stronger then the late arrivers.

 

Doesn't help the problem any.  If you can take somone's punch to the face without notable harm, your neck probably will resist his strength, too.  See the problem isn't "boy he's stronger than them" its "why is Zod's neck so weak?"

[TheDarkness]

In that "Cardboard World" fight with Darkseid, the writer(s) contrived the physics of the fight so that the nuclear bomb-level shockwaves that would have resulted from Superman's strikes did not damage Metropolis in a way that jeopardized any civilians. Even the few that you see standing around on the streets and watching never faced any real danger. Had this fight been staged by Snyder, the devastation would have been Michael Bay-ish in scale and the cost in civilian lives nauseating. It always comes down to how you choose to portray the situation, and "realism" is a misguided aesthetic in this case.

 

I guess I would say that any writer who does not know how to create tension and drama from the appearance of limited choices (usually by witholding the "solution" until the climax of the scene/film) shouldn't be given the responsibility of writing for superheroes in general and Superman in particular. "Deep characterization" is a phallacy in the superhero genre, unless you are Alan Moore and you are deliberately trying to unravel it by pulling on one of its most vulnerable threads.

 

There seems to be this naive assumption that every genre is capable of being a vehicle for every kind of storytelling, but the truth is that genre conventions lay down constraints that make that assumption false by nearly every measure.

Withholding the solution from the reader is the province of bad mysteries. That's not good writing.

 

Moore destroyed the argument of there being an underlying ethics implicit in the innocence of the superheros. You can't put that egg back together, there does not magically exist an actual ethics by pretending that deconstruction didn't happen and seeking to go back for all readers. This doesn't mean grimdark is the only option, but MoS is not grimdark, so clearly there is an array of options. Further, the only reason deconstruction occurred when it did is because better writers were drawn to these comics than in earlier eras. There is no reason to assume that the conventions of lesser authors also must be adhered to.

 

It is highly ironic to me that the ethical dilemma for people is that Superman in MoS is an ethical hero in a marginally realistic environment who actually not only maintains his ethics, but develops in his ethics in the course of the movie. There is no metric by which anyone can claim that this is ethically less sound than a character of totally unproven ethics whose writers merely avoid all those topics.

 

What you are describing is how one writes superheros for children. That ceased to be the sole market for superhero stories, including for Superman, decades ago. Almost all superheros, for many years, alternate between those markets. Most adults do not find superficial moralizing to be compelling. Most children will not recognize more lush storytelling for what it is. Both are valid.

 

Michael Bay heroes, to be clear, are generally written as you want Superman to be written: if they have flaws, they are merely there to say, see, he's human, despite all his plot armor. Those flaws are not there for real characterization, and all merits will remain untested through plot armor.

 

The only reason that collateral damage must be undepicted(despite that being a huge factor in all comics ever, even if the damage wasn't shown, and in absolutely every modern comic book movie) is to pretend that fighting in the city doesn't raise ethical concerns, because comic book writers love themselves some city fighting. Taking out the city fighting is not true to the genre, whether one writes the character in that instance for the children's market or for the teens and adults. But, if it's written for adults, quite frankly, there is totally room for depictions that are more realistic, and if those depictions strive to make Superman a moral character despite this, then that is thematically true to that aspect of the character.

[TheDarkness]

Doesn't help the problem any.  If you can take somone's punch to the face without notable harm, your neck probably will resist his strength, too.  See the problem isn't "boy he's stronger than them" its "why is Zod's neck so weak?"

Okay, I'll bite.

 

So, the punch sends him back, he recovers. There is nothing in the way of this, and literally only one object on Earth, Superman himself, whom hitting will cause any damage, versus hitting the ground or some building or whatever else. And, considering that we have seen in this iteration of the character that sunlight seems to heal most damage, we can assume the hit may have initially had more impact, but quite rapidly was recovered from.

 

In the neckbreak, his body is against the one object that is, effectively, as irresistible as his. He is in a headlock. Therefore, since we know that entire upper body versus just neck is a no-brainer, the head will turn, but the body cannot, because it is fixed in place by the only other Kryptonian. So, neck break. We can assume that, once the spine is severed, sunlight does not help, since he dies.

 

Nobody's neck is strong compared to other areas. I'd imagine I'm one of the few people talking who was unfortunate enough to be present during the event of someone's neck breaking. It's not about the strength, it's about making a neck do what it's not designed to.

 

This is all ignoring the fact that the strength of a headlock is largely structural, versus tied to the musculature of the person applying it, once it's locked in. And, once it's locked in, the amount of neck strength that can be applied is greatly reduced.

 

Granted, movie neck breaks are another thing, but if we question it here, we might as well ditch every WWII movie ever made. And question the very existence of a futuristic race that never figured out that they could be near gods with a little yellow radiation, and instead depleted their world and died, except for one, plus a few others, and some variants, and cousins, and occasional dogs.

[TheDarkness]

In short, I see value in taking the character of Superman and depicting a story that conveys ACTUAL ethics in a more realistic framework, AND I see value in more children's stories involving him, and note that the difference is NOT in characterization, but in the freedom of the storyteller to develop plot, as, in ALL of the complaints I'm seeing, it's plot, not characterization, that brings the character's ethics into question, namely, in children's stories, the plot avoids actual moral difficulties the character would face.

 

I also see value in people choosing which type of story they read or watch, while finding no value in saying that one or the other is the only acceptable format.

 

Genre only changes writing because of marketing. Early comics, fantasy, and sci fi did not have the conventions that people accept now, and always, in all three, the best writers spend a lot of time totally ignoring the conventions.

[Iuz the Evil]

Withholding the solution from the reader is the province of bad mysteries. That's not good writing.

 

Moore destroyed the argument of there being an underlying ethics implicit in the innocence of the superheros. You can't put that egg back together, there does not magically exist an actual ethics by pretending that deconstruction didn't happen and seeking to go back for all readers. This doesn't mean grimdark is the only option, but MoS is not grimdark, so clearly there is an array of options. Further, the only reason deconstruction occurred when it did is because better writers were drawn to these comics than in earlier eras. There is no reason to assume that the conventions of lesser authors also must be adhered to.

 

It is highly ironic to me that the ethical dilemma for people is that Superman in MoS is an ethical hero in a marginally realistic environment who actually not only maintains his ethics, but develops in his ethics in the course of the movie. There is no metric by which anyone can claim that this is ethically less sound than a character of totally unproven ethics whose writers merely avoid all those topics.

 

What you are describing is how one writes superheros for children. That ceased to be the sole market for superhero stories, including for Superman, decades ago. Almost all superheros, for many years, alternate between those markets. Most adults do not find superficial moralizing to be compelling. Most children will not recognize more lush storytelling for what it is. Both are valid.

 

Michael Bay heroes, to be clear, are generally written as you want Superman to be written: if they have flaws, they are merely there to say, see, he's human, despite all his plot armor. Those flaws are not there for real characterization, and all merits will remain untested through plot armor.

 

The only reason that collateral damage must be undepicted(despite that being a huge factor in all comics ever, even if the damage wasn't shown, and in absolutely every modern comic book movie) is to pretend that fighting in the city doesn't raise ethical concerns, because comic book writers love themselves some city fighting. Taking out the city fighting is not true to the genre, whether one writes the character in that instance for the children's market or for the teens and adults. But, if it's written for adults, quite frankly, there is totally room for depictions that are more realistic, and if those depictions strive to make Superman a moral character despite this, then that is thematically true to that aspect of the character.

Wow.

 

Lesser authors. Cannot put the egg back together. How they are written for children. No metric someone can claim.

 

You might want to read these before posting and consider how those in this thread who disagree with you on nearly every point you appear to make here might take your latest contribution.

[Pattern Ghost]

"Deep characterization" is a phallacy in the superhero genre

 

I just want to say that I approve of this Freudian slip or pun, whichever it is.

[zslane]

You are my hero, Pattern Ghost.

[Pattern Ghost]

After reading this thread, I can't tell if I'm heroic or not!

[Christopher R Taylor]

You might want to read these before posting and consider how those in this thread who disagree with you on nearly every point you appear to make here might take your latest contribution. 

 

Forget it, he's rolling