What are your issues with the DCEU Superman?

[The Dark Knight]

I really dig Supes as a badass. This whole STAS plotline is fantastic, but I'm going to use the first 23 seconds of this clip:

Love it. Superman isn't always this head in the clouds dreamer like some people think.

[The Laughing Fish]

I really dig Supes as a badass. This whole STAS plotline is fantastic, but I'm going to use the first 23 seconds of this clip:

Love it. Superman isn't always this head in the clouds dreamer like some people think.

Ah yes, Darkseid brainwashing Superman. Let's remember fans have theorised that the evil Superman in the Knightmare sequence was a result of Darkseid's doing.

[The Dark Knight]

And this has to be posted, given the moaning about MoS's ending.

[The Laughing Fish]

Going back to the Superman rescue montage sequence, I read a tweet from some nobody who called the entire scene, starting off with the Day of the Dead crowd worshipping Superman, as "one of the most cringeworthy and ham-fisted scenes in superhero cinema history".

I don't see how. That scene was a juxtaposition between those who saw Superman as a guardian angel and those debate his existence. In any case, Superman was uncomfortable with the complicated and diverse public opinion. Without it, Superman's arc would be cheapened. If I could criticise one thing about this entire sequence, I'd say it wasn't long enough for my liking.

[thecolorsblend]

Mechanically I think the scene is in the movie because, let's face it, we need more rescues and whatnot in the movie.

Textually it highlights the ramifications of Superman's actions.

Meta-textually, as Fish says, it illustrates the vast diversity of opinion caused by his actions.

As far as character, also like Fish says, it plays up Superman's own reaction to how the press treats him.

George Lucas, of all people, once said that a movie scene can't accomplish just one thing. It needs to accomplish at least two things. That's how economical storytelling gets done.

The Day of the Dead sequence and the following montage accomplishes at least those things above. And maybe more I'm forgetting about. Anybody who doesn't recognize that is just kidding himself. I can understand not enjoying the execution of it, since that's rather subjective anyway. But there's no arguing it doesn't elegantly accomplish those things.

[The Laughing Fish]

And this has to be posted, given the moaning about MoS's ending.

Putting that example aside for a moment, I'm no longer convinced that the collateral damage in MOS is a totally reasonable complaint now that Captain America: Civil War has established that the Avengers are scrutinised and condemned for causing their own collateral damage throughout the MCU.

Personally, I still have my issues with some of the collateral damage in the film e.g. Superman plowing Zod right into a gas station which started the whole battle in Smallville (oddly enough I don't see too many critics complaining when Superman was directly responsible for causing damage!), and I think Snyder missed a glorious opportunity in not filming a sequence where Superman uses his strength to prevent the Fortress of Solitude from crashing into Metropolis. But despite this, all this destruction is not something unseen before in Superman media. Even Supes in Superman II was guilty of causing a bit of damage.

[The Dark Knight]

Superman flying through the gas station is reckless, to be sure. But I put that down to passion and inexperience. On the whole though, property damage doesn't seem to phase Superman that much when he's in the process of rescuing someone or fighting a villain. I've been watching the Justice League cartoon quite a bit lately - which is sensational. And Superman doesn't fool around. He often punches down doors and charges through walls. Nothing stops him from moving forward in his goal. If Snyder could only ever do one thing for the character, I'd always take re-establishing Superman as a physical hero who does punch, get angry and cause mess from time to time. It was divisive, but Snyder started the conversation. The public and fan base were way too used to the Reeve way as the only way.

On the whole, I truly don't grasp why some fans see Dawn of Justice as Snyder himself hating Superman. Sure, the character has a hard time via Bruce, the media and Lex. But that does not reflect Snyder's real world feelings. Snyder is merely exploring the character three dimensionally and utilising social commentary. It's entirely natural for Clark to question himself and his crusade. That doesn't make him weak, that makes him human.

It's as if any character flaw or growth equals disrespect. I just don't accept that point of view. Superman came back and saved the world in the end anyway. I think Superman will be more at ease from now on, largely due to being accepted by the world. But in any case, I see BvS as completely valid, interesting and necessary in the long run.

[thecolorsblend]

I think the destruction is there primarily as eye-candy. It's Snyder saying "Man, isn't this COOL?" Thinking about it beyond that is probably missing the point.

[The Laughing Fish]

I've heard of some bizarre complaints from critics since this movie came out. Some of them accuse Superman of being narcissistic (FFS, HOW?!  ), others claim Superman and Batman suddenly became "best buddies" after their fight, and so on. But what's more bizarre is people still wondering why would Batman view Superman as a threat in the first place.

When MOS came out, there was backlash over Superman "destroying Metropolis and causing collateral damage". I remember watching some hyperactive fools on YouTube complain passionately that the S did not stand for hope, but it stood for destruction instead. These people had an enormous distaste for Superman and didn't care about him at all. But what makes it even more astonishing to me is a lot of these people didn't have any sympathy for Batman having such a prejudiced view of Superman. If anything, I'd say Batman in this film represents as an avatar to the audience who deeply hated MOS and have a lot of things in common with those type of people.

BvS established Batman as a witness to the destruction and deems Superman responsible from his point of view. He believes that nobody with such power could ever remain good and must be destroyed, and like the haters in the audience, completely ignored all the good deeds that Superman continues to do. Before realising that he was the one who was on the verge of becoming evil at the end of the fight, Batman deemed Superman with extreme distaste and didn't regard him as a god or a man, much like the haters. To me, it seems there is a contradiction between the complaints for Superman in the DCEU and not understanding the premise behind Batman's opposition towards him in BvS. And it's not something that critics themselves have seemed to realise.

[The Laughing Fish]

Just when I thought couldn't see any more idiocy on display, I saw somebody on Twitter post this rubbish while on the subject of Matthew Vaughn directing the Superman sequel:

https://twitter.com/SuperheroSpot/status/842283083663519744

Henry Cavill's Superman is missing a heart. This scene is why Matthew Vaughn would be a fantastic director for Man of Steel 2.

What scene is he referring to exactly? He's talking about this scene in Kick-Ass.

First of all, how in the f*** can anybody refer to something as vile as Kick-Ass as having any heart? That was a film where a ten year old girl and her father dress up as a dynamic duo team brutally killing people, and the same girl got herself beaten up violently by a grown man. Apparently, the idiot wrote this somehow missed Superman's sacrifice to save the planet in BvS. Yeah, that scene certainly doesn't compare to the idiot in the green costume getting his ass beaten by punks in Kick-Ass. Superman is such a bastard.

Seriously, why is it that when it comes to a lot of people talking about DC Comics-based films, whether it's past films or in the DCEU, they tend to show signs of suffering from some kind of mental disorder?