BvS Video Essay - Allegory & Allusion

[Dagenspear]

My favourite allusion would have to be at 1:35 in the second video, where Superman rescues Lex from Doomsday's punch as a callback to "no man from the sky ever saved me from daddy's fists and abominations". That was the most satisfying Superman moment I've seen on film in a long time, until we get to see his heroics in the ending.

But whatever, Superman isn't a hero in the DCEU, right?

He can be a hero and not be a good hero. Though I don't get the impressiveness of that moment. Zex/Doomsday isn't Lex's father and Superman isn't God like Lex was whining about, so it doesn't hold real weight at all.

Fans of BvS - especially the ultimate edition, are in on one of the comic book world's greatest secrets. The detail and depth Snyder puts into his films is really remarkable. People who dismiss the film for whatever reason are ignoring the masterpiece that is is.

Allegory and allusions don't make a movie good. Those can enhance the movie's experience, but proper character construction, well done character building and cohesive storytelling is what makes a movie good.

People had something else in mind for the first film between the two characters, and in my opinion, they weren't willing to give it a fair chance because of it. Superman was killed off too early! They should've been friends and had a World's Finest team-up! The tone was too dark! Batman shouldn't kill! Superman was too serious! Lex can't be like this!

The characters not being properly adapted is a legitimate issue to have with a movie that is adapting source material. Hence why complaints that Uncle Ben not being directly talked about in SM: H aren't wrong, to a point. Saying that that single detail makes the movie bad isn't true, but it is a bigger problem the movie has. If you ask an audience to ignore the characters, the relationships and stories they know and understand to accept the new version of them, then you might as well not call the movie or the characters the names of the characters that's being adapted. Though there is a line in adaption to take with certain characters, usually villains, in how they're altered, where you can change many things about them. The difference is whether or not the writing is good and whether or not the changes are dumb and needless. For instance: Smallville pretty aggressively changed a lot of Lex's backstory, took away his specific science genius, gave his comic backstory to his dad, Lionel, a brand new character, added loads of tragedy, sympathy and twisted family dynamics as a character and made him rich from birth. They even changed his reasoning of hatred against Superman in a few ways, shifting from perception of Superman making humanity weak, into a fearfulness of aliens, jealousy of Clark's life and family, a feeling of inferiority from Clark never trusting him and failure of Clark to save him from his own darkness, due to Lex wrongly putting Clark up on pedestal, with Lex always falsely thinking that Clark's acceptance of him would make him better and wouldn't Clark couldn't possibly live up to that, Lex feeling betrayed. The complicated character dynamics of the whole situation were all very different from any Lex I've seen. So much hugely different from Lex's comic character. But you know what? People loved it. Micheal Rosenbaum's Lex Luthor is generally thought of as the best adaption of Lex Luthor there is. That's because the writing for him and for his story was so good. People will accept changes generally if the material is good. The problem is that no matter how many clever allegories or philosophizing you have a character or a movie talk about, and Smallville had Lex and Lionel do this all the time, if the character is bad, and/or is driven by theme instead of character, the characters will be generally looked on as not very good and thus the bigger audience will be annoyed, bored, uncaring or angry about the characters, and for those that know of comic lore, the changes to the character, because the changes aren't good.

But my problem with the biggest detractors of this movie, and MOS, is I've noticed the majority who championed the darkness and deconstruction of certain films in the past - regardless if those particular films even stand up to honest scrutiny or not - suddenly see these words as dirty and want 'fun'. How convenient. I don't mean to tar everybody in the same brush, but when I hear buzzwords i.e. 'fun', I often wonder to myself if people are pandering to groupthink. The fact that Batman killing is still an issue when every film except for only ONE do the same thing in the past twenty eight years is a massive red alert that people are getting influenced.

A movie can be dark, deconstructive and fun. Batman doesn't kill Batman Forever. And people can easily have a problem with Batman killing, even though he's killed in other versions, when that killing is frivolous, needless, is never addressed and when he tries to murder Superman by stabbing him in the face with kryptonite spear just because he exists. Certain People may accept a Batman who kills and not like it or accept it for adaptive purposes (like B89/BR) or simply appreciate thr movie tries to have a Batman who doesn't want to kill and may or may not have a rule against it but will in defense of others (TDKT, because Batman's never faced with having to kill Joker to save lives in TDK), but they won't accept a Batman who is a wholesale villain. This goes back to accepting changes when they're good or at least doesn't massively go against the character. BvS doesn't do that. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

[thecolorsblend]

Though I don't get the impressiveness of that moment. Zex/Doomsday isn't Lex's father and Superman isn't God like Lex was whining about, so it doesn't hold real weight at all.

The entire idea of metaphor is lost on you, isn't it?

[Dagenspear]

Though I don't get the impressiveness of that moment. Zex/Doomsday isn't Lex's father and Superman isn't God like Lex was whining about, so it doesn't hold real weight at all.

The entire idea of metaphor is lost on you, isn't it?

I understand the symbolism, but the meaning of it doesn't hold much weight for me I'm sorry. If I'm supposed to connect that to the daddy's fists line, it doesn't have any meaning for me because there isn't a metaphor at play here. The characters and movie are literally trying to state that Clark is a god or is God. It's just a completely false statement by all accounts. Not to mention that son hitting father isn't applicable to father hitting son at all, from a metaphorical standpoint. Same with trying to compare Superman to God. There's nothing there. God is an all powerful being who created all life and the universe. Superman is an alien. Maybe a comparison between mythical greek gods, but THE actual REAL God? No way.

[thecolorsblend]

I understand the symbolism, but the meaning of it doesn't hold much weight for me I'm sorry. If I'm supposed to connect that to the daddy's fists line, it doesn't have any meaning for me because there isn't a metaphor at play here. The characters and movie are literally trying to state that Clark is a god or is God. It's just a completely false statement by all accounts. Not to mention that son hitting father isn't applicable to father hitting son at all, from a metaphorical standpoint. Same with trying to compare Superman to God. There's nothing there. God is an all powerful being who created all life and the universe. Superman is an alien. Maybe a comparison between mythical greek gods, but THE actual REAL God? No way.

See, you claim to get the point. Then literally everything you say thereafter proves you missed the point. Your post above is the latest example but by no means is it the only one.

Lex complained earlier that nobody saved him from fists. Later, Superman saved him from a fist.

I mean, this isn't rocket science, bro. If I was trying to break down Kierkegaard or particle physics or something, yeah, I could understand not getting it. But Superman saving Lex from a fist isn't exactly Kierkegaard or particle physics. It's pretty straight forward, actually. Superman saved Lex from a fist. Some things really are that simple.

[Dagenspear]

See, you claim to get the point. Then literally everything you say thereafter proves you missed the point. Your post above is the latest example but by no means is it the only one.

Lex complained earlier that nobody saved him from fists. Later, Superman saved him from a fist.

I mean, this isn't rocket science, bro. If I was trying to break down Kierkegaard or particle physics or something, yeah, I could understand not getting it. But Superman saving Lex from a fist isn't exactly Kierkegaard or particle physics. It's pretty straight forward, actually. Superman saved Lex from a fist. Some things really are that simple.

The idea I get, but the meaning doesn't hold much weight to me. He said he wasn't saved from his daddy's fists. Doomsday isn't his dad. I don't understand the comparison. There's no need to be snippy at me about it. I'm not belittling you about your understanding of the situation.

[The Laughing Fish]

Lex complained earlier that nobody saved him from fists. Later, Superman saved him from a fist.

Not to interrupt your conversation, but the moment where Superman saves Lex from Doomsday shows how virtuous he really is. If he really was this completely tainted, vengeful shell of a man that people think he is, he could've easily let Lex feel the brunt Doomsday's punch, and let him die. Instead, he performs a merciful act and battles Doomsday to protect mankind. Starting with the rescue of an ungrateful man who has been orchestrating his demise.

Sadly, this gets completely lost in translation by those who deride Superman for being, as one moron on Twitter described, a 'sulking asshole'.

[Dagenspear]

Not to interrupt your conversation, but the moment where Superman saves Lex from Doomsday shows how virtuous he really is. If he really was this completely tainted, vengeful shell of a man that people think he is, he could've easily let Lex feel the brunt Doomsday's punch, and let him die. Instead, he performs a merciful act and battles Doomsday to protect mankind. Starting with the rescue of an ungrateful man who has been orchestrating his demise.

Sadly, this gets completely lost in translation by those who deride Superman for being, as one moron on Twitter described, a 'sulking asshole'.

Now this works. However he is still a vengeful shell of a man and a sulking cuss word. But he's also virtuous in this moment and that holds weight for me, where the daddy's fists thing doesn't.

[thecolorsblend]

The idea I get, but the meaning doesn't hold much weight to me. He said he wasn't saved from his daddy's fists. Doomsday isn't his dad. I don't understand the comparison. There's no need to be snippy at me about it. I'm not belittling you about your understanding of the situation.

Here we are with you once again. "If two things aren't exactly the same that must mean they're totally different".

Believe what you want.

[Dagenspear]

Here we are with you once again. "If two things aren't exactly the same that must mean they're totally different".

Believe what you want.

Not totally different. Just lacking the weight that the situation implies. Superman isn't protecting child from his abusive dad. He's protecting a madman from his monster. It holds a different weight and meaning than daddy's fists that @The Laughing Fish pointed out. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

[thecolorsblend]

Not totally different. Just lacking the weight that the situation implies. Superman isn't protecting child from his abusive dad. He's protecting a madman from his monster.

Translation- "If they're not the exact same, they're totally different!!"

Metaphor. Symbolism. These are lost on you.