What are your issues with the DCEU Superman?

[Dagenspear]

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.

I was talking about the top statement. The music doesn't matter. The tone being consistent in it and after it do. Actions not having consequences is the exact problem with MOS. The action of killing doesn't have a consequence in SMII either. But it doesn't pretend it will. It just isn't treated hugely. MOS is inconsistent. It wants to give the illusion of consequences. But it doesn't walk the walk in this situation. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

[The Dark Knight]

You're wrong again Dagen. The killing of Zod has a consequence. Have you seen a film called Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice by any chance? It's the direct sequel to Man of Steel. In that film, Lex Luthor takes General Zod's body into his possession and creates Doomsday. The action of killing Zod doesn't have any consequence in Superman III. It's flat out ignored as they move onto a brand new story. Have a very great day!

[The Laughing Fish]

The BvS Ultimate Edition has some slight changes, i.e. Superman destroying a missile drone before coming to Lois' rescue, and Clark's watching the news coverage of the African witness speaking instead of the reporting of Batman's brutal methods.

And they are all improvements in my eyes. At the end of Man of Steel Superman rips a surveillance drone out of the sky and says he will help the government, but on his terms. At the start of BvS UE, Superman destroys a missile drone. The guy doesn't like drones. I like that thematic continuity. By destroying the missile drone he also saves the village, so it kills two birds with one stone. Clark watching the African witness builds up the paid actress plotline which is entirely absent in the Theatrical Cut. Clark still learns about the brandings when Lex sends him the photos later on, so that aspect of the plot isn't ignored anyway. It's a win-win.

Indeed. As I once said, I haven't seen many director's cuts improve the original, but the UE did that. It fills in the gaps left behind in the theatrical version, without radically changing what was already established.

Which brings me to question the argument regarding continuity in SII. Again, I think the debate about the arctic police scene is futile because that scene's omission means neither Lester nor Donner wanted it in continuity, and give the impression the villains met an untimely fate. People can cite what was originally scripted all they want and Donner can speculate 'possibilities' in interviews all he wants, but actions speak louder than words. Not in a final cut of a movie, didn't happen. Tough sh*t.

But for argument's sake, let's say we choose to accept that scene as canon because 'it improves the story'. Okay then. What about scenes that were vastly different in the Donner and Lester cuts, and one finds both each improve on one aspect over the other? What happens if you prefer Jor-El's subplot over the original involving Lara, but prefer the Paris rescue scene over Donner's Daily Planet opening scene? If we're going to deleted count scenes as canon, are we going to do it if it improves the story? Or are we going to hypocritically pick and choose which scenes are canon whenever it suits our liking?

Food for thought.

[Azrael]

Disagree. I think it is a terrible film with really warped messages in morality

I don't disagree with what you say about its dubious morality (I've read many of your posts about the film, and to an extent I agree with several arguments) but try arguing that it's a "terrible film", not to über-fans of the film who look too much into it ("it's important", "it says something" etc etc) and their opinion is anyway too myopic, but to general film buffs, critics etc. There's those who simply rate it highly as a superhero picture (rightly so), but then a few others who take an exciting Batman movie with a captivating Joker and elevate it to Godfather levels of quality, saying it transcends the genre, rendering every Batman movie version that came before as obsolete, forgettable, campy, unimportant. Here's the problem.

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.

Let's face it, a lot of it has more to do both with a few problems the film has and a bit of prejudice towards Snyder's name in the credits than with Batman going blitzkrieg on a few thugs. The Batman aspect of the film was the one less criticized (if you discount a vocal nitpicking minority). The overrated status of TDK played its part too.

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.

Agreed. If you take the ending too seriously. Personally I wrote it off as "rule of drama" - if characters acted smart all the time, there wouldn't be much drama (or sometimes much of a movie) but yes, it could end differently. Anyway, that's why in many cases superhero movies shouldn't be taken too seriously and called crime dramas, especially TDK.

[Dagenspear]

You're wrong again Dagen. The killing of Zod has a consequence. Have you seen a film called Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice by any chance? It's the direct sequel to Man of Steel. In that film, Lex Luthor takes General Zod's body into his possession and creates Doomsday. The action of killing Zod doesn't have any consequence in Superman III. It's flat out ignored as they move onto a brand new story. Have a very great day!

That's not an actual consequence. That's a plot device. It means nothing for Clark's character. But I was talking about MOS, not BvS. What BvS means doesn't change MOS's story or character. Just like SMIII's situation would mean nothing to SMII if it dealt with Zod's death. This isn't a TV series. It's a single film. It enhances the experience of BvS, but it doesn't change MOS's. Just like revealing SHIELD is infiltrated by HYDRA in TWS doesn't make SHIELD having HYDRA weapons in Avengers brilliant. It changes nothing about the movie. The consequences belong to MOS. I'm also talking about character based consequences, not plot consequences.

[thecolorsblend]

Actions not having consequences is the exact problem with MOS. The action of killing doesn't have a consequence in SMII either. But it doesn't pretend it will. It just isn't treated hugely. MOS is inconsistent. It wants to give the illusion of consequences. But it doesn't walk the walk in this situation.

The consequences of Superman killing Zod permeate BVS. The most prominent example is the creation of Doomsday. That wouldn't have been possible without a Kryptonian cadaver to work with. And there wouldn't have been a Kryptonian cadaver without Superman killing Zod back in MOS.

Irrespective, I reject the premise. I believe there's a time and a place for Superman to kill. He isn't human and I think there should be limits to which he should be expected to abide by human law and/or human morality. One example is Superman killing an existential threat.

Zod was an existential threat. If Superman didn't kill Zod, Zod would have killed all of mankind.

Superman made the right call. If anything, he probably waited too long to do it.

Superman doesn't need to kill a car thief or a bank robber or a purse snatcher. We have a criminal justice system ready, willing, able and eager to prosecute those types of cases. All Superman really needs to do in those situations is to detain the suspect until the police arrive. No big deal.

But mankind has literally nothing it can throw at a superpowered Kryptonian. If one ever goes on a rampage, mankind is pretty much screwed. So Superman did what mankind obviously wanted to do but wasn't able.

Try though I might, I can't see how Superman acted in the wrong in MOS.

By contrast, every impression of the Donner and Lester cuts of Superman II indicate that the Zoners died in the Fortress. They'd lost their powers. They were no longer a threat. Superman didn't have to crush Zod's hand into splinters. Superman didn't have to toss Zod across the room like a rag doll and slam him against a wall. Superman didn't have to allow Zod to plummet to what sounded like a grisly death after a long fall.

But he did.

I call Superman's actions in MOS the height of valor and heroism. But his actions in Superman II are virtually always wrong all the time.

[The Dark Knight]

The consequences of Superman killing Zod permeate BVS. The most prominent example is the creation of Doomsday. That wouldn't have been possible without a Kryptonian cadaver to work with. And there wouldn't have been a Kryptonian cadaver without Superman killing Zod back in MOS.

In MoS, Clark screams after he kills Zod. Zod was a monster and he had to be stopped. But nonetheless, Clark killed a fellow Kryptonian. Lois consoles him because she can see his obvious pain. In Superman II, Superman throws Zod down an abyss in the strong likelihood it will kill him. He smiles and Lois gets in on the act too. There is no remorse at all. Given both of these actions take place at the very end of the film, the runtime to explore the consequences is limited.  But Cavill's Superman at least makes a point to show he's upset. You can mentally build on something like that. The last of his kind alone again, etc. And as said, we also have BvS. Getting impaled by a spike means everything for Clark because it kills him.

They'd lost their powers. They were no longer a threat. Superman didn't have to crush Zod's hand into splinters. Superman didn't have to toss Zod across the room like a rag doll and slam him against a wall. Superman didn't have to allow Zod to plummet to what sounded like a grisly death after a long fall.

Exactly.

I don't have a problem with Superman doing this to Zod in Superman II because I find it satisfying. But facts are Superman didn't have to treat Zod in this way. In that moment, Zod was no different to Hackman's Lex. Would it have been okay if Superman threw Lex against the wall too? There was no threat. Superman was all powerful and Zod was all weak. In Man of Steel, Superman had to treat Zod in this way because they were both superpowered. Who has the better excuse for taking lethal action? It's not Reeve's Superman.

[Dagenspear]

The consequences of Superman killing Zod permeate BVS. The most prominent example is the creation of Doomsday. That wouldn't have been possible without a Kryptonian cadaver to work with. And there wouldn't have been a Kryptonian cadaver without Superman killing Zod back in MOS.

BvS isn't MOS. I'm talking about MOS.

Irrespective, I reject the premise. I believe there's a time and a place for Superman to kill. He isn't human and I think there should be limits to which he should be expected to abide by human law and/or human morality. One example is Superman killing an existential threat.

Zod was an existential threat. If Superman didn't kill Zod, Zod would have killed all of mankind.

Superman made the right call. If anything, he probably waited too long to do it.

Superman doesn't need to kill a car thief or a bank robber or a purse snatcher. We have a criminal justice system ready, willing, able and eager to prosecute those types of cases. All Superman really needs to do in those situations is to detain the suspect until the police arrive. No big deal.

But mankind has literally nothing it can throw at a superpowered Kryptonian. If one ever goes on a rampage, mankind is pretty much screwed. So Superman did what mankind obviously wanted to do but wasn't able.

Try though I might, I can't see how Superman acted in the wrong in MOS.

By contrast, every impression of the Donner and Lester cuts of Superman II indicate that the Zoners died in the Fortress. They'd lost their powers. They were no longer a threat. Superman didn't have to crush Zod's hand into splinters. Superman didn't have to toss Zod across the room like a rag doll and slam him against a wall. Superman didn't have to allow Zod to plummet to what sounded like a grisly death after a long fall.

But he did.

I call Superman's actions in MOS the height of valor and heroism. But his actions in Superman II are virtually always wrong all the time.

In MoS, Clark screams after he kills Zod. Zod was a monster and he had to be stopped. But nonetheless, Clark killed a fellow Kryptonian. Lois consoles him because she can see his obvious pain. In Superman II, Superman throws Zod down an abyss in the strong likelihood it will kill him. He smiles and Lois gets in on the act too. There is no remorse at all. Given both of these actions take place at the very end of the film, the runtime to explore the consequences is limited.  But Cavill's Superman at least makes a point to show he's upset. You can mentally build on something like that. The last of his kind alone again, etc. And as said, we also have BvS. Getting impaled by a spike means everything for Clark because it kills him.

Exactly.

I don't have a problem with Superman doing this to Zod in Superman II because I find it satisfying. But facts are Superman didn't have to treat Zod in this way. In that moment, Zod was no different to Hackman's Lex. Would it have been okay if Superman threw Lex against the wall too? There was no threat. Superman was all powerful and Zod was all weak. In Man of Steel, Superman had to treat Zod in this way because they were both superpowered. Who has the better excuse for taking lethal action? It's not Reeve's Superman.

That has nothing to do with the tone, story or character structure consistency. The morality have the situation wasn't being discussed. The quality in writing was. I'm not calling him wrong. I'm calling it poorly written.

[thecolorsblend]

BvS isn't MOS. I'm talking about MOS.

And I'm talking about characters in both movies, a still-unfolding story and the progression of that story. While I understand your desire to limit the discussion to issues you think better bolster your point, I refuse to cooperate because there's a larger narrative unspooling here and it's myopic to focus only on one part of a bigger whole as you are attempting to do.

[The Laughing Fish]

I don't disagree with what you say about its dubious morality (I've read many of your posts about the film, and to an extent I agree with several arguments)

Let me take this opportunity to apologise up front for being repetitive about this subject. I know it can be annoying that I say the same thing over again, but it's something I feel strongly about.

but try arguing that it's a "terrible film", not to über-fans of the film who look too much into it ("it's important", "it says something" etc etc) and their opinion is anyway too myopic, but to general film buffs, critics etc.

I'm not swayed by what film buffs and critics say. Especially if they're the same people who criticise something like BvS for its dark tone, characterisation, story structure and so forth, when all those things are not only present in TDK, but they're much worse. It doesn't make sense how the latter gets overlooked for this, there's a massive disparity in critical judgment going on there.

But even as a turn-off-your-brain, popcorn blockbuster, I don't think TDK succeeds in that area either because it doesn't hold up in rudimentary storytelling. Each Nolan film, especially TDK, made it specifically clear that Batman believed in a certain set of rules and beliefs, and then he does a 360 degree turn without logic at all. Nor does he actually learn from the experience or become better for it, which makes it even more frustrating.

People can criticise BvS all they want about whether or not Batman should've done this, or Superman should've done that, but they managed to redeem themselves in the end. Some may dismiss Superman's arc by dismiss him as "beaten up for the sake of being a Christ figure", but it shows that no matter how much the world might have doubted him, he still committed a selfless act to save it. That is a Superman trait by itself. Batman in particular actually learned from his mistakes, recovered from his blind rage and showed his gratitude and guilt for Superman's sacrifice by trying to start the Justice League. It's because of how these arcs ended in such a positive note that I could tolerate whatever issues I had with how they behaved earlier on as a "rule of drama", to borrow your term.

TDK doesn't have that mitigating factor to me (frankly, nor does the rest of the trilogy). Some fans try to defend the ending by arguing Batman taking the fall proves that the Joker won from an ideological point of view, which I don't buy one bit. But even if that were true, then how in the hell can anybody call that ending uplifting and heroic? That's much darker than what we saw in BvS.

Let me make myself clear that I don't think BvS is a masterpiece either (although I do think it's misunderstood). Otherwise, I wouldn't have started this thread inviting an open conversation about Cavill's Superman, never mind sharing my own critique of how he's written so far.

The Batman aspect of the film was the one less criticized (if you discount a vocal nitpicking minority).

Are you sure about that? I've read a lot of reviews from online publications complaining about this aspect of the story, conveniently forgetting that B&R is the only film to date where he doesn't kill anyone. You'd be surprised how powerful groupthink is.