DC Comics on Film

[barryconvex]

Affleck is the least of this movie's problems. Cavill is a really solid superman imo...maybe he's not a classically trained, julliard type actor like reeves was but he gets the job done.

[barryconvex]

The solution to this "problem" is just to make his various opponents stronger.

how much stronger can they get than general zod?

[Luke M]

I think the problem with leveling up villains is the inevitable orgy of cgi meant to resemble a fight scene.

[barryconvex]

To say that Superman cannot be pulled off doesn't make sense to me, since Donner did it. Superman has been popular on screen for a very long time, including the old George Reeves TV show and dozens of cartoons and movies. Superman is a good subject for a film, if done correctly.

donner's versions were from the late 70s and the tv show is from the 50s. i don't really know anything about the animated stuff outside of the old justice league saturday morning show from the 70s-80s. the thing those have in common was they took place in a more genteel era of america's recent past and there was no competition from a dozen other superhero franchises. bryan singer tried playing it this way with the forced nostalgia and he failed miserably. now nolan and snyder seem intent on darkening superman to adapt him to a more cynical era but this puts the character between a rock and a hard place as it means turning a blind eye to the things that made him so iconic a figure to begin with but also leaves him vulnerable to more modern sensibilities.

i guess digging up kryptonite and lex luthor for the nth time is as good a place to start as any if you're launching an expensive new franchise and want to play it safe but is this really the way to bring superman into the good graces of a younger generation? nolan and snyder seem caught between the past and the present more than anything with this approach and the movie is neither fish nor fowl because of it. i get it, there's a shit ton of money on the line and they can't get too radical but give me something...anything!! yes, its definitely possible to make a good superman movie, but i'm not really sure how based on what nolan/snyder seem to have in mind for the character and for the reasons inherent i mentioned before. but maybe they could cast eddie murphy in the richard pryor role from superman III for the next one?

[matrixschmatrix]

The DCAU Superman cartoon- which happened in the 90s, but the character stretched into the animated Justice League which ended in the mid 2000s- was really excellent, and gave a somewhat more complex and less naive Superman without trying to go all Frank Miller on it. I think what helped there is that they weren't CONSTANTLY trying to tell the biggest story imaginable with the character; it's hard to escape from the constant cycle of origin stories, big climactic conclusions, or city destroying mega conflicts in superhero film right now, but I think Superman perversely benefits from having some stuff that's just like, I dunno, Luthor runs for president and it bugs Superman because it's a problem he can't punch. Fair sized stakes, yes, but no need for it to be a thing where tens or hundreds of thousands are dying.

Alternately, you could go full out and do some Fourth World Jack Kirby stuff, where Superman isn't the only cosmic power around.

[flyonthewall2983]

Edit: Nevermind.

[knives]

I think, and the DCAU does this excellently as well, what Supes works best as is a melodramatic character who happens to work in an action world. All-Star Superman is the best comic work on this level, but making the story about his interpersonal relations with Lois, Lana, Perry, Jimmy, Ma and Pa, and whoever else you can consider with the action scenes subservient to that like a musical to the emotions. That's what makes Luthor such a great villain to Mr. All God here. He makes for terrible action scenes, but as an exposure of Superman's insecurities and a face to Man's fears of something higher then them. What you need is less a Snyder and more a Douglas Sirk.

[movielocke]

apropos of nothing, on Letterboxed this has an average rating of 2.9 out of 5.0 from 8700+ reviews--that is a lower average rating than Maidstone! (3.0 out of 5.0 from 49 reviews)

[domino harvey]

Because my real name is frequently associated with Superman, I sometimes get asked about things like this movie. Today my mail guy asked me if I saw this yet. I said I hadn't and he gave me his review: "I loved it. I mean, I fell asleep at the beginning but I eventually woke up. I hope I didn't miss too much."

[cdnchris]

Because my real name is frequently associated with Superman, I sometimes get asked about things like this movie. Today my mail guy asked me if I saw this yet. I said I hadn't and he gave me his review: "I loved it. I mean, I fell asleep at the beginning but I eventually woke up. I hope I didn't miss too much."

Sounds awesome

[Luke M]

Because my real name is frequently associated with Superman, I sometimes get asked about things like this movie. Today my mail guy asked me if I saw this yet. I said I hadn't and he gave me his review: "I loved it. I mean, I fell asleep at the beginning but I eventually woke up. I hope I didn't miss too much."

My real name is also Kal-El

[swo17]

Because my real name is frequently associated with Superman

Nailed ya, Zal Batmanglij

[flyonthewall2983]

You wouldn't happened to be named Batlexander Manilton by any chance?

[hearthesilence]

?

[captveg]

Just finished a 2nd viewing. Wouldn't change my 8/10 rating, but not as seemingly disjointed as the 1st time. There's just a lot crammed into the film.

Provided one's issues with the film are needing some breathing room for the plot & characters, I really do think the ultimate cut will play better.

If one's issues are with the story choices or character depictions at their base level, well, I doubt it'll improve the film for a person with that perspective.

Need to see it at least one more time in IMAX.

[flyonthewall2983]

I'd watch this in a heartbeat

[DarkImbecile]

I have an atypical relationship with superhero movies, as I'm not a diehard or even average fan by any means (largely on principle for sucking up talent that could be doing more interesting work elsewhere), but I also don't avoid or hate them sight unseen as do most spandex skeptics; I've genuinely enjoyed several over the last 15 years, from The Dark Knight to Captain America: Winter Soldier to Guardians of the Galaxy, which is actually a pretty good spectrum of what works in these films: dark and serious on one end and light and amusing on the other, with something like Winter Soldier representing the midpoint with some thematic weight but still heavy on the crowd-pleasing entertainment. Generally, it's much easier for these films to work on the Guardians side of that spectrum, because audiences can forgive a lot when it's all in the name of a good time at the movies. But if you insist on taking men in tight suits fighting each other seriously, as Zack Snyder most certainly does here, then you had better bring a serious level of filmmaking quality and thoughtfulness to your film, which he most certainly does not.

I went into this - as others here did - with lowered expectations from the massive critical dismissal, and yet Snyder and his writers still managed to slide this film right under those expectations. The actors all acquit themselves of responsibility, even Eisenberg, whose Lex Luthor is ridiculous not because of Eisenberg's contributions but because the script provides no reasonable motivations or sensible actions for the character at all - a problem not limited to only his character.

And say what you will, but the "snap out of it" moment for Batman worked for me VERY well. Contrived? Sure, but I felt they sold it.

I could not disagree more with this; as nonsensical as it was for this whole absurd fight to happen in the first place, for the audience to have suspended disbelief to this point only to have

Spoiler

Batman more or less conclude, "Oh, I had so firmly believed that you were a threat to mankind's freedom and continued existence on Earth that I was willing to die to try to stop you, but our mothers have the same first name, so it's all good now!" is deeply insulting.

Speaking of insulting, for this film to pretend to take on the issue of the massive civilian casualties in the first movie only to drop any thought of it mid-film and later retreat into awkwardly inserted "Thank god all these buildings are empty at this time of day!" interjections to utterly avoid the issue is stunningly cynical, especially when joined with

Spoiler

the casual presentation of Batman killing people left and right without comment because: hey, cool!

Again, most of these failings, among a long list of other sins of ignorance, shallowness, and contempt for the audience, could have been ignored if this movie hadn't presented itself with the approximate level of self-seriousness of Son of Saul.

[captveg]

And say what you will, but the "snap out of it" moment for Batman worked for me VERY well. Contrived? Sure, but I felt they sold it.

I could not disagree more with this; as nonsensical as it was for this whole absurd fight to happen in the first place, for the audience to have suspended disbelief to this point only to have

Spoiler

Batman more or less conclude, "Oh, I had so firmly believed that you were a threat to mankind's freedom and continued existence on Earth that I was willing to die to try to stop you, but our mothers have the same first name, so it's all good now!" is deeply insulting.

Speaking of insulting, for this film to pretend to take on the issue of the massive civilian casualties in the first movie only to drop any thought of it mid-film and later retreat into awkwardly inserted "Thank god all these buildings are empty at this time of day!" interjections to utterly avoid the issue is stunningly cynical, especially when joined with

Spoiler

the casual presentation of Batman killing people left and right without comment because: hey, cool!

I don't find it insulting whatsoever.

Spoiler

The key is his line right before Superman speaks up again. "You're not even a man". Bats sees him as an alien, a *thing*, wholly foreign to this world. When he hears the name Martha it jars him because it has an importance to him (Bruce). When Lois reveals that it's his (Clark's) mother's name, he realizes that Superman is not just some alien thing, but an individual with human family (a mother, Lois). Bats' idea that he could kill an innocent just because of a "1% chance" falls apart because he's seen an innocent (his mother) murdered, and he knows it is unjust. He recognizes that he would just be another Joe Chill, mocking the memory of his parents instead of honoring them. Then after he throws away the spear he learns how Luthor has manipulated the situation and vows to not let history repeat itself "I promise you, Martha won't die tonight." It's 100% about Bruce's own psychology, of his whole life being a means to makeup for failing to save his parents, and if saving another Martha allows him to redeem even a part of that then he will do so.

But that's the great thing about movies and the emotional responses to them - we are both right.

As for the empty buildings, I agree that it's forced, but 10 billion complaints about the ending of Man of Steel will do that. It's a no-win scenario for them. In every other way Snyder put a middle finger up to the MoS whiners and doubled-down in BvS, but on this one he acquiesced. And then people complain about it. Whaddya gonna do?

As for Bats

Spoiler

killing thugs with the Batmobile and Batplane that are bringing mini-guns to the fight - I have no problem with it whatsoever. The mentality of "gotta take out those guns, and if your association with it gets you killed, that's not my problem" is just fine by me. Especially for a Bats that is going further down the vigilante spiral in this film. But then, it never bothered me in Batman Begins that he refuses to execute a man only to burn a few dozen alive, or that he nearly kills some children next to parked cars he blew up in The Dark Knight, etc.

[matrixschmatrix]

As for the empty buildings, I agree that it's forced, but 10 billion complaints about the ending of Man of Steel will do that. It's a no-win scenario for them. In every other way Snyder put a middle finger up to the MoS whiners and doubled-down in BvS, but on this one he acquiesced. And then people complain about it. Whaddya gonna do?

I mean... you could not have an endless orgy of destroying buildings

[captveg]

As for the empty buildings, I agree that it's forced, but 10 billion complaints about the ending of Man of Steel will do that. It's a no-win scenario for them. In every other way Snyder put a middle finger up to the MoS whiners and doubled-down in BvS, but on this one he acquiesced. And then people complain about it. Whaddya gonna do?

I mean... you could not have an endless orgy of destroying buildings

It comes with the territory of the genre.

[knives]

Not necessarily. Many entries in the genre (primarily in the comics and literature medium and not cinema admittedly) have no action scenes whatsoever.

[DarkImbecile]

As for the empty buildings, I agree that it's forced, but 10 billion complaints about the ending of Man of Steel will do that. It's a no-win scenario for them. In every other way Snyder put a middle finger up to the MoS whiners and doubled-down in BvS, but on this one he acquiesced. And then people complain about it. Whaddya gonna do?

I mean... you could not have an endless orgy of destroying buildings

It comes with the territory of the genre.

I think the emphasis in matrixschmatrix's point is probably less on the "destroying buildings" than the "endless orgy" part.

[captveg]

A handful of empty warehouses on the docks are hardly endless.

I guess it goes back to the idea that if you do it all with a wink and a smile like Superman II or Avengers people just shut down their critical minds and enjoy the water slide. All in the name of a good time, right? Because those should be out only standards.

[knives]

A. what's wrong with Superman II, B. the much more serious Superman is generally viewed as the best film in the genre to come from America plus the Nolan and Burton films which are very serious to the point of being a little pofaced and drak respectively are greatly beloved and respected. It is pretty exclusively a critique against Snyder which shows it is a problem with the director, not the methodology. Hell, even the most respected thing to come out of Marvel recently is the fairly moody television series. You're setting up a false dynamic.

[DarkImbecile]

You're setting up a false dynamic.

This is very much the case; I think there's little question that The Dark Knight is a (the?) pinnacle of the superhero sub genre, not because or or in spite of its tone, but because it's both very well made and very entertaining. Batman v Superman is widely considered a failure because it is neither (to many people). I'm glad you enjoyed it, but let's not uniformly dismiss the film's critics as lightweights who just can't handle the cold, hard truths that Zack Snyder is serving up.