What are your issues with the DCEU Superman?

[Dagenspear]

One thing that Man of Steel brought out was the idea that it's okay to dislike Superman II. A lot of Donnerphiles resent comparing Superman killing Zod in Superman II (which is what he did) and Superman killing Zod in MOS. And their counter-argument to that is actually really persuasive and articulate. "Shut up."

That's not true. As someone who isn't a fan, I state that the difference is tone, atmosphere and storytelling/character structure. SMII kills Zod, but the movie doesn't treat it like a death, nobody freaks out or has a breakdown. The movie doesn't treat it like something awful and then ignore it. It treats like an action hero moment. Not good Superman adapting, fine, but consistent with the character and story. Same with Burton's Batman. He's a homicidal vigilante. But the movie doesn't treat it like he's this huge awful thing, until he interferes with police. They don't care about anything else he does. He messes up, by getting Jack 'killed' and the police go after him because Gordon wanted to use him against Grissom. In parallel, BvS Batman is being hunted by Superman for branding people. The movie sets a precedent for the fact that Superman takes issue with this. And the movie expects us to look at Batman with some form of disdain I guess for this action. Hence the no brand at the end. But the movie also wants us to see this as a new thing for him. But no one treats it like it is. Alfred doesn't stop Bruce and try to talk some sense into his homicidal maniac of a supposed friend. He jumps on him for Superman. But not for anything else he does that's bad. Branding criminals is mean, but it's not bad really. Batman kills people here pointlessly and in contradiction to his goal and no one says a word. It doesn't matter. But we're supposed to care that he brands. Now, let's lay the one rule out here for everyone in BB, because that's important: Batman in this does not have an aversion to killing if there's no other options in a situation to save himself and/or someone else. He continues this into TDK. In a situation where he's outnumbered he sets off an explosion that could get people killed and does get at least 1 person killed. He pushed Harvey off the side. Now, in these situations, does he intend to kill them? There's nothing to suggest that. But he states his goal in BB and it's: I will not become an executioner. His actions here aren't that. They're actions in defense of someone else and/or himself. Same with the Ra's situation, if you'd count that as in the same vein, because factually Ra's stabbed the console and messed up the train himself. And in another connection the chase scene in TDKR. These are consistent rules for the character that line up. Same with Burton and even with Donner. Batman doesn't have a break down about getting those men killed and then is cool with it in the next scene and Alfred isn't about to get onto Bruce for branding and then never say a word about killing, in B's or N's. Now, this is the direct MOS connection: In D's Superman, he kills Zod in a non violent, vague way and an issue isn't created out of it and in the next scenes it's consistent with that. In MOS, he kills Zod in a violent, overly in your face way that's meant to be uncomfortable presumably, and Superman cries out in pain and Lois cradles him as he cries and then in the next scene everything is light and Superman is cool and smug and a woman calls him hot. It's the problem with the scene before that too. Superman saves Lois and lands in the middle of the crater and is surrounded by people being crushed by rubble and people in ash and Superman and Lois makeout, then crack a joke. Then Zod shows up and they fight and Superman is devestated and broken and then he's totes cool. That's the problem. Not to mention that the reason for having it done was nonsense.

At least Superman in MOS has excuses. He was either a rookie or else he was up against an existential threat and had to take life. Those experiences shaped him. He'll do better next time.

That's a issue it: It's not a reason. It's an excuse to have this happen. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

[The Dark Knight]

[The Laughing Fish]

I can't deny the thrill I got from seeing Bruce Wayne represented so accurately on screen in Batman Begins and The Dark Knight.

It's not a perfect depiction by any means – no live action version is – but it came satisfyingly close and ticked most of the important boxes.

We must have seen two different sets of films then. All I saw was a cheap James Bond knock-off with a sore threat, who consistently betrayed his principles for no reason and in the second film put the entire town in harm's way because of his recklessness, despite his convictions of morality. That doesn't scream "Batman" to me.

It was especially rewarding for die hard comic fans to see Nolan address characteristics that were flat out ignored by Burton and Schumacher (Bruce training his body to peak condition, Batman interrogating criminals and visiting crime scenes to gather evidence, meeting with Gordon on the roof of the GCPD HQ, suddenly disappearing in the middle of conversations, etc).

Disagree with the crime scenes. As I alluded to before, nearly all of the detective work needed Lucius Fox's help, who was the equivalent of Q in this series (hell in some cases, he did ALL of the detective work), and a lot of the crime scene investigations, i.e. the bullet scene in TDK, had little to no impact whatsoever. It certainly didn't undermine the Joker in any significant way, and if you remove that scene, it wouldn't have changed the film at all. It all came across as pointless fan service, at best. And honestly, apart from interrogating Flass, this Batman didn't get that far either.

Besides, did you forget that Burton's Batman investigated which chemicals the Joker had tainted to create the Smilex poison, or Affleck's Batman investigated the White Portuguese ship and uncovered the Kryptonite (even though it appeared that's what Lex wanted all along)?

To quote Denny O'Neil, one of the greatest Batman writers of all time and the greatest Batman editor:

"I can answer that in two words: Christopher Nolan. I created one of the characters in the first and third, so you would expect me to be pretty picky about it. And about halfway through that script I thought: 'My God, he's doing it better than I did. He really gets this character... why the hell didn't I think of this?' He is a man who has great respect for the source material – that's not always been true – and a master of his own craft."
http://screenrant.com/best-batman-movie-version-comic-book-writers/

Oh, bloody hell. So an incompetent Batman who endangers an entire town with his inconsistent moral stance and telling a lie to protect a psychopath's reputation that eventually backfires spectacularly, is O'Neil's idea for "respecting the source material" or "getting the character"? If somebody like Zack Snyder did that, people would've threatened to murder him. But if Nolan does it, he's a "master of his craft"? Please.

Dennis O'Neill is without a doubt a great writer - The Joker's Five Way Revenge is one of my favourite Joker stories of all time, but I wouldn't take anything he says here so seriously. He's one of those people who looks at Nolan's stuff with rose-tinted glasses. It's pretty sad that he actually believes that Nolan bested his own work. He's really selling himself so short there. Even his worst Batman story is better than this crap.

That movie is full of material taken from the comics.

That's nice and all, but to borrow a popular rebuttal by people who hated BvS, it counts very little if the story is a "terrible mess".

[Azrael]

The Nolan films are already much celebrated by the mainstream, often overrated to absurd heights. They need their criticism to add some perspective.

TDK is great, its importance to the Batman franchise can't be overstated, but it's not a masterpiece and its flaws are made even more obvious when a few people pretend it is something which blatantly isn't.

It's an entertaining comic book action/adventure film with a serious tone, "grounded" non-stylized visuals and a powerhouse performance by Heath Ledger, not a "genre transcending" crime drama.

This is why it made a billion and had an entire generation of teens dressing up as Ledger's Joker. It was mostly enjoyed as a thrilling ride, not a philosophy lecture.

[Silver Nemesis]

TDK is great, its importance to the Batman franchise can't be overstated, but it's not a masterpiece and its flaws are made even more obvious when a few people pretend it is something which blatantly isn't.

It's an entertaining comic book action/adventure film with a serious tone, "grounded" non-stylized visuals and a powerhouse performance by Heath Ledger, not a "genre transcending" crime drama.

This is why it made a billion and had an entire generation of teens dressing up as Ledger's Joker. It was mostly enjoyed as a thrilling ride, not a philosophy lecture.

^ A fair and balanced assessment. I don't disagree with any of this.

[thecolorsblend]

In D's Superman, he kills Zod in a non violent, vague way and an issue isn't created out of it and in the next scenes it's consistent with that.

Torturing someone by crushing his hand into powder, slamming him against a wall and allowing him to plummet to a likely grisly death isn't "violent"?

I guess if you blare the Williams hero theme loud enough, it's possible to overlook anything.

[The Dark Knight]

I didn't read that wall o' text, so thanks for trimming a more manageable quote from it, colors. Killing someone is a 'non violent way' is a most curious turn of phrase. I take it the person on the receiving end of the 'non violent' method still ends up dead?

[The Laughing Fish]

TDK is great, its importance to the Batman franchise can't be overstated, but it's not a masterpiece and its flaws are made even more obvious when a few people pretend it is something which blatantly isn't.

Disagree. I think it is a terrible film with really warped messages in morality that has sadly invited hypocritical biases when it comes to Batman on screen, which has done a lot of damage as we've seen with the overblown critical backlash towards Batman's characterisation in BvS.

The sad thing is, it COULD'VE been salvaged if Nolan stayed consistent to Batman's principles. Particularly if he didn't lie about Two-Face in the end. A good ending would've made me appreciate the film much better than I do today. That's the hardest thing I'll never get over.

[Dagenspear]

I didn't read that wall o' text, so thanks for trimming a more manageable quote from it, colors. Killing someone is a 'non violent way' is a most curious turn of phrase. I take it the person on the receiving end of the 'non violent' method still ends up dead?

Torturing someone by crushing his hand into powder, slamming him against a wall and allowing him to plummet to a likely grisly death isn't "violent"?

I guess if you blare the Williams hero theme loud enough, it's possible to overlook anything.

Honestly, yes. Not aggressive, heavy or dark. The tone is one of action hero placement. Like Batman in BR setting a bad guy on fire with his batmobile. Superman just defeated the bad guys and that's it. The movie doesn't treat it like something hugely awful, so the audience doesn't. MOS does and then ignores it. It trains the audience to feel horrified by the moment and then betrays them for it in the next scene by having Superman be happy go lucky. It's inconsistent. We never see Zod die in SMII so the audience doesn't feel like he did. It doesn't make the audience feel it. Call it cheap, call it a cop out, it likely is, but it's consistent with itself.

[thecolorsblend]

Hm. So it looks like the takeaway lesson here is that it's okay for one fictional character to kill another fictional character. The key issues are to blast the Williams Superman theme in the background and instantly forget that the character just took someone else's life. After all, actions never have consequences (anybody who says otherwise is lying or selling something, eh?) so it's best to just do whatever and forget about it as quickly as possible.

Got it.