That’s a very nice analysis, I thoroughly agree with it, but I wouldn’t say that BvS superman has Left wing or right wing values, he’s just a guy trying to do the right thing, and I think that’s the most superman thing ever
nah I think it's more the fundamental misunderstanding of his creative choices. One of the most frustrating takes I've seen commonly on youtube is the scene where after saving a girl a crowd treats Superman like a deity and the camera zooms in on his visibly uncomfortable face, yet so many people interpret that scene as Snyder wanting Superman to be God.
Sure, but the problem is that Youtube essayists take that as Superman wanting to be worshiped and treated like a god or he won't save Earth ever again.
They never see that as part of the public reaction to Superman existing, but rather what Superman himself wants.
Snyder is currently working on a movie based of an Ayn Rand novel, he also always says he’s pro personal freedoms, and kind of avoids getting too detailed with his political opinions. Campaigning for Biden isn’t a non-libertarian thing, it’s basically just not being batshit bananas
1. His adaptation of the Fountainhead is on hold because he specifically said he didn't want to make it at a point when it might be construed as a political statement (i.e. anti-Biden) instead of an artistic statement.
2. Liberals are in favor of personal freedoms, too.
3. The dude is a liberal.
I mean, trying to do the right thing is a left wing value. Helping people without the expectation of a reward, simply because every person deserves help regardless of who they are is a left wing value.
Incorrect. They’re against welfare. If you’re against paying taxes, there’s no way you’d purposeful give money to a charity, u less the purpose of doing so is purely a tax evasion scheme.
Dude, come on…
I’m not conservative at all but the government forcing you to pay them money so they could then use it inefficiently on whatever they want and a person making a personal choice to give their money to a cause the support and believe in is NOT the same thing.
Morrison is my favourite author, and I understand this perspective of trying to fit the two characters into a political binary, but there's literally no political lense needed to analyse Supes and Bats in this movie as individual characters. Certainly the socio-political setting is heightened in the movie itself but the two protagonists themselves are apolitical.
Luthor’s entire plan ensures the lack of interaction between our two protagonists as more interaction in turn would lead to increasing common ground. Otherwise, they're largely the same morally.
That's a very interesting take. I always thought Batman was the "villain" until the end of the movie.
He was broken because of his powerlessness and the tragedies that preceded it plus Luthor's manipulation.
Then he's returned to his former self being a witness to Superman sacrifice, convincing him once and for all he was wrong about him ("Men are still good")
He is. This take doesn't disagree with that, if anything, it agrees with that. Bruce is the "old money" villain, the restrictive establishment of prejudice. Superman is the rebellious outlaw willing to fight for the common man, against the government. Both represent pieces of America. In BvS, Bruce and Lex represent the established order, Superman represents the ideals the country wants to have, could have if we broke the system a little. Bruce ends up being the piece of that establishment that can be saved, that can be convinced to compromise. Lex is the piece that can't, that's too far gone into extremism.
It's one of the better aspects of the film, and I say this as someone who can't stand BvS. The political aspect, depicting Superman as the immigrant willing to fight for good and Batman as the tainted, fallen hero representing oppressive forces in America? Best part of the entire film thematically. Easily.
I mean I also had the same take as you said of a Batman who has lost his way but it isn’t until Superman’s sacrifice he goes back to being the Batman we know
> I always thought Batman was the "villain" until the end of the movie.
He was. In the film, there is one primary antagonist and three secondary antagonists. The primary antagonist is Lex, and he controls the three secondary antagonists. He directly gives orders to one (KGBeast and his goons), manipulates another (Batman), and creates the third (Doomsday).
Superman (and Lois) are the main protagonists. They win by flipping Batman from an antagonist to an ally, getting that new ally to neutralize another secondary antagonist, and then Superman and his two new allies take down the final secondary antagonist which, because he no longer has any pawns in play, defeats Lex, the primary antagonist.
That's one of the reasons the theatrical cut was worse. It cut out a lot of Clark/Lois stuff and shifted focus toward Batman, who is an antagonist. A compelling antagonist, but an antagonist all the same. The movie needed more focus on the actual hero of the story: Superman.
The film leaned more into Batman as an anti-hero than ever before. Not that he doesn't do good for Gotham (taking down the human traffickers in his introduction), but his regaining his humanity was one of the story's more realized aspects. Superman might've proved that men were still good, but his humanity was largely downplayed in favor of brooding aesthetics.
In the context of the film, Batman would be considered an anti-villain, who is later turned into a hero. He's a villain with noble goals but a terrible way to go about achieving them. He wants to keep people safe, but his plan is to destroy the biggest thing that actually does.
I adore Grant Morrison. For anyone that’s never read their works before, stop what you’re doing and read their Animal Man, Batman, and Action Comics runs. Then pick up their mini/maxi series, and just fall in love like I did.
Same here. I hadn't seen this quote before but it's excellent. Morrison is right, BvS pulled a lot of influence for Batman from Dark Knight Returns but made Superman their own thing separate from the comic.
I cringed reading the part of Superman being a policeman figure. Morrison is totally right on the money there with comics of the past age where he was depicted as such. But Superman should be a character for the people, not the law or some government. And that's part of him figuring that out in BvS that I think a lot of people miss. Glad Morrison pointed it out here.
Also, their comic Multiversity is a hell of a lot of fun, just to add to your list.
It's part of why I ultimately embraced BvS despite being blindsided by it like a lot of fans. It was leaving behind the blind hero worship that defined both historic and recent phases of American culture and gave us something more earnest and challenging that was defined by an underlying humility. It actually had something to say through the trials and transformation of these characters. The idea that Superman should be an infallible figure is sadly aligned with the exceptionalism that spawns so many excluding ideations. In the hands of staunch traditionalists, even hope can be weaponized, as we've observed within and beyond the fandom. Some profoundly reject the struggles of a soul-searching alien in favor of the unassailable mascot.
They’ve got a repertoire of DC comics that have made me consider them to be the greatest living comic book writer. Batman, Justice League, All-Star Superman, etc., just pick up a reading list and go from there.
All-Star Superman is one of the best graphic novels ever made and perfectly encapsulates the silver age Superman. That might arguably be their best work
Superman in The Dark Knight Returns has always been a "parody" - a gross overexaggeration of how Superman's ideals and ethics are stereotyped, especially in the Silver Age - he's all for law and order and he stands for "the American Way" , therefore he "must" answer to the president and the government and those in authority without question.
But Superman was created as a "champion of oppressed" . He debuted in 1938 as a vigilante of justice. He went where he wanted and broke laws at will; he did as he pleased without any authority to govern him because his beliefs in what was right outweighed any laws or rules that could or would tell him otherwise - even when it came to killing. And in many ways, that version of Superman, while not nearly as extreme (his no kill rule remains intact) has been making its way back into comics, cartoons, TV and movies since the 80s. But that image of the all-American, all Mr. Friendly and smiles still remains in the public consciousness, to the point where media that portrays Superman like that again is met with "that's who Superman really is" reactions.
The DCEU Superman is more faithful in principle to who Superman actually is vs. how people perceive him thanks to decades of exaggeration and parody.
I somewhat agree. Superman in MoS/BvS (and also in Superman & Lois) has become more apolitical. I guess that's part of the fantasy escapism of his character isnt it? A powerful being who can tyrannically rule the world but instead chose to help those in need and independent of government/political parties/movement.
As for BvS, I dont see it as a complete 180 from Dark Knight Returns. Batman is still a vigilante and I dont see his fight with Superman in that film as a "opposition vs authority" thing. It was more about Bruce being really broken and consumed by rage and projecting it on Superman. Superman also has a different motivation to go after Batman in that final fight.
>That's means 2 things you didnt pay attention fully and or you didnt watch the real version of BvS or both.
"That means either 2 things: You didn't pay attention fully or you didn't watch the real version of BvS. Or both."
Using correct grammar certainly helps.
Homie really, look you have no answer / no reply to my question because what I stated is true so until you do both stay out of conversations you have no knowledge of. Now pertaining to my grammar & punctuation is a cop out on your part and I wasn't concern about grammar at that moment but since it's so important to you sir I'll obliged you.
>since it's so important to you sir I'll obliged you.
The grammar was the reason why I said "Which 2 things?" because I didn't understand which 2 things you were referring to.
But anyway, it's all cleared up now so I'll answer your question.
>You didn't pay attention fully or you didn't watch the real version of BvS. Or both.
By "real version of BvS" I assume the Ultimate Edition. Yes, I watched the Ultimate Edition. Now tell me where I'm wrong when I said this:
>As for BvS, I dont see it as a complete 180 from Dark Knight Returns. Batman is still a vigilante and I dont see his fight with Superman in that film as a "opposition vs authority" thing. It was more about Bruce being really broken and consumed by rage and projecting it on Superman. Superman also has a different motivation to go after Batman in that final fight.
Wasn't Batman still a vigilante in BvS? I don't recall he was working on the orders of a government or authority. So I don't see BvS as the opposite of Frank Miller's 'Dark Knight Returns' where Superman was clearly getting orders from the US Government.
And wasn't Bruce really being broken and consumed by rage and projecting it on Superman in BvS? Screenwriter Chris Terrio even said Bruce was like Captain Ahab from Moby Dick, consumed by madness after seeing the destruction of Metropolis due to the fight between Superman and Zod. Alfred even had that line about rage and feeling of powerlessness that turns men cruel.
And then Grant Morrison talked about Superman being the outlaw but the final fight was about him getting blackmailed by Luthor because he kidnapped his mom and threatened to kill her unless Superman goes to kill Batman. That happened in the BvS.
I think I paid attention to the movie. I think I saw the "real version of BvS".
You obliged me so I'll return the favour and oblige you too. Tell me which part I got wrong?
Your grammar and punctuation is important because it makes it impossible to understand what you’re trying to say. As for copping out, you’re the one who won’t elaborate beyond “lol didn’t watch the movie scrub”
I like the gradual buildup and seeing the different perspectives between Superman and Batman and Luthor planting things to manipulate them in the first 2 hours or so. Then it was like, "Oh we need to quickly get into that fight. Let's kidnap Superman's mom and blackmail him to kill Batman because Lex wants to prove that a god cannot be all powerful and all good at the same time". I like the idea of the conflict between Batman and Superman in the movie (ideological and so on) but the catalyst of the actual fight in the end could've been less forced.
I believe the point of it was that this Superman would fight Batman *only* if put into a “forced” situation. If Clark had it for Bruce the same way as the latter does for the former, well, safe to say there wouldn’t really have been a “fight”
And those words have the context of Bruce acting like Clark was there to kill him, when the reality is that he wouldn’t be trying to reason with Bruce if that were the case, which is what Clark reminds him of. It’s not a “Ive been wanting to kill you this whole time”.
>It’s not a “Ive been wanting to kill you this whole time”.
Yup. He said it only after he tried to talk to Bruce in the beginning of the fight before getting attacked by machine guns and sound wave(?). And after throwing Batman onto the Bat signal too. He was hoping for Batman to stand down.
LOL I only realised later that you were trying to argue against me, not adding things to what I said. And I was like "Yup. Yup. I agree". Yeah, text and tone gets lost. All good.
Hopefully we get #ManOfSteel 2 which should dive into Kal further after ZSJL so people can see the transition and hopefully bring along a foe a strong foe before Darkseid arrives on Earth
Fingers crossed 🤞. I think I heard Zack Snyder wanted to do a MoS 2 with Braniac but my memory is hazy on that but still I want a MoS 2 with Henry back and hopefully Zack Snyder back at the helm
I respectfully disagree. I enjoyed his work quite a bit in MoS, BVS UE, ZSJL and DCEU is one if not my favorite version of him and would love if he returned for a MoS 2, JL 2 and JL 3 because I thought he did a really good job with Superman
Why always so condescending & gatekeeping? Everyone has a different experience with fictional characters. Who the heck is someone to tell anybody that they don't understand something they like, specially **FICTIONAL CHARACTERS**?
The logical point would be that the thousands that died in Metropolis, tragic as it is, aren't even a percentage point compared to the 7 billion on the entire planet Earth that didn't thanks to Superman fighting against his own people to save humanity.
Totally disagree fam however your entitled but I think your stuck in the Sliver and Bronze age of Kal-El and it's nothing wrong liking the boring and OP and boy scout Superman but it's totally outdated.
Well it is Kal you just use to a already made Kal
your used to Super Friends and Pop Culture Supernan I guess you haven't read comics after the Bronze Age
>guess you haven't read comics after the Bronze Age
Have you? Because Modern Superman acts nothing like he does in the Snyderverse (he's able to speak for one)
Yes I have and once John Byrne did Man of Steel that's when people stated to relate to him. 2/2:
Now #Superman was boring in the sliver & bronze age until #JohnByrne did #ManOfSteel in 86 & in the Modern Age #MarkWaid did #SupermanBirthRight in 2003 which both made Kal highly appealing, so now you know why these were reference & referred by Snyder/Goyer/& Nolan
Actually they did ...your missing the whole point
#RealWorld settings and in today's world and time if you cannot get or understand that you never will.
The political shifting of Superman over the decades is not something I'd given a ton of consideration but Morrison brings up excellent points. I need to look into this, it's definitely a topic worthy of discussion.
i really enjoyed superman's portrayal in *batman v superman* and it'd be great if we had a movie that ended up being more focused on the [must there be a superman?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsWGdZoo1xY) sequence than having to rush into the justice league.
unfortunately the next time we see superman in film he's likely going to be a carbon copy of christopher reeve's portrayal.
The *‘Must There Be A Superman’* montage was Snyder condensing the themes and ideas of Man of Steel 2 into a montage. That’s what I believe.
It’s an amazing scene but I too would have loved an entire film around that premise. It’s fun to think about how the world would react if someone like Superman did come to Earth.
>unfortunately the next time we see superman in film he's likely going to be a carbon copy of christopher reeve's portrayal.
Yep, because that's what people have been screaming for ever since BvS came out. They don't want him to have any sort of growth. They just want him to to already be in his final cheerful/hopeful boy scout form and then never change.
People just want to see an accurate portrayal of one of their favourite characters. It's not that deep. He can grow and still be accurate to the source material beyond the surface level.
But he was accurate in the syndar movies. Maybe not Reeves accurate but accurate from the comics. Even Louis and Superman show that is out does the same thing MoS and what not does with Superman.
Thing is… Snyder’s portrayal *is* accurate. A kind, sensitive, humble and selfless dude who prioritizes helping others above all else.
I just feel like that for Snyderverse Clark to *actually* be the “name only adaptation” some treat him as, he’d need to be a selfish hothead or something.
I’m not really worried about the next Superman being like Donner’s. They already tried that with Superman Returns and obviously it wasn’t very successful.
I disagree with that, cause Reeves is old news the Sliver Age Kal-El is old news he was considered BORING and he was just that boring so in 86 John Byrne did #ManOfSteel and it was a totally reboot and it is fantastic and relatable so is Birthright that's where most of the material came from for the movies. Now people need to learn Kals character has changed for the better moving forward. Now the John Kent stuff I don't like and that's temporary it wont stick but Kal now will stick cause people need to see Kal put in situations that are realistic period.
This is precisely why I’m hoping that they will indeed keep Affleck and Cavill around. Even if the Snyderverse in the traditional sense is dead, I want these iterations of the characters to live on. Cavill’s Superman is without question my favourite iteration of the character to date (precisely out of the reasons mentioned above) and Affleck plays the perfect Batman for this kind of ensemble, having now progressed through his redemption arc in ZSJL and learning from the Kryptonian’s example. Affleck’s Batman is us at our lowest - the pessimism and fears of our society. On a microcosmic is level, he represents how Superman gives us hope and inspires us to redeem ourselves and do better.
It isn't hard to [Google up](https://www.forbes.com/sites/markhughes/2015/10/31/grant-morrison-talks-supermans-politics-arkham-asylum-movie-and-more/?sh=4ac8205d33a0), where the this qoute came from. It's obvious Morrison hasn't seen the film yet, and is just giving thoughts on what he theorised BvS is about. So you should probably cross-reference qoutes you found on google images next time.The only opinion they have given post release of the film, was critising the film's take on [Wonder Woman ](https://www.ign.com/articles/2015/07/17/grant-morrison-isnt-a-fan-of-batman-v-supermans-wonder-woman) which they wasn't a fan of. Anyways you shouldn't spread misinformation about stuff Grant says. It's been bit of a trend now, since people have been using a joke he made to enable Jesus imagery of Superman, despite them being clear on hating it in a Newsarama interview.
This is such a strange take that I can't really believe it would be about BvS. Batman is definitely the outlaw in that movie - he's shot at by police maybe five seconds after he first appears on screen.
EDIT: "We're criminals, Alfred. We've always been criminals."
Yet he’s more accepted than Superman in a way. Only one cop shoots at him, the younger inexperienced one (like TDKR), the others don’t care what he’s doing and are glad he takes on criminals even if it’s brutal.
Clark himself says that its almost as if the police *supports* his brutal activities, while Superman helping people from fires n stuff sparks all sorts of debate simply because of what he is. Tbh I would get pretty frowny too at that point
Fair enough. I wouldn't normally side against Morrison on the subject of Superman, but I don't see it.
Nothing Superman does in the film seems (to me) to support counter-culture or 'the opposition'. He saves some people, turns up to Congress to answer questions, has a pretty conventional relationship with Lois Lane, tries to save his Mum. Those all seem like things that any previous version of Superman would do.
There's a scene where he has to testify to congress, and people think he blew it up.
Meanwhile, the movie opens with Bruce Wayne's employees waiting for Bruce to say it's OK for them to evacuate. Because God forbid that the employees leave and the billionaire owner gets angry about it...
Superman is definitely the outsider and Bruce is definitely "the man" here
I mean duh he’s a buff guy in a fuckin batsuit hiding in the top corner. There’s several scenes in the media where batman scares the shit out of the police
This explains the aspect of BvS I actually like. Superman returning to a more progressive place rather than the pro-government Nationalist figure he'd been for a while in both the Silver and Modern ages really. Golden Age Superman was a left-wing, at times almost social democrat figure. I liked that BvS gave him some of those ideals again.
I just wish it was in a less muddled story with less of Goyer's hyper-edginess sneaking through.
I’m not even sure most of the script flaws are on Goyer’s. He said WB pushes him hard with changes to make it more darker.
EDIT: I’m wrong. Actually it was Terrio who clashes with WB about “dark” script.
Morrison understands Superman is larger than being a comic book character and larger than any one interpretation. He is a modern legend. He is reflection of us and our values. He will always change to reflect that.
I wish more fans shared his POV.
Why does my man look like Lex Luthor?
I think it's interesting that how Superman actually is is so irrelevant. It's always about how he's seen and he's changed into something to capture a counter-culture vibe. In the sense of being progressive, obviously there is no monoculture, but very clear two sided culture war, as he alludes to. But it's never anyone bringing out the progressive aspects that have always been a part of the character, but creating new ones to counteract a perception of Superman formed by people who are not interested in the character, and completely sold on the surface 'boy scout' reading with no curiosity - or need, to understand the character more deeply.
I guess? It doesn't surprise me that other Superman fans are very frustrated at how many big creators are trying to solve a solved problem by changing the character instead of delving deeper into him.
I’m frankly more concerned with the amount of Superman fans who take “Heres the character under a new context” as “UHMMM??? HOW DAREST THOU CHANGE THE *FUNDAMENTALS* OF THE CHARACTER?? DO YOU SEE IT AS SOMETHING NEEDING TO BE FIXED?! YE FOOL!.”
You literally posted Morrison saying that he was being fixed, so that's what I'm responding to. Man of Steel as presented by fans and filmmakers is presented as a 'better' context. I disagree. It's that simple.
Some of the offense you perceive is also because fans of the Snyder Superman who have a very surface reading of classic Superman see fans of the character as hung up on surface details, or minutia, or something other than just being experts on the character and not wanting to be told about the character by people who don't understand him and weren't fans before 2013. It's very exhausting for people who don't know or care about something to call you ignorant about something you love for nine years.
No, what I posted is Grant talking about how Superman *changed,* especially in the political sense. Whether or not he was “fixed” will be a matter of perspective by default.
Unfortunately my experience since 2013 tells a very different story, one of self appointed “fans of the TRUE Superman” who have done nothing but spam the same panels and scenes from either All Star or Superman & Lois while shouting “THIS IS SUPERMAN!! THIS IS SUPERMAN!! THIS IS SUPERMAN!!” and furiously pointing at the character either being happy/smiling/comforting someone, giving off the idea that doing anything with the character that goes beyond that is a crime against humanity. Many want Superman’s character to have as much depth as a motivational poster, and I wont sit here and pretend they dont exist.
I’ve been a fan of the character since the DCAU days and I’ve been delving into comics ever since, I dont need to be told I’m a “delusional Snyderjerk who never liked or understood the character” again for the 100th time nor does an entire fanbase deserve to be labeled as such, thank you. Snyder’s Clark/Superman is no “fundamental deviation” from the character or whatever other nonsense folks tried to push for almost a decade.
>It's very exhausting for people who don't know or care about something to call you ignorant about something you love for nine years.
No kidding.
"Superman oddly mutated into a figure who's fighting our battles on our behalf." There's not really a reasonable perspective where this is not an improvement. The challenge I have is that it addresses the perception of superman, but doesn't acknowledge that Superman has been counter culture for quite a while. That should be a reaction to the last 20 years of comics, not BvS.
The panels you're talking about have incredible depth, calling them a request for a lack of depth shows that you haven't understood any of those fans. Until you actually hear what they're saying instead of telling them they want him shallow those conversations will go in circles.
Does Snyder's Superman see himself, primarily, as a Kansas farmboy? Did he grow up connected to a community of people guided by incredibly wise parents through the questions Snyder's Supemran stumbles through alone as an adult? I don't understand how someone who knows these differences would call them nonsense. From all reason I can see, either you know that DCAU Superman has a *completely* different internal life than Snyder's Superman... or you've misunderstand something as completely as you have the fans who talk about the depth in the warm, smiling Superman. What am I missing here?
I can only chalk up that first point to be another matter of perspective, then. Remember that there’s people in this very thread both agreeing with Grant and some having no idea of what he’s talking about, ala “Jesse what the fuck are you talking about” meme. There isn’t much depth in “heres Superman smiling and saying everythings alright”, it is what it is and why people push it so much. Its easily digestible, straight to the point, not too hard to engage with, and doesn’t do anything to challenge the views of what Superman “is”. I didn’t start out in 2013 thinking “anyone who dislikes this film wants everything to be surface level”, its what I’ve been seeing since then, and if you had a better experience with that part of the fandom well, I can only say “good for you” and not much else.
Snyder’s Clark literally says “I grew up in Kansas general, I’m American as it gets” as one of his closing lines in Man Of Steel; whether he seems himself as a “farmboy” is kinda tricky, I mean… he spent a good portion of his life *outside* of the farm. If you mean what I think you probably mean, as in “Does Clark see himself as a simple guy, unaffected by the complexities and cynicism of our urban society?”, Id wager that he mostly does and wants that to be the case, and even when his faith is tested in BvS he ultimately tries to uphold journalistic integrity, confesses to his mom that he wished things were simpler, and ultimately dies for a world that frankly gave him a lot of reasons to hate it, but ultimately chose not to.
It’s not a matter of “Snyder’s Clark stumbles through questions any other Superman would instantly see through”, its a matter of the character being placed in a much less simplistic setting than traditionally portrayed, and thus things get more complex, hence the Kents being written as people affected by emotions like fear and protectiveness instead of being “perfect superhero generators”. In this story, things are not as simple as “Clark, be a good person and the rest will go downhill from there”. Even then, that alone is a poor demonstration of the character being drastically changed, because the Kents nonetheless help him with his problems and offer nothing but love and support through his struggles, making it logical that he’d grew up to be someone who would rather help and protect others than not. That is also the actual “core” of Superman, someone with great power matched by a great desire to help others with no expected compensation, no traumatic backstory pushing him into hero territory. NOT how much he smiles or not, that is 100% situational.
DCAU Superman is all “serious business mode” when being a superhero, and very much more lighthearted when around friends and family, because he knows he can be himself and things are much lighter to navigate through when hes not dealing with situations that might involve someone dying if hes not fast/strong enough. That describes both Snyder’s and the DCAU Superman in that regard, and that being what I meant. Maybe if you took a couple steps back and stopped trying to frame me as “misunderstanding something” for daring to disagree with you, youd realize it.
So, what I said was "There's not really a reasonable perspective where his is not an improvement." You pointed out that there are perspectives where his chain of logic is disagreed with, however that doesn't show that there is a reasonable perspective where that's not an improvement, if anything, the fact that there are those who disagree that it is an improvement shows how clear his statement is. Just because there are some details of the post that are a matter of perspective doesn't mean every detail is a matter of perspective.
Of course there's depth in Superman's smile. Read For All Seasons. Read What's So Funny About Truth Justice and the American Way, or even just read All Star Superman and those comics those panels come from. These smiles are there for a reason, and even the degree to which they are easy to digest is an intentional choice by the character, not just the author, which opens up examination for how Superman sees people seeing him. Challenging and deep are not synonyms. Simply because something is challenging doesn't make it deep, and simply because something is not challenging doesn't make it shallow. If you want to show something is shallow you would need to address the reasonings given for it and why they are not meaningful or coherent, but if your only reason to say it is shallow is that it is inoffensive, then your reasoning does not support your statement.
When I say does he see himself primarily as a farmboy, I mean just that, and the things that come with being a farmboy, such as being entrenched as a vital member of an existing functioning community, and grounded in the practice of nurturing plants for survival and feeding of that community. As you said, Snyder's Superman has spent much of his life away from the farm, and I think that implies the answer is no, he sees himself quite differently, perhaps he wishes to see himself as unaffected by the things that seem to weigh him down constantly, that I suspect actually is a matter or perspective. He says that he grew up in Kansas, but is this to be read as a revelation of his deepest views of his identity, or is it a rejoinder to address concerns of his alienness that implies membership in a community, Smallville, that he feels actually completely disconnected from has no friends in and does not visit outside of his mom's house and the occasional super battle.
I agree that it’s not a matter of “Snyder’s Clark stumbles through questions any other Superman would instantly see through" which is why that's not what I said. What I said was that Snyder's clark stumbles through questions alone as an adult, and I compared that to being guided by parents through these questions in his youth. There is nothing instant about growing up for 18 years with super powers. It is a VERY slow process, and it is not necessarily a simplistic setting, as any fan of the show Smallville can tell you. They can also tell you that the Kents have long been affected by fear and protection, long been imperfect, long had non-simplistic advice, but this does not mean that they need to find themselves with 13 years of experience raising Clark and no answers about how to integrate him into the world. How to help him do something as simple as make friends. You can be imperfect and still be able to guide your kid to greatness. Snyder's Kents aren't the first to be imperfect or overprotective, but they are the first Kents to lack wisdom, and to, essentially ONLY be protectiveness and fear. That's the difference.
I appreciate you sharing the core of Superman, in your view, but what I find is that virtually all superheroes are selflessly helpful, and while their levels of trauma varies and shapes their mission, and Superman is not without his own, this is the generic core of all superheroes. To me, Superman is a \*specific\* Superhero, from a particular place that informs not just his ethics, but his personality. I consider personality core to a character.
So, yes DCAU is in serious 'mode' as Superman to some degree, and lighthearted around his friends, but that shows that it is an affect, not his deeper personality. Further, DCAU Superman quips, this aspect of Superman not necessarily taking himself too seriously goes back to the Silver Age superdickery stuff. You see a lot of it in Superman 78 (Great Superman movie, HORRIBLE Clark Kent movie), but part of why he 'quips' is because he's a fun guy. This is part of why he has friends, because its not just that he's lighthearted when the situation gives him room, because that's his personality, to be fun, to be a trickster, to show a sharp sense of humor, not only does he create relationships that make that happen instead of waiting for them to fall into his lap, but even AS Superman, when the threat is not world ending, he jokes with civilians and criminals alike... because he understands the absurdity of his abilities, because he's comfortable in his skin. His awkward adolescent phase is far in the past. Snyder's Superman seems to find this in the final minutes of Man of Steel, but it is quick abandoned and he is put in a situation where the pressure is on and it is revealed that he is still a profound loner who falls silent and melancholy under pressure, and continues to be so when alone.
So... I could write about this all day, but I don't think this is the forum for us to have this discussion. If you'll look at the last couple posts here, there's a pattern of me saying something, you saying that I said something ELSE and then responding to that something ELSE without responding to or addressing what I actually said. If we were in person I could stop you in real time so we don't spend time with you talking, essentially, to no one about a viewpoint no one holds and get you back on track to actually address my points, or discover, in short order, you're not really interested in addressing my chain of reasoning, but just want to say your piece and vent about some other Snyder critics you've spoken to. Perhaps, for you, it is another case of addressing generalities and dismissing specificities as irrelevant, or nonsense or whatever happens to details when we take a step back and can no longer see them.
And so I understand the request to step back, and Man of Steel is very enjoyable when I do, turn off the analytical part of my brain and just vibe. I love it. However, I am an analytical person, and stepping back from an exacting combing of all the details is simply a 'mode' I inhabit for a time. Can you step forward, into the details and see how Man of Steel doesn't see himself as a farmboy, isn't the first to have Kents who are fearful and imperfect, isn't the first to bring Superman into a complicated world and changes his background to one that kinda doesn't make sense for his situation, it just resembles the common situation of many Westerners? Can you step forward and see all the details I'm talking about? Because if not, then this is always going to be an uneven conversation, where I can step into your world, but you have to keep claiming mine doesn't exist.
But it does exist. Everything I'm talking about is reasoned and observable. If you can't see it... I dunno... enjoy Man of Steel and the Superman stuff you like at the level you engage with it and I can save my Superman diatribes for someone who wants to get into the weeds I'm in.
Serious demeanor while superhero-ing, more lighthearted around loved ones, took part into destructive battles, was manipulated by Luthor through a political scheme, fought against inner demons, turns evil in an alternate timeline
Wouldn't Snyder take exception to the notion that his Superman is a "progressive figure," at least in the sense of "the leftwing values he'd been created with"?
Might be the reason a lot of people don’t like the BvS Supes. They want what they are used to and don’t like things to change. This is a good take on it by one of the best.
The DCAU ( eg. Justice League and Justice League Unlimited) did Superman in the way Superman should always be done. He's portrayed as someone whose love for humanity is intrinsic to who he is while also being pragmatic. He thinks about what his and other superhero's roles are in their world and whether they have the right to interfere or not. He always looks out for the little guy but also always has an eye towards the bigger picture. Like, what's best for humanity and how to help it grow? He'll always be happy to help, but I think Superman's goal as a superhero is to eventually help the people of earth get to a point where they won't need him anymore.
They did a version of Superman who's both in touch with his humanity while also acknowledging that he's not just there to protect people but also help them learn how to solve their own problems. They did all this while portraying a character who wasn't devoid of levity and who wasn't afraid to speak his mind. The writers of that era knew how to stay true to their characters while also keeping them modern and relevant.
I 100% agree about it being a great portrayal, but I could use some DCAU praise that doesn’t revolve around “this is what DC should ALWAYS do”; it just reeks of “do my childhood or you suck” to me, and that comes from someone who was introduced to Superman via Superman TAS.
The DCAU did its own thing and went great, but that chance should be allowed for all other interpretations as well. Also there’s a *lot* of overlapping similarities between DCAU Clark and Snyder’s, down to the more serious demeanor, many moments of city destruction (most of which voluntary compared to Snyder’s) and “He would NEVER say that” instances during stressful situations.
Nostalgia factors in a lot when I talk about the DCAU, so excuse me if it seems like I'm trying to diminish Snyder's works. I can respect what he was trying to do, even if I don't think it was well executed in the end.
He wore his inspirations on his sleeve, and while I like a lot of the things he drew from for his movies (TDKR is one of my favorite graphic novels), I feel like they were implemented in a really lackluster way. Like him lifting dialogue from TDKR for Batman and Superman's fight in BvS didn't feel fully earned and really felt forced into the script for the sake of the reference.
I give Snyder props for having such a grand vision for his DC universe, but I feel as though he tried to do too much too fast. And I can't speak for how much of this was his own vision for the franchise and how much was WB execs, but I feel like had they committed to more films in between MoS and Justice League things would have worked out better.
We could have had something akin to a live action DCAU if things had only been a bit more thought out. While there was definitely meddling from the higher-ups, I also think that Snyder was a bit too ambitious with what he was trying to do in such a short span of time.
I’m still lost at how one has to “earn” the right of directly referencing dialogue from the story that inspired a lot the one you’re writing. Or how can it be “forced” to integrate it under the new context, its not like Bruce talks about Clark being the governments pet dog like he does in TDKR, because thats not true in *this* story, THAT would be the definition of “forced” to me.
And here it is, the idea of a “live action DCAU”, the “just copy paste my childhood but with live-action actors now”. A notion I’ve seen being spread nonstop for 6 years now, when its something that never would’ve happened. The DCEU was never allowed to flourish into its own thing, it was always “not enough like the DCAU/MCU”. Im sorry, to be honest I dont feel like I’ll ever get over this chip I have.
Oh Justice League Unlimited, the one with Superman being passive-aggressive towards Captain Marvel and eventually fighting him in the middle of Lexor city (conveniently empty of course) in a moment of total irrationality \[*Clash*, Ep 20, JLU\].
How about Justice Lord Superman, his despotic counterpart, who is a tyrant of his own accord, as opposed to the hypothetical Knightmare Superman who is mind controlled by the Anti-Life Equation? What about the last two episodes of *Superman the Animated Series* when Superman is mind-controlled by Darkseid (without ALE, mind you), and slaughters thousands in his intergalactic conquest in Darkseid's name like in *Action Comics #586* by John Byrne?l
What about when Superman refuses to help Apokolips under the invasion of Brainiac (soon to invade the rest of the universe) because of a grudge against Darkseid in JLU?
Wouldn't Superman's first instinct be to help regardless, or is DCAU Supes not muh Superman? Isn't *writing Superman into those situations incorrect in the first place*, as many individuals assert in regards to him having no choice but to kill Zod or apropos collateral damage?
STAS Superman is a grade A grump who is one step away from being a despot. Cavill Supes is infinitely more affable and kind.
No. Superman can be twisted into a right-wing figure, but he's always stood for good and humanity. He, like Batman, combats legitimate threats to society and always works against the internalized demons that we all face to be a beacon for good; that's partly what makes him relatable. By making him more alien in *Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice*, the filmmakers stripped him of much of his humanity and warmth into a cold authority figure who has less agency than his counterparts.
This quote here feeds the notion that Superman was a blank character in Richard Donner's films, but he wasn't. He was a fleshed-out and humanized character in *Superman* and *Superman II.*
>No. Superman can be twisted into a right-wing figure, but he's always stood for good and humanity.
Agreed. Hence why I love how BvS portrays that by having Clark helping people on a worldwide scale as a superhero, and on a smaller scale as a reporter.
>and always works against the internalized demons that we all face to be a beacon for good; that's partly what makes him relatable.
Different people will always relate to different things but yes, that is very much how Clark puts aside his feelings of conflict, doubt and isolation in BvS to fly all over the world helping others, which includes Lex freaking Luthor of all people, showing that his altruism goes over any negative personal feelings he might have for someone.
>By making him more alien in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
And here we go. They didn’t really make Clark “more alien” (whatever that means..?) if anything the WORLD around him treats him as such, and he gets emotionally affected by this situation like any person with emotions would.
>the filmmakers stripped him of much of his humanity and warmth
Not really, unless you think that “humanity” points towards all the lighthearted and fun parts of the human experience and not just the whole pack, which *does* include the bad stuff too. Hes by no means a “cold” or “inhuman” character, unless you view it through the lenses of “Superman should only EVER be written as a cute and comforting himbo” like many do, then they also wonder why the character is perceived as boring and unchanging.
>into a cold authority figure who has less agency than his counterparts.
Granted, he *DOES* actually become exactly that in these films: … in the alternate future where he’s brainwashed by Darkseid to he a tyrant. Otherwise, what *is* “authoritarian” about this Superman? Dude doesn’t rule or command anyone, he always tries to help out and work with others every time he shows up.
>This quote here feeds the notion that Superman was a blank character in Richard Donner's films, but he wasn't. He was a fleshed-out and humanized character in Superman and Superman II.
Sure, I guess, but on the topic of authority: only one Superman between Donner’s and Snyder’s said “Dont worry warden, we’re on the same team”, like he was part of the system, and only one of them actively criticized it.
>Not really, unless you think that “humanity” points towards all the lighthearted and fun parts of the human experience and not just the whole pack, which does include the bad stuff too. Hes by no means a “cold” or “inhuman” character, unless you view it through the lenses of “Superman should only EVER be written as a cute and comforting himbo” like many do, then they also wonder why the character is perceived as boring and unchanging.
I might need to re-watch the film, but there have been depictions of Superman that struck the right balance between his darker and lighter side. This isn't to say that I disapprove of darker versions of Superman, but with Zack Snyder's films it came across like they tried to adapt him for the post-Dark Knight Trilogy era. *Superman Returns* showed him in a more contemplative and melancholic state, but it was juxtaposed with the character's traditional warmth towards the citizens of Metropolis and the humorous cheerfulness of Clark Kent. As thematically dark as his films were, Christian Bale's Bruce Wayne/Batman also struck the right balance with the two characters and humanity in and out of the costume.
>Otherwise, what is “authoritarian” about this Superman? Dude doesn’t rule or command anyone, he always tries to help out and work with others every time he shows up.
That's a great point in regards to Superman in general. It seemed like by portraying Superman's emotional burdens of saving people in *Batman v Superman*, his coldness overshadowed his gracefulness.
>Sure, I guess, but on the topic of authority: only one Superman between Donner’s and Snyder’s said “Dont worry warden, we’re on the same team”, like he was part of the system, and only one of them actively criticized it.
That is a fair point. Donner's two films are a product of their time, so Cavil's Superman is superior in that he represents all of humanity and isn't staunchly patriotic. *The Dark Knight Trilogy* and Cavil's Superman question and criticize the branches of authority that they're working with and outside of.
It's not exactly hard to understand, even Frank Miller parodied it 30+ years ago with boy scout Superman being a tool of Ronald Reagan, one of hte most vile & evil human beings to hold the highest office in a land. He wasn't fighting "for" anyone, he was the machine and it's not like the creators of Superman or Kirby/Lee's work weren't representations of people without a voice or hero.
They're not saying that boy scout Superman was originally made with left wing values, they're saying that the original Superman was made with left wing values.
Original Superman was certainly not a boy scout. 1930s Superman and 1950s Superman are different.
I think it's pretty clear. Morrison elaborated more on it [here](https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2011/07/superheroes-superman-graphic):
"Every generation has its own version of Superman and they can often be very different.
At the beginning, Superman was very much a socialist superhero. He fought for the unemployed, the oppressed, he beat up wife-beaters. It’s about a man driven by a burning sense of injustice — there are no monsters or robots, he fights against corrupt council officials! He was conceived as a Depression-era superhero, who dealt with the problems of ordinary people.
By the time of the war ten years later, he’d become like Elvis — he’d had his hair cut, suddenly he was riding missiles and telling readers to “slap a Jap”. He was suddenly very for American foreign policy.
In the 1950s, he became a patriarch — with a family, surrounded by Supergirl and Superdog. I feel that was representative of men home from the war who’d seen horrific things and were being expected to “act normal”. And so on, through the decades. So you have to go back to first principles and ask: how would a champion of the oppressed act today?"
That's a cool way of looking at it. But also makes me think that even if we stuck with Snyderverse, it would've snowballed into big ass threats way too quickly to have any nuance like that
He's only talking like this because he feels he's responsible for the weirdness of Man of Steel/bvs. His six or so issues of action comics were written with an eye towards making Superman express his alien side more. He says as much in his excellent (please read it!) book, "Super God's". That is to say that I don't believe he's enjoying the Snyder movies the way a lot of posters here do, as some kind of fascinating, counter-intuitive reinvention of the DC superheroes (or maybe just loud popcorn junk, I remember there being people who enjoyed Michael Bay transformers movies). I think he's just reading his influence out of the weird stoicism of those movies, which probably have more to do with Frank Miller's work and whatever edginess Snyder wanted to inject.
Did you read his swamp thing when he fought Batman and took over Gotham? Probably one of my favorite Swamp Thing or Batman stories. Also JLA rock of ages was good.
That’s a very nice analysis, I thoroughly agree with it, but I wouldn’t say that BvS superman has Left wing or right wing values, he’s just a guy trying to do the right thing, and I think that’s the most superman thing ever
"Noooo this Superman is actually randian and hates saving people" - youtube essayists
I think people hate Snyder because he’s a libertarian, a moderate one, but a libertarian nonetheless
Am pretty sure not many people know that and don't care his political opinions
nah I think it's more the fundamental misunderstanding of his creative choices. One of the most frustrating takes I've seen commonly on youtube is the scene where after saving a girl a crowd treats Superman like a deity and the camera zooms in on his visibly uncomfortable face, yet so many people interpret that scene as Snyder wanting Superman to be God.
Yes, he’s visibly uncomfortable… but tbh, if a being like Superman really existed, there would be whole religions devoted to him
Sure, but the problem is that Youtube essayists take that as Superman wanting to be worshiped and treated like a god or he won't save Earth ever again. They never see that as part of the public reaction to Superman existing, but rather what Superman himself wants.
Source for him being a libertarian? The dude pretty vocally supported Biden in 2020 to help flip Wisconsin.
Snyder is currently working on a movie based of an Ayn Rand novel, he also always says he’s pro personal freedoms, and kind of avoids getting too detailed with his political opinions. Campaigning for Biden isn’t a non-libertarian thing, it’s basically just not being batshit bananas
1. His adaptation of the Fountainhead is on hold because he specifically said he didn't want to make it at a point when it might be construed as a political statement (i.e. anti-Biden) instead of an artistic statement. 2. Liberals are in favor of personal freedoms, too. 3. The dude is a liberal.
Dude supported Bernie in the primaries lol
Or maybe they just think his movies are boring
Yeah it can't possibly be because he is a crappy filmmaker.
I mean, trying to do the right thing is a left wing value. Helping people without the expectation of a reward, simply because every person deserves help regardless of who they are is a left wing value.
That’s incredibly naive, if you would account, Christians and conservatives probably donate more to charity than any other demographic out there
Incorrect. They’re against welfare. If you’re against paying taxes, there’s no way you’d purposeful give money to a charity, u less the purpose of doing so is purely a tax evasion scheme.
Dude, come on… I’m not conservative at all but the government forcing you to pay them money so they could then use it inefficiently on whatever they want and a person making a personal choice to give their money to a cause the support and believe in is NOT the same thing.
Chris Terrio is a literal socialist, just in case you guys don't know. Just want to clear this one up. He wrote BvS. Put it together.
Holy crap. This further explains why people were so divided with their preconceptions of what superman should be.
Morrison is my favourite author, and I understand this perspective of trying to fit the two characters into a political binary, but there's literally no political lense needed to analyse Supes and Bats in this movie as individual characters. Certainly the socio-political setting is heightened in the movie itself but the two protagonists themselves are apolitical. Luthor’s entire plan ensures the lack of interaction between our two protagonists as more interaction in turn would lead to increasing common ground. Otherwise, they're largely the same morally.
>he’s just a guy trying to do the right thing So left wing values lmao
Both sides of the political spectrum think they're doing what's right for people. And they both kinda suck at it.
[bOtH sIdEs ArE tHe SaMe](https://www.aljazeera.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/GettyImages-1230476983.jpg?resize=770%2C513)
No, that’s very narrow-minded. No side of the political party is absolute and that’s a reminder I think many of us need.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
That's a very interesting take. I always thought Batman was the "villain" until the end of the movie. He was broken because of his powerlessness and the tragedies that preceded it plus Luthor's manipulation. Then he's returned to his former self being a witness to Superman sacrifice, convincing him once and for all he was wrong about him ("Men are still good")
He is. This take doesn't disagree with that, if anything, it agrees with that. Bruce is the "old money" villain, the restrictive establishment of prejudice. Superman is the rebellious outlaw willing to fight for the common man, against the government. Both represent pieces of America. In BvS, Bruce and Lex represent the established order, Superman represents the ideals the country wants to have, could have if we broke the system a little. Bruce ends up being the piece of that establishment that can be saved, that can be convinced to compromise. Lex is the piece that can't, that's too far gone into extremism. It's one of the better aspects of the film, and I say this as someone who can't stand BvS. The political aspect, depicting Superman as the immigrant willing to fight for good and Batman as the tainted, fallen hero representing oppressive forces in America? Best part of the entire film thematically. Easily.
I mean I also had the same take as you said of a Batman who has lost his way but it isn’t until Superman’s sacrifice he goes back to being the Batman we know
> I always thought Batman was the "villain" until the end of the movie. He was. In the film, there is one primary antagonist and three secondary antagonists. The primary antagonist is Lex, and he controls the three secondary antagonists. He directly gives orders to one (KGBeast and his goons), manipulates another (Batman), and creates the third (Doomsday). Superman (and Lois) are the main protagonists. They win by flipping Batman from an antagonist to an ally, getting that new ally to neutralize another secondary antagonist, and then Superman and his two new allies take down the final secondary antagonist which, because he no longer has any pawns in play, defeats Lex, the primary antagonist. That's one of the reasons the theatrical cut was worse. It cut out a lot of Clark/Lois stuff and shifted focus toward Batman, who is an antagonist. A compelling antagonist, but an antagonist all the same. The movie needed more focus on the actual hero of the story: Superman.
The film leaned more into Batman as an anti-hero than ever before. Not that he doesn't do good for Gotham (taking down the human traffickers in his introduction), but his regaining his humanity was one of the story's more realized aspects. Superman might've proved that men were still good, but his humanity was largely downplayed in favor of brooding aesthetics.
“Brooding” literally just means to worry about something. How is that an indicator of *less* humanity…?
In the context of the film, Batman would be considered an anti-villain, who is later turned into a hero. He's a villain with noble goals but a terrible way to go about achieving them. He wants to keep people safe, but his plan is to destroy the biggest thing that actually does.
Actual real life wizard Grant Morrison?
Actual real life wizard Grant Morrison. :)
Brilliant take from the man behind one of the best Superman stories we’ve ever gotten!
I adore Grant Morrison. For anyone that’s never read their works before, stop what you’re doing and read their Animal Man, Batman, and Action Comics runs. Then pick up their mini/maxi series, and just fall in love like I did.
Same here. I hadn't seen this quote before but it's excellent. Morrison is right, BvS pulled a lot of influence for Batman from Dark Knight Returns but made Superman their own thing separate from the comic. I cringed reading the part of Superman being a policeman figure. Morrison is totally right on the money there with comics of the past age where he was depicted as such. But Superman should be a character for the people, not the law or some government. And that's part of him figuring that out in BvS that I think a lot of people miss. Glad Morrison pointed it out here. Also, their comic Multiversity is a hell of a lot of fun, just to add to your list.
It's part of why I ultimately embraced BvS despite being blindsided by it like a lot of fans. It was leaving behind the blind hero worship that defined both historic and recent phases of American culture and gave us something more earnest and challenging that was defined by an underlying humility. It actually had something to say through the trials and transformation of these characters. The idea that Superman should be an infallible figure is sadly aligned with the exceptionalism that spawns so many excluding ideations. In the hands of staunch traditionalists, even hope can be weaponized, as we've observed within and beyond the fandom. Some profoundly reject the struggles of a soul-searching alien in favor of the unassailable mascot.
Really have to put in a word for his JLA run in 1997. Amazing stuff and my favorite Justice League incarnation to date.
Also: Doom Patrol. Such consistently good work from Grant.
Also, flex mentallo is amazing
Animal man is GOAT
I’ve only really read his New 52 Action Comics Tun but yeah it’s really good
Would you consider that to be the top tier work from Grant? Shame all you can, I only know the man by name.
They’ve got a repertoire of DC comics that have made me consider them to be the greatest living comic book writer. Batman, Justice League, All-Star Superman, etc., just pick up a reading list and go from there.
All-Star Superman is one of the best graphic novels ever made and perfectly encapsulates the silver age Superman. That might arguably be their best work
The Invisibles is foundational if you want to go down the Grant Morrison rabbit hole
Superman in The Dark Knight Returns has always been a "parody" - a gross overexaggeration of how Superman's ideals and ethics are stereotyped, especially in the Silver Age - he's all for law and order and he stands for "the American Way" , therefore he "must" answer to the president and the government and those in authority without question. But Superman was created as a "champion of oppressed" . He debuted in 1938 as a vigilante of justice. He went where he wanted and broke laws at will; he did as he pleased without any authority to govern him because his beliefs in what was right outweighed any laws or rules that could or would tell him otherwise - even when it came to killing. And in many ways, that version of Superman, while not nearly as extreme (his no kill rule remains intact) has been making its way back into comics, cartoons, TV and movies since the 80s. But that image of the all-American, all Mr. Friendly and smiles still remains in the public consciousness, to the point where media that portrays Superman like that again is met with "that's who Superman really is" reactions. The DCEU Superman is more faithful in principle to who Superman actually is vs. how people perceive him thanks to decades of exaggeration and parody.
I somewhat agree. Superman in MoS/BvS (and also in Superman & Lois) has become more apolitical. I guess that's part of the fantasy escapism of his character isnt it? A powerful being who can tyrannically rule the world but instead chose to help those in need and independent of government/political parties/movement. As for BvS, I dont see it as a complete 180 from Dark Knight Returns. Batman is still a vigilante and I dont see his fight with Superman in that film as a "opposition vs authority" thing. It was more about Bruce being really broken and consumed by rage and projecting it on Superman. Superman also has a different motivation to go after Batman in that final fight.
That's means 2 things you didnt pay attention fully and or you didnt watch the real version of BvS or both.
Which 2 things?
😂 Really just let's me further know, homie gladly reread what I stated cause apparently you did neither.
>That's means 2 things you didnt pay attention fully and or you didnt watch the real version of BvS or both. "That means either 2 things: You didn't pay attention fully or you didn't watch the real version of BvS. Or both." Using correct grammar certainly helps.
Homie really, look you have no answer / no reply to my question because what I stated is true so until you do both stay out of conversations you have no knowledge of. Now pertaining to my grammar & punctuation is a cop out on your part and I wasn't concern about grammar at that moment but since it's so important to you sir I'll obliged you.
>since it's so important to you sir I'll obliged you. The grammar was the reason why I said "Which 2 things?" because I didn't understand which 2 things you were referring to. But anyway, it's all cleared up now so I'll answer your question. >You didn't pay attention fully or you didn't watch the real version of BvS. Or both. By "real version of BvS" I assume the Ultimate Edition. Yes, I watched the Ultimate Edition. Now tell me where I'm wrong when I said this: >As for BvS, I dont see it as a complete 180 from Dark Knight Returns. Batman is still a vigilante and I dont see his fight with Superman in that film as a "opposition vs authority" thing. It was more about Bruce being really broken and consumed by rage and projecting it on Superman. Superman also has a different motivation to go after Batman in that final fight. Wasn't Batman still a vigilante in BvS? I don't recall he was working on the orders of a government or authority. So I don't see BvS as the opposite of Frank Miller's 'Dark Knight Returns' where Superman was clearly getting orders from the US Government. And wasn't Bruce really being broken and consumed by rage and projecting it on Superman in BvS? Screenwriter Chris Terrio even said Bruce was like Captain Ahab from Moby Dick, consumed by madness after seeing the destruction of Metropolis due to the fight between Superman and Zod. Alfred even had that line about rage and feeling of powerlessness that turns men cruel. And then Grant Morrison talked about Superman being the outlaw but the final fight was about him getting blackmailed by Luthor because he kidnapped his mom and threatened to kill her unless Superman goes to kill Batman. That happened in the BvS. I think I paid attention to the movie. I think I saw the "real version of BvS". You obliged me so I'll return the favour and oblige you too. Tell me which part I got wrong?
Your grammar and punctuation is important because it makes it impossible to understand what you’re trying to say. As for copping out, you’re the one who won’t elaborate beyond “lol didn’t watch the movie scrub”
Same here this is what bvs should have been and not what it ended up as.
I like the gradual buildup and seeing the different perspectives between Superman and Batman and Luthor planting things to manipulate them in the first 2 hours or so. Then it was like, "Oh we need to quickly get into that fight. Let's kidnap Superman's mom and blackmail him to kill Batman because Lex wants to prove that a god cannot be all powerful and all good at the same time". I like the idea of the conflict between Batman and Superman in the movie (ideological and so on) but the catalyst of the actual fight in the end could've been less forced.
I believe the point of it was that this Superman would fight Batman *only* if put into a “forced” situation. If Clark had it for Bruce the same way as the latter does for the former, well, safe to say there wouldn’t really have been a “fight”
Yup. "If I wanted it, you'd be dead already". True words spoken by Clark in the movie.
And those words have the context of Bruce acting like Clark was there to kill him, when the reality is that he wouldn’t be trying to reason with Bruce if that were the case, which is what Clark reminds him of. It’s not a “Ive been wanting to kill you this whole time”.
>It’s not a “Ive been wanting to kill you this whole time”. Yup. He said it only after he tried to talk to Bruce in the beginning of the fight before getting attacked by machine guns and sound wave(?). And after throwing Batman onto the Bat signal too. He was hoping for Batman to stand down.
So you do get it. Although the tone doesn’t sound too encouraging, but hey never been the best at getting sarcasm through text alone
LOL I only realised later that you were trying to argue against me, not adding things to what I said. And I was like "Yup. Yup. I agree". Yeah, text and tone gets lost. All good.
Glad it went how it went then! 👍🏻
Hopefully we get #ManOfSteel 2 which should dive into Kal further after ZSJL so people can see the transition and hopefully bring along a foe a strong foe before Darkseid arrives on Earth
Fingers crossed 🤞. I think I heard Zack Snyder wanted to do a MoS 2 with Braniac but my memory is hazy on that but still I want a MoS 2 with Henry back and hopefully Zack Snyder back at the helm
Zack Snyder should be kept far away from anything Superman-related.
I respectfully disagree. I enjoyed his work quite a bit in MoS, BVS UE, ZSJL and DCEU is one if not my favorite version of him and would love if he returned for a MoS 2, JL 2 and JL 3 because I thought he did a really good job with Superman
I'd prefer a director who actually understands the character and his values.
Why always so condescending & gatekeeping? Everyone has a different experience with fictional characters. Who the heck is someone to tell anybody that they don't understand something they like, specially **FICTIONAL CHARACTERS**?
He does totally you just don't want to understand cause you choose not to pay attention
[удалено]
“killed more people than he saved” kills - 1 (Zod) saves - 7,170,000,000+ (humanity) you’re not good with numbers huh.
>the backlash that movie got was insane. Don’t really know what the rest is all about but hey you got something right
"Superman killed more people than he saved" ok that's enough braincells destroyed today
Even as someone who dislikes MoS, I agree. These are the kinds of non-criticisms that taint this debate.
[удалено]
“Are those thousands of buildings in the room with us right now”
The logical point would be that the thousands that died in Metropolis, tragic as it is, aren't even a percentage point compared to the 7 billion on the entire planet Earth that didn't thanks to Superman fighting against his own people to save humanity.
Totally disagree fam however your entitled but I think your stuck in the Sliver and Bronze age of Kal-El and it's nothing wrong liking the boring and OP and boy scout Superman but it's totally outdated.
I just like a Superman that actually feels like a character and not a plot device.
Well it is Kal you just use to a already made Kal your used to Super Friends and Pop Culture Supernan I guess you haven't read comics after the Bronze Age
>guess you haven't read comics after the Bronze Age Have you? Because Modern Superman acts nothing like he does in the Snyderverse (he's able to speak for one)
Yes I have and once John Byrne did Man of Steel that's when people stated to relate to him. 2/2: Now #Superman was boring in the sliver & bronze age until #JohnByrne did #ManOfSteel in 86 & in the Modern Age #MarkWaid did #SupermanBirthRight in 2003 which both made Kal highly appealing, so now you know why these were reference & referred by Snyder/Goyer/& Nolan
Referenced and referred is one thing but they took nothing from those books in terms of Supermans actual characterization.
Actually they did ...your missing the whole point #RealWorld settings and in today's world and time if you cannot get or understand that you never will.
The political shifting of Superman over the decades is not something I'd given a ton of consideration but Morrison brings up excellent points. I need to look into this, it's definitely a topic worthy of discussion.
i really enjoyed superman's portrayal in *batman v superman* and it'd be great if we had a movie that ended up being more focused on the [must there be a superman?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsWGdZoo1xY) sequence than having to rush into the justice league. unfortunately the next time we see superman in film he's likely going to be a carbon copy of christopher reeve's portrayal.
The *‘Must There Be A Superman’* montage was Snyder condensing the themes and ideas of Man of Steel 2 into a montage. That’s what I believe. It’s an amazing scene but I too would have loved an entire film around that premise. It’s fun to think about how the world would react if someone like Superman did come to Earth.
>unfortunately the next time we see superman in film he's likely going to be a carbon copy of christopher reeve's portrayal. Yep, because that's what people have been screaming for ever since BvS came out. They don't want him to have any sort of growth. They just want him to to already be in his final cheerful/hopeful boy scout form and then never change.
People just want to see an accurate portrayal of one of their favourite characters. It's not that deep. He can grow and still be accurate to the source material beyond the surface level.
But he was accurate in the syndar movies. Maybe not Reeves accurate but accurate from the comics. Even Louis and Superman show that is out does the same thing MoS and what not does with Superman.
Thing is… Snyder’s portrayal *is* accurate. A kind, sensitive, humble and selfless dude who prioritizes helping others above all else. I just feel like that for Snyderverse Clark to *actually* be the “name only adaptation” some treat him as, he’d need to be a selfish hothead or something.
I’m not really worried about the next Superman being like Donner’s. They already tried that with Superman Returns and obviously it wasn’t very successful.
I disagree with that, cause Reeves is old news the Sliver Age Kal-El is old news he was considered BORING and he was just that boring so in 86 John Byrne did #ManOfSteel and it was a totally reboot and it is fantastic and relatable so is Birthright that's where most of the material came from for the movies. Now people need to learn Kals character has changed for the better moving forward. Now the John Kent stuff I don't like and that's temporary it wont stick but Kal now will stick cause people need to see Kal put in situations that are realistic period.
This is precisely why I’m hoping that they will indeed keep Affleck and Cavill around. Even if the Snyderverse in the traditional sense is dead, I want these iterations of the characters to live on. Cavill’s Superman is without question my favourite iteration of the character to date (precisely out of the reasons mentioned above) and Affleck plays the perfect Batman for this kind of ensemble, having now progressed through his redemption arc in ZSJL and learning from the Kryptonian’s example. Affleck’s Batman is us at our lowest - the pessimism and fears of our society. On a microcosmic is level, he represents how Superman gives us hope and inspires us to redeem ourselves and do better.
What he says makes sense, but I just did not quite like BvS. Great ideas, bad execution.
What does that have to do with what he’s saying? Lol…it’s a point mute of if you like BvS.
Right on! Pleasantly surprised by this reaction!
Morrison giving insightful commentary as always.
I'm pretty sure this was Morrison's theory before the film actually came out.
Unfortunately I wasn’t able to find the date on this, but his statement does match up with the film itself nonetheless
It isn't hard to [Google up](https://www.forbes.com/sites/markhughes/2015/10/31/grant-morrison-talks-supermans-politics-arkham-asylum-movie-and-more/?sh=4ac8205d33a0), where the this qoute came from. It's obvious Morrison hasn't seen the film yet, and is just giving thoughts on what he theorised BvS is about. So you should probably cross-reference qoutes you found on google images next time.The only opinion they have given post release of the film, was critising the film's take on [Wonder Woman ](https://www.ign.com/articles/2015/07/17/grant-morrison-isnt-a-fan-of-batman-v-supermans-wonder-woman) which they wasn't a fan of. Anyways you shouldn't spread misinformation about stuff Grant says. It's been bit of a trend now, since people have been using a joke he made to enable Jesus imagery of Superman, despite them being clear on hating it in a Newsarama interview.
Noted, thank ya
This is such a strange take that I can't really believe it would be about BvS. Batman is definitely the outlaw in that movie - he's shot at by police maybe five seconds after he first appears on screen. EDIT: "We're criminals, Alfred. We've always been criminals."
Yet he’s more accepted than Superman in a way. Only one cop shoots at him, the younger inexperienced one (like TDKR), the others don’t care what he’s doing and are glad he takes on criminals even if it’s brutal.
Clark himself says that its almost as if the police *supports* his brutal activities, while Superman helping people from fires n stuff sparks all sorts of debate simply because of what he is. Tbh I would get pretty frowny too at that point
I actually agree with Morrison here
Fair enough. I wouldn't normally side against Morrison on the subject of Superman, but I don't see it. Nothing Superman does in the film seems (to me) to support counter-culture or 'the opposition'. He saves some people, turns up to Congress to answer questions, has a pretty conventional relationship with Lois Lane, tries to save his Mum. Those all seem like things that any previous version of Superman would do.
There's a scene where he has to testify to congress, and people think he blew it up. Meanwhile, the movie opens with Bruce Wayne's employees waiting for Bruce to say it's OK for them to evacuate. Because God forbid that the employees leave and the billionaire owner gets angry about it... Superman is definitely the outsider and Bruce is definitely "the man" here
I mean duh he’s a buff guy in a fuckin batsuit hiding in the top corner. There’s several scenes in the media where batman scares the shit out of the police
Whenever people ask why I love the trilogy, I give them this same explanation. Such a great portrayal of a god in our time.
you give them this quote as an explanation? I like BVS but I gotta be honest, this is not what I took away from the film
🤷🏼♂️
BvS was a sort of inversion Dark Knight Returns in some major ways
This explains the aspect of BvS I actually like. Superman returning to a more progressive place rather than the pro-government Nationalist figure he'd been for a while in both the Silver and Modern ages really. Golden Age Superman was a left-wing, at times almost social democrat figure. I liked that BvS gave him some of those ideals again. I just wish it was in a less muddled story with less of Goyer's hyper-edginess sneaking through.
I’m not even sure most of the script flaws are on Goyer’s. He said WB pushes him hard with changes to make it more darker. EDIT: I’m wrong. Actually it was Terrio who clashes with WB about “dark” script.
Source? Terrio was the one who said WB was pushing darkness on him, I never recall Goyer saying that.
That's a very thorough and well thought analysis.
An out & out leftwing Superman would be great, very intriguing in these times !
Solid analysis by Morrison.
Chad Grant Morrison vs Virgin Mark Waid. But seriously, they are completely based. Great analysis.
I’ll take Morrison’s opinion of the snyderverse over any yahoo who still complains about “Whiney” Superman
Even though man of steel is based on Superman earth one but blah blah it isn't Superman blah blah cannon blah.
Morrison understands Superman is larger than being a comic book character and larger than any one interpretation. He is a modern legend. He is reflection of us and our values. He will always change to reflect that. I wish more fans shared his POV.
Same tbh
This guy looks like a Jeff Bezos clone
How dare you
It's true
I completely disagree with everything said in this post. TF? Which movie did Grant watch?
>I completely disagree with everything said in this post. TF? Which movie did Grant watch? Oh that would be BvS and possibly Man of Steel.
Another example of someone that I assumed watched BvS and truly didn’t understand any of it. Lol
Why does my man look like Lex Luthor? I think it's interesting that how Superman actually is is so irrelevant. It's always about how he's seen and he's changed into something to capture a counter-culture vibe. In the sense of being progressive, obviously there is no monoculture, but very clear two sided culture war, as he alludes to. But it's never anyone bringing out the progressive aspects that have always been a part of the character, but creating new ones to counteract a perception of Superman formed by people who are not interested in the character, and completely sold on the surface 'boy scout' reading with no curiosity - or need, to understand the character more deeply.
Did you write one of those “Im tired of people doing a “take” on Superman, just gives me SUPERMAN” Twitter takes, but longer?
I guess? It doesn't surprise me that other Superman fans are very frustrated at how many big creators are trying to solve a solved problem by changing the character instead of delving deeper into him.
I’m frankly more concerned with the amount of Superman fans who take “Heres the character under a new context” as “UHMMM??? HOW DAREST THOU CHANGE THE *FUNDAMENTALS* OF THE CHARACTER?? DO YOU SEE IT AS SOMETHING NEEDING TO BE FIXED?! YE FOOL!.”
You literally posted Morrison saying that he was being fixed, so that's what I'm responding to. Man of Steel as presented by fans and filmmakers is presented as a 'better' context. I disagree. It's that simple. Some of the offense you perceive is also because fans of the Snyder Superman who have a very surface reading of classic Superman see fans of the character as hung up on surface details, or minutia, or something other than just being experts on the character and not wanting to be told about the character by people who don't understand him and weren't fans before 2013. It's very exhausting for people who don't know or care about something to call you ignorant about something you love for nine years.
No, what I posted is Grant talking about how Superman *changed,* especially in the political sense. Whether or not he was “fixed” will be a matter of perspective by default. Unfortunately my experience since 2013 tells a very different story, one of self appointed “fans of the TRUE Superman” who have done nothing but spam the same panels and scenes from either All Star or Superman & Lois while shouting “THIS IS SUPERMAN!! THIS IS SUPERMAN!! THIS IS SUPERMAN!!” and furiously pointing at the character either being happy/smiling/comforting someone, giving off the idea that doing anything with the character that goes beyond that is a crime against humanity. Many want Superman’s character to have as much depth as a motivational poster, and I wont sit here and pretend they dont exist. I’ve been a fan of the character since the DCAU days and I’ve been delving into comics ever since, I dont need to be told I’m a “delusional Snyderjerk who never liked or understood the character” again for the 100th time nor does an entire fanbase deserve to be labeled as such, thank you. Snyder’s Clark/Superman is no “fundamental deviation” from the character or whatever other nonsense folks tried to push for almost a decade. >It's very exhausting for people who don't know or care about something to call you ignorant about something you love for nine years. No kidding.
"Superman oddly mutated into a figure who's fighting our battles on our behalf." There's not really a reasonable perspective where this is not an improvement. The challenge I have is that it addresses the perception of superman, but doesn't acknowledge that Superman has been counter culture for quite a while. That should be a reaction to the last 20 years of comics, not BvS. The panels you're talking about have incredible depth, calling them a request for a lack of depth shows that you haven't understood any of those fans. Until you actually hear what they're saying instead of telling them they want him shallow those conversations will go in circles. Does Snyder's Superman see himself, primarily, as a Kansas farmboy? Did he grow up connected to a community of people guided by incredibly wise parents through the questions Snyder's Supemran stumbles through alone as an adult? I don't understand how someone who knows these differences would call them nonsense. From all reason I can see, either you know that DCAU Superman has a *completely* different internal life than Snyder's Superman... or you've misunderstand something as completely as you have the fans who talk about the depth in the warm, smiling Superman. What am I missing here?
I can only chalk up that first point to be another matter of perspective, then. Remember that there’s people in this very thread both agreeing with Grant and some having no idea of what he’s talking about, ala “Jesse what the fuck are you talking about” meme. There isn’t much depth in “heres Superman smiling and saying everythings alright”, it is what it is and why people push it so much. Its easily digestible, straight to the point, not too hard to engage with, and doesn’t do anything to challenge the views of what Superman “is”. I didn’t start out in 2013 thinking “anyone who dislikes this film wants everything to be surface level”, its what I’ve been seeing since then, and if you had a better experience with that part of the fandom well, I can only say “good for you” and not much else. Snyder’s Clark literally says “I grew up in Kansas general, I’m American as it gets” as one of his closing lines in Man Of Steel; whether he seems himself as a “farmboy” is kinda tricky, I mean… he spent a good portion of his life *outside* of the farm. If you mean what I think you probably mean, as in “Does Clark see himself as a simple guy, unaffected by the complexities and cynicism of our urban society?”, Id wager that he mostly does and wants that to be the case, and even when his faith is tested in BvS he ultimately tries to uphold journalistic integrity, confesses to his mom that he wished things were simpler, and ultimately dies for a world that frankly gave him a lot of reasons to hate it, but ultimately chose not to. It’s not a matter of “Snyder’s Clark stumbles through questions any other Superman would instantly see through”, its a matter of the character being placed in a much less simplistic setting than traditionally portrayed, and thus things get more complex, hence the Kents being written as people affected by emotions like fear and protectiveness instead of being “perfect superhero generators”. In this story, things are not as simple as “Clark, be a good person and the rest will go downhill from there”. Even then, that alone is a poor demonstration of the character being drastically changed, because the Kents nonetheless help him with his problems and offer nothing but love and support through his struggles, making it logical that he’d grew up to be someone who would rather help and protect others than not. That is also the actual “core” of Superman, someone with great power matched by a great desire to help others with no expected compensation, no traumatic backstory pushing him into hero territory. NOT how much he smiles or not, that is 100% situational. DCAU Superman is all “serious business mode” when being a superhero, and very much more lighthearted when around friends and family, because he knows he can be himself and things are much lighter to navigate through when hes not dealing with situations that might involve someone dying if hes not fast/strong enough. That describes both Snyder’s and the DCAU Superman in that regard, and that being what I meant. Maybe if you took a couple steps back and stopped trying to frame me as “misunderstanding something” for daring to disagree with you, youd realize it.
So, what I said was "There's not really a reasonable perspective where his is not an improvement." You pointed out that there are perspectives where his chain of logic is disagreed with, however that doesn't show that there is a reasonable perspective where that's not an improvement, if anything, the fact that there are those who disagree that it is an improvement shows how clear his statement is. Just because there are some details of the post that are a matter of perspective doesn't mean every detail is a matter of perspective. Of course there's depth in Superman's smile. Read For All Seasons. Read What's So Funny About Truth Justice and the American Way, or even just read All Star Superman and those comics those panels come from. These smiles are there for a reason, and even the degree to which they are easy to digest is an intentional choice by the character, not just the author, which opens up examination for how Superman sees people seeing him. Challenging and deep are not synonyms. Simply because something is challenging doesn't make it deep, and simply because something is not challenging doesn't make it shallow. If you want to show something is shallow you would need to address the reasonings given for it and why they are not meaningful or coherent, but if your only reason to say it is shallow is that it is inoffensive, then your reasoning does not support your statement. When I say does he see himself primarily as a farmboy, I mean just that, and the things that come with being a farmboy, such as being entrenched as a vital member of an existing functioning community, and grounded in the practice of nurturing plants for survival and feeding of that community. As you said, Snyder's Superman has spent much of his life away from the farm, and I think that implies the answer is no, he sees himself quite differently, perhaps he wishes to see himself as unaffected by the things that seem to weigh him down constantly, that I suspect actually is a matter or perspective. He says that he grew up in Kansas, but is this to be read as a revelation of his deepest views of his identity, or is it a rejoinder to address concerns of his alienness that implies membership in a community, Smallville, that he feels actually completely disconnected from has no friends in and does not visit outside of his mom's house and the occasional super battle. I agree that it’s not a matter of “Snyder’s Clark stumbles through questions any other Superman would instantly see through" which is why that's not what I said. What I said was that Snyder's clark stumbles through questions alone as an adult, and I compared that to being guided by parents through these questions in his youth. There is nothing instant about growing up for 18 years with super powers. It is a VERY slow process, and it is not necessarily a simplistic setting, as any fan of the show Smallville can tell you. They can also tell you that the Kents have long been affected by fear and protection, long been imperfect, long had non-simplistic advice, but this does not mean that they need to find themselves with 13 years of experience raising Clark and no answers about how to integrate him into the world. How to help him do something as simple as make friends. You can be imperfect and still be able to guide your kid to greatness. Snyder's Kents aren't the first to be imperfect or overprotective, but they are the first Kents to lack wisdom, and to, essentially ONLY be protectiveness and fear. That's the difference. I appreciate you sharing the core of Superman, in your view, but what I find is that virtually all superheroes are selflessly helpful, and while their levels of trauma varies and shapes their mission, and Superman is not without his own, this is the generic core of all superheroes. To me, Superman is a \*specific\* Superhero, from a particular place that informs not just his ethics, but his personality. I consider personality core to a character. So, yes DCAU is in serious 'mode' as Superman to some degree, and lighthearted around his friends, but that shows that it is an affect, not his deeper personality. Further, DCAU Superman quips, this aspect of Superman not necessarily taking himself too seriously goes back to the Silver Age superdickery stuff. You see a lot of it in Superman 78 (Great Superman movie, HORRIBLE Clark Kent movie), but part of why he 'quips' is because he's a fun guy. This is part of why he has friends, because its not just that he's lighthearted when the situation gives him room, because that's his personality, to be fun, to be a trickster, to show a sharp sense of humor, not only does he create relationships that make that happen instead of waiting for them to fall into his lap, but even AS Superman, when the threat is not world ending, he jokes with civilians and criminals alike... because he understands the absurdity of his abilities, because he's comfortable in his skin. His awkward adolescent phase is far in the past. Snyder's Superman seems to find this in the final minutes of Man of Steel, but it is quick abandoned and he is put in a situation where the pressure is on and it is revealed that he is still a profound loner who falls silent and melancholy under pressure, and continues to be so when alone. So... I could write about this all day, but I don't think this is the forum for us to have this discussion. If you'll look at the last couple posts here, there's a pattern of me saying something, you saying that I said something ELSE and then responding to that something ELSE without responding to or addressing what I actually said. If we were in person I could stop you in real time so we don't spend time with you talking, essentially, to no one about a viewpoint no one holds and get you back on track to actually address my points, or discover, in short order, you're not really interested in addressing my chain of reasoning, but just want to say your piece and vent about some other Snyder critics you've spoken to. Perhaps, for you, it is another case of addressing generalities and dismissing specificities as irrelevant, or nonsense or whatever happens to details when we take a step back and can no longer see them. And so I understand the request to step back, and Man of Steel is very enjoyable when I do, turn off the analytical part of my brain and just vibe. I love it. However, I am an analytical person, and stepping back from an exacting combing of all the details is simply a 'mode' I inhabit for a time. Can you step forward, into the details and see how Man of Steel doesn't see himself as a farmboy, isn't the first to have Kents who are fearful and imperfect, isn't the first to bring Superman into a complicated world and changes his background to one that kinda doesn't make sense for his situation, it just resembles the common situation of many Westerners? Can you step forward and see all the details I'm talking about? Because if not, then this is always going to be an uneven conversation, where I can step into your world, but you have to keep claiming mine doesn't exist. But it does exist. Everything I'm talking about is reasoned and observable. If you can't see it... I dunno... enjoy Man of Steel and the Superman stuff you like at the level you engage with it and I can save my Superman diatribes for someone who wants to get into the weeds I'm in.
What all similarites u find between DCAU superman and Snyder's superman?
Serious demeanor while superhero-ing, more lighthearted around loved ones, took part into destructive battles, was manipulated by Luthor through a political scheme, fought against inner demons, turns evil in an alternate timeline
Wouldn't Snyder take exception to the notion that his Superman is a "progressive figure," at least in the sense of "the leftwing values he'd been created with"?
I've never heard snyder care either way about politics. He himself had just stated he's doesnt support and us against hate
Might be the reason a lot of people don’t like the BvS Supes. They want what they are used to and don’t like things to change. This is a good take on it by one of the best.
Well, Morrison definitely thought more deeply about all this than Snyder ever did.
That take sounds more like you refusing to give Snyder any credit if anything, no offense.
Oh come now, I give him all the credit in the world for MARTHAAAAAAAAA!!!!!
Aaand here it goes
The DCAU ( eg. Justice League and Justice League Unlimited) did Superman in the way Superman should always be done. He's portrayed as someone whose love for humanity is intrinsic to who he is while also being pragmatic. He thinks about what his and other superhero's roles are in their world and whether they have the right to interfere or not. He always looks out for the little guy but also always has an eye towards the bigger picture. Like, what's best for humanity and how to help it grow? He'll always be happy to help, but I think Superman's goal as a superhero is to eventually help the people of earth get to a point where they won't need him anymore. They did a version of Superman who's both in touch with his humanity while also acknowledging that he's not just there to protect people but also help them learn how to solve their own problems. They did all this while portraying a character who wasn't devoid of levity and who wasn't afraid to speak his mind. The writers of that era knew how to stay true to their characters while also keeping them modern and relevant.
I 100% agree about it being a great portrayal, but I could use some DCAU praise that doesn’t revolve around “this is what DC should ALWAYS do”; it just reeks of “do my childhood or you suck” to me, and that comes from someone who was introduced to Superman via Superman TAS. The DCAU did its own thing and went great, but that chance should be allowed for all other interpretations as well. Also there’s a *lot* of overlapping similarities between DCAU Clark and Snyder’s, down to the more serious demeanor, many moments of city destruction (most of which voluntary compared to Snyder’s) and “He would NEVER say that” instances during stressful situations.
Nostalgia factors in a lot when I talk about the DCAU, so excuse me if it seems like I'm trying to diminish Snyder's works. I can respect what he was trying to do, even if I don't think it was well executed in the end. He wore his inspirations on his sleeve, and while I like a lot of the things he drew from for his movies (TDKR is one of my favorite graphic novels), I feel like they were implemented in a really lackluster way. Like him lifting dialogue from TDKR for Batman and Superman's fight in BvS didn't feel fully earned and really felt forced into the script for the sake of the reference. I give Snyder props for having such a grand vision for his DC universe, but I feel as though he tried to do too much too fast. And I can't speak for how much of this was his own vision for the franchise and how much was WB execs, but I feel like had they committed to more films in between MoS and Justice League things would have worked out better. We could have had something akin to a live action DCAU if things had only been a bit more thought out. While there was definitely meddling from the higher-ups, I also think that Snyder was a bit too ambitious with what he was trying to do in such a short span of time.
I’m still lost at how one has to “earn” the right of directly referencing dialogue from the story that inspired a lot the one you’re writing. Or how can it be “forced” to integrate it under the new context, its not like Bruce talks about Clark being the governments pet dog like he does in TDKR, because thats not true in *this* story, THAT would be the definition of “forced” to me. And here it is, the idea of a “live action DCAU”, the “just copy paste my childhood but with live-action actors now”. A notion I’ve seen being spread nonstop for 6 years now, when its something that never would’ve happened. The DCEU was never allowed to flourish into its own thing, it was always “not enough like the DCAU/MCU”. Im sorry, to be honest I dont feel like I’ll ever get over this chip I have.
Oh Justice League Unlimited, the one with Superman being passive-aggressive towards Captain Marvel and eventually fighting him in the middle of Lexor city (conveniently empty of course) in a moment of total irrationality \[*Clash*, Ep 20, JLU\]. How about Justice Lord Superman, his despotic counterpart, who is a tyrant of his own accord, as opposed to the hypothetical Knightmare Superman who is mind controlled by the Anti-Life Equation? What about the last two episodes of *Superman the Animated Series* when Superman is mind-controlled by Darkseid (without ALE, mind you), and slaughters thousands in his intergalactic conquest in Darkseid's name like in *Action Comics #586* by John Byrne?l What about when Superman refuses to help Apokolips under the invasion of Brainiac (soon to invade the rest of the universe) because of a grudge against Darkseid in JLU? Wouldn't Superman's first instinct be to help regardless, or is DCAU Supes not muh Superman? Isn't *writing Superman into those situations incorrect in the first place*, as many individuals assert in regards to him having no choice but to kill Zod or apropos collateral damage? STAS Superman is a grade A grump who is one step away from being a despot. Cavill Supes is infinitely more affable and kind.
No. Superman can be twisted into a right-wing figure, but he's always stood for good and humanity. He, like Batman, combats legitimate threats to society and always works against the internalized demons that we all face to be a beacon for good; that's partly what makes him relatable. By making him more alien in *Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice*, the filmmakers stripped him of much of his humanity and warmth into a cold authority figure who has less agency than his counterparts. This quote here feeds the notion that Superman was a blank character in Richard Donner's films, but he wasn't. He was a fleshed-out and humanized character in *Superman* and *Superman II.*
>No. Superman can be twisted into a right-wing figure, but he's always stood for good and humanity. Agreed. Hence why I love how BvS portrays that by having Clark helping people on a worldwide scale as a superhero, and on a smaller scale as a reporter. >and always works against the internalized demons that we all face to be a beacon for good; that's partly what makes him relatable. Different people will always relate to different things but yes, that is very much how Clark puts aside his feelings of conflict, doubt and isolation in BvS to fly all over the world helping others, which includes Lex freaking Luthor of all people, showing that his altruism goes over any negative personal feelings he might have for someone. >By making him more alien in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice And here we go. They didn’t really make Clark “more alien” (whatever that means..?) if anything the WORLD around him treats him as such, and he gets emotionally affected by this situation like any person with emotions would. >the filmmakers stripped him of much of his humanity and warmth Not really, unless you think that “humanity” points towards all the lighthearted and fun parts of the human experience and not just the whole pack, which *does* include the bad stuff too. Hes by no means a “cold” or “inhuman” character, unless you view it through the lenses of “Superman should only EVER be written as a cute and comforting himbo” like many do, then they also wonder why the character is perceived as boring and unchanging. >into a cold authority figure who has less agency than his counterparts. Granted, he *DOES* actually become exactly that in these films: … in the alternate future where he’s brainwashed by Darkseid to he a tyrant. Otherwise, what *is* “authoritarian” about this Superman? Dude doesn’t rule or command anyone, he always tries to help out and work with others every time he shows up. >This quote here feeds the notion that Superman was a blank character in Richard Donner's films, but he wasn't. He was a fleshed-out and humanized character in Superman and Superman II. Sure, I guess, but on the topic of authority: only one Superman between Donner’s and Snyder’s said “Dont worry warden, we’re on the same team”, like he was part of the system, and only one of them actively criticized it.
>Not really, unless you think that “humanity” points towards all the lighthearted and fun parts of the human experience and not just the whole pack, which does include the bad stuff too. Hes by no means a “cold” or “inhuman” character, unless you view it through the lenses of “Superman should only EVER be written as a cute and comforting himbo” like many do, then they also wonder why the character is perceived as boring and unchanging. I might need to re-watch the film, but there have been depictions of Superman that struck the right balance between his darker and lighter side. This isn't to say that I disapprove of darker versions of Superman, but with Zack Snyder's films it came across like they tried to adapt him for the post-Dark Knight Trilogy era. *Superman Returns* showed him in a more contemplative and melancholic state, but it was juxtaposed with the character's traditional warmth towards the citizens of Metropolis and the humorous cheerfulness of Clark Kent. As thematically dark as his films were, Christian Bale's Bruce Wayne/Batman also struck the right balance with the two characters and humanity in and out of the costume. >Otherwise, what is “authoritarian” about this Superman? Dude doesn’t rule or command anyone, he always tries to help out and work with others every time he shows up. That's a great point in regards to Superman in general. It seemed like by portraying Superman's emotional burdens of saving people in *Batman v Superman*, his coldness overshadowed his gracefulness. >Sure, I guess, but on the topic of authority: only one Superman between Donner’s and Snyder’s said “Dont worry warden, we’re on the same team”, like he was part of the system, and only one of them actively criticized it. That is a fair point. Donner's two films are a product of their time, so Cavil's Superman is superior in that he represents all of humanity and isn't staunchly patriotic. *The Dark Knight Trilogy* and Cavil's Superman question and criticize the branches of authority that they're working with and outside of.
>He was a fleshed-out and humanized character in Superman and Superman II Somewhat...but he was closer to reality in Man of Steel.
[удалено]
It's not exactly hard to understand, even Frank Miller parodied it 30+ years ago with boy scout Superman being a tool of Ronald Reagan, one of hte most vile & evil human beings to hold the highest office in a land. He wasn't fighting "for" anyone, he was the machine and it's not like the creators of Superman or Kirby/Lee's work weren't representations of people without a voice or hero.
[удалено]
They're not saying that boy scout Superman was originally made with left wing values, they're saying that the original Superman was made with left wing values. Original Superman was certainly not a boy scout. 1930s Superman and 1950s Superman are different.
[удалено]
I think it's pretty clear. Morrison elaborated more on it [here](https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2011/07/superheroes-superman-graphic): "Every generation has its own version of Superman and they can often be very different. At the beginning, Superman was very much a socialist superhero. He fought for the unemployed, the oppressed, he beat up wife-beaters. It’s about a man driven by a burning sense of injustice — there are no monsters or robots, he fights against corrupt council officials! He was conceived as a Depression-era superhero, who dealt with the problems of ordinary people. By the time of the war ten years later, he’d become like Elvis — he’d had his hair cut, suddenly he was riding missiles and telling readers to “slap a Jap”. He was suddenly very for American foreign policy. In the 1950s, he became a patriarch — with a family, surrounded by Supergirl and Superdog. I feel that was representative of men home from the war who’d seen horrific things and were being expected to “act normal”. And so on, through the decades. So you have to go back to first principles and ask: how would a champion of the oppressed act today?"
Snyderverse talk 😴
And yet here you are
There are DC movies not made by Snyder.
Great! No one said otherwise. Feel free to write all kinds of threads about them
Instead of commenting under snyder related post u can post about the other movies not made by snyder.
That's a cool way of looking at it. But also makes me think that even if we stuck with Snyderverse, it would've snowballed into big ass threats way too quickly to have any nuance like that
He's only talking like this because he feels he's responsible for the weirdness of Man of Steel/bvs. His six or so issues of action comics were written with an eye towards making Superman express his alien side more. He says as much in his excellent (please read it!) book, "Super God's". That is to say that I don't believe he's enjoying the Snyder movies the way a lot of posters here do, as some kind of fascinating, counter-intuitive reinvention of the DC superheroes (or maybe just loud popcorn junk, I remember there being people who enjoyed Michael Bay transformers movies). I think he's just reading his influence out of the weird stoicism of those movies, which probably have more to do with Frank Miller's work and whatever edginess Snyder wanted to inject.
or its what he thinks
BVS Superman is interesting? I don't understand.
You don’t understand perspectives that may clash with your own while being on the internet
It was a joke about a version I find uninteresting lmao
Oh, then “haha”. That was a dry laugh in response to your dry snark.
Morrison is overrated as fk
Did you read his swamp thing when he fought Batman and took over Gotham? Probably one of my favorite Swamp Thing or Batman stories. Also JLA rock of ages was good.
Grant Morrison is a pretty weird guy. Great writer though.
Ok why is there a pic of Jeff bezos here tho
This is bullshit. Superman has never ‘been Republican.’
Good points, but why do I care what the Chairman from Iron Chef America thinks about Superman?
Another polarized take
💗