What are your issues with the DCEU Superman?

[Azrael]

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.

I should apologise for unwittingly hijacking the thread with a comment not directly related to the main subject, Cavill's Superman.

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.

I'm not either, these opinions do not affect my own (e.g. I like the SW prequels), you can't totally ignore them, though.

My entire point is that it's like punching a wall, the arguments about the film's dubious morality or choices characters make may lose validity and get ignored if they're accompanied by reasons why the film itself is overall terrible (speaking objectively, detached, well, it isn't). My problem is when it's elevated to levels it doesn't belong to, when it becomes the standard for Batman films. That should be fought, yes.

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.

Word.

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.

Well, I can't be 100% sure because I haven't researched all (major) reviews, but what I've read mostly talked about problems with the film, script etc. not with Batman. I've seen negative reviews praising Affleck and Irons. My perception was that Batman's brutality was criticized by a vocal minority obsessed with the "no kill!" rule. Maybe I was wrong and it's even worse. Groupthink is a real bane, yes.

Not much to add except I overall agree and share the sentiment both for BvS and TDK. Just like with the unfair, constant and matter-of-factly bashing of the SW prequels, the same has happened with BvS in several mainstream outlets (like cracked), and it's sad.

[Dagenspear]

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.

I'm talking about the quality of single movie. BvS doesn't change MOS's quality. Just like TDK doesn't change BB. But again, consequences of plot aren't what I'm talking about. But actual character based consequences. Superman killing Zod has no effect on him in MOS. Also in BvS. But that doesn't matter to MOS. It's not ignoring. It's treating them for what they are: Movies. Not a TV series. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

[Dagenspear]

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.

Word.

The uplifting part is that Batman refuses to let the Joker win and is willing to take the heat. I don't see how it isn't. But it still isn't completely. It's bittersweet. And it fits with Batman's self destructive tendencies. It isn't darker than BvS, because with Batman that's the point. Also, Batman's actively alive. But a majority of the movie is spent talking about how Batman isn't a hero. That's in the end speech. Alfred says it to Rachel. Batman says it. So, I don't know why that's an expectation.

[The Laughing Fish]

My entire point is that it's like punching a wall, the arguments about the film's dubious morality or choices characters make may lose validity and get ignored if they're accompanied by reasons why the film itself is overall terrible (speaking objectively, detached, well, it isn't).

Sorry, but I'm not going to ignore crucial plot points that undermine the whole film. If I think something is wrong, I'll say it. Keep in mind that I've only focused on the last five minutes of the film. Don't get me started on the film's other flaws i.e. Two-Face, Gordon faking his death etc.

If you think these things don't hurt the overall film itself, that's fine. We all have different opinions.

[thecolorsblend]

I'm talking about the quality of single movie.

Yes, I saw that the first time.

BvS doesn't change MOS's quality.

But again, consequences of plot aren't what I'm talking about.

And yet they are what I'm talking about. You're attempting to force a macro-story into a micro-sample. Apart from being nonsensical, I refuse to accept that premise. If you want to view MOS independently of everything else (in spite of the filmmakers' and movie studio's avowed intent), your interpretive framework is objectively wrong.

Superman killing Zod has no effect on him in MOS.

I guess he shouted in pain like that because he stubbed his toe, eh?

Also in BvS. But that doesn't matter to MOS. It's not ignoring. It's treating them for what they are: Movies. Not a TV series.

These movies are stories. These stories are based on comics. Comics frequently tell a serialized story. As episodic as film inherently is, there is nevertheless a macro-story going on. Your refusal to acknowledge that doesn't change the fact that a serialized story has been (and is being) told.

[Dagenspear]

Yes, I saw that the first time.

And yet they are what I'm talking about. You're attempting to force a macro-story into a micro-sample. Apart from being nonsensical, I refuse to accept that premise. If you want to view MOS independently of everything else (in spite of the filmmakers' and movie studio's avowed intent), your interpretive framework is objectively wrong.

I don't why you replied to my comment then if it's not what the same thing I'm talking about. But they're wrong. Stories are told with forward momentum. If it's to be viewed interconnectedly, it has to be immediate. This story is separate from BvS. It doesn't even matter if it was planned, it has no effect on this film. This film is it's own. MOS can enhance BvS with it's interconnection, but not the other way around. Forward momentum doesn't work backwards. You have to slant the angle to make that happen, ala a prequel.

I guess he shouted in pain like that because he stubbed his toe, eh?

He might as well. It lasted about as long as that. What you describe is an immediate reaction. Not an effect. He's not effected in any scene after that by it. It means nothing. And it's inconsistent about meaning nothing, because it pretends it means something.

These movies are stories. These stories are based on comics. Comics frequently tell a serialized story. As episodic as film inherently is, there is nevertheless a macro-story going on. Your refusal to acknowledge that doesn't change the fact that a serialized story has been (and is being) told.

Serialization doesn't matter. It's not a comic. Even a TV series paying off something a year later only works if the seeds of that payoff were planted in the year before or have been slowly building ever since. BvS by it's very nature as a film doesn't have that. Just like TDK can't enhance BB, intention or not, BvS can't enhance MOS. If they had showed Lex taking the body, maybe it could've worked, but they didn't. So, the plot payoff means nothing to MOS. But that has nothing to do with what I'm saying. I'm talking about character. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

[The Laughing Fish]

I know this is sort of going back to the "Superman is just as dark as Batman" complaint which I addressed in my first post in this thread, but another common complaint I've seen aimed at Superman are accusations of how he's being hypocritical for questioning Batman's brutal brand of vigilantism and how he is scaring the common man, when the same can be said of Supes himself.

Personally, I'm not convinced by this notion. One can criticise Superman's recklessness in MOS or feel disappointed at how he's not this omnipotent being who can prevent every disaster possible, but at no point was Clark Kent trying to impose his strength to intimidate others like Batman did. That was why Clark made a point of civil liberties were being interfered when meeting Bruce at Lex's party.

We  see Clark in both Snyder films always doing good and helping people whenever he could, and no matter how much he began to reconsider whether it was worth it, he never backed away from these intentions.  Not once, regardless how many detractors will try to argue otherwise, did he stoop down to a level and delude himself into thinking he is doing something for the greater good like Batman did. In fact, despite telling Lois about nobody could stay good in this world before facing Batman, this proves to be only a momentary lapse by Superman because he still held back and refused to kill Batman throughout the fight. In spite of Lex trying to deconstruct and taint him in every way possible.

[thecolorsblend]

Personally, I'm not convinced by this notion. One can criticise Superman's recklessness in MOS or feel disappointed at how he's not this omnipotent being who can prevent every disaster possible, but at no point was Clark Kent trying to impose his strength to intimidate others like Batman did. That was why Clark made a point of civil liberties were being interfered when meeting Bruce at Lex's party.

This is a really interesting point, tbh. And it's something I hadn't really considered before.

As you say, Clark criticized Batman for violating peoples' civil liberties. Through BVS, we mostly see Superman performing rescues. Even taking down the terrorist who was hassling Lois was done in the context of saving her. We don't really see Superman fight crime in the movies so far. It's almost like he doesn't really think that's his mandate.

People talk a lot about the influence Superman has had on Batman. Specifically, Batman maybe taking a kinder, gentler approach in the future. But a different issue is the influence Batman might have on Superman, where Batman inspires Superman to be more than just a superpowered rescuer. Instead, Superman might take a more active hand in fighting crime himself. Nowhere near as brutally as Batman, obviously, but still fighting crime nevertheless.

I like that. It gives both characters room to grow, it points out legit flaws they both have and it shows them influencing each other's ideas and methods. Neither character is really "right" nor is either one "wrong". They simply grow in office a little bit.

It's a neat idea; I'll enjoy that angle if that's where things go in the future.

[Dagenspear]

I know this is sort of going back to the "Superman is just as dark as Batman" complaint which I addressed in my first post in this thread, but another common complaint I've seen aimed at Superman are accusations of how he's being hypocritical for questioning Batman's brutal brand of vigilantism and how he is scaring the common man, when the same can be said of Supes himself.

Personally, I'm not convinced by this notion. One can criticise Superman's recklessness in MOS or feel disappointed at how he's not this omnipotent being who can prevent every disaster possible, but at no point was Clark Kent trying to impose his strength to intimidate others like Batman did. That was why Clark made a point of civil liberties were being interfered when meeting Bruce at Lex's party.

We  see Clark in both Snyder films always doing good and helping people whenever he could, and no matter how much he began to reconsider whether it was worth it, he never backed away from these intentions.  Not once, regardless how many detractors will try to argue otherwise, did he stoop down to a level and delude himself into thinking he is doing something for the greater good like Batman did. In fact, despite telling Lois about nobody could stay good in this world before facing Batman, this proves to be only a momentary lapse by Superman because he still held back and refused to kill Batman throughout the fight. In spite of Lex trying to deconstruct and taint him in every way possible.

He didn't refuse to kill him because he threw him through a building, knowing that he was a human being. He also didn't care about anything in that fight. As shown by his unwillingness to not only fight Batman to save his mom, but also to tell Batman what's going on. It's such a weird nonsensical situation. Not to mention that, by Lex's standards Superman had already been tainted by his killing of Zod and his framing of him for the deaths of those men at the beginning of the movie. In all honesty, it doesn't matter, because Superman is still causing people to live in fear, so his claims against Batman are still hypocritical. Whether he intends to or not. And he still is brutal, like his slamming of that man through the wall. Yes, to him it's for the greater good, the way he justified going after Batman needlessly and him telling Lois that he didn't kill those men. His recklessness and the intention of it aren't the point. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

[thecolorsblend]

He didn't refuse to kill him because he threw him through a building, knowing that he was a human being.

"Stay down! If I wanted it, you'd be dead already."

Sounds pretty definitive to me.

He also didn't care about anything in that fight. As shown by his unwillingness to not only fight Batman to save his mom, but also to tell Batman what's going on.

Not sure if I'm parsing this correctly or not. But Superman did try reasoning with Batman. He called him "Bruce", he admitted he'd been wrong and tried to explain Lex's scam. But Batman was having none of it. So he wasn't "unwilling" to tell Batman what's going on. Batman simply refused to listen to him.

Not to mention that, by Lex's standards Superman had already been tainted by his killing of Zod and his framing of him for the deaths of those men at the beginning of the movie.

That's the point. There was controversy over Superman but it wasn't a matter of widespread consensus that Superman is dangerous. Some people thought so, others didn't.

Lex saw the blood on Superman's hands and wanted the rest of the world to see it too. So maybe Superman killing Batman would do the job.

the way he justified going after Batman needlessly

If you mean going after Batman as Clark Kent, that's legit news. And, from Clark's standpoint, a serious cause for concern.

and him telling Lois that he didn't kill those men.

And he told the truth. He didn't kill them. Lex's minions did that.