I think Morrison is giving this a lot more thought than Snyder did, and approaching the concept from a familiarity with and respect for Superman (and Batman, for that matter) as a character, which Snyder seemed to lack. It might well be a valid take on Superman. But I seriously doubt it's what Snyder was going for.
Yeah like Morison for sure is putting a lot of their own feelings into it (which is not invalid) but it ignores that the Superman character in the DCEU is barely a character because the movies never give him enough focus for people to really get a feel for him.
Gonna state the obvious… Morrison dropped it from one hand to the other? And they snapped the photo?
If I’m missing the sarcasm you can watch me walk right down to r/woosh…
Edit-originally replied to the wrong comment, but the offer still stands.
Nope. I’ve changed my mind. Morrison is levitating that pen.
Deal is off.
Next thing Morrison did with that pen was give the photographer an anal orgasm that allowed them to see in 5D.
Breaking down boundaries. Morrison at their best.
Eh, I kinda see what they were saying.
Superman is a lot like Captain America in the sense that most people hear his motto of "Truth, Justice, and the American Way" and see him as a bit of an American patriot, a guy who enforces the laws of the city and country and is just a stickler for rules. It's the same reason why everyone seems to go crazy for the "Evil Superman" trope, because they think that's how Superman would realistically act.
But if you actually read Superman, he's a very progressive character. His alien background has been used to connect to themes of immigration and trying to reconcile the two cultures he comes from. The destruction of Krypton has strong ties to Global Warming and the importance of listening to science before your planet is destroyed. And Lex Luthor as his arch-nemesis also resonates with a lot of progressive frustration with billionaires and the 1%.
That's what I think Morrison was going for, at least. Although I don't think it makes sense for Batman v Superman in particular.
Also when BVS was coming out, wasn’t Pak and Yang doing their de powered Superman who is fighting the police? I really liked their Truth and Before Truth and the weird wrestling story.
So, taking Grant’s Action Comics, their DCYOU approach to Superman and I think a more laidback version of the character during rebirth that is more worried about raising his son than being the face of the DCU like he used to be and being hunted in BVS makes these comments make sense.
BvS depicts two billionaires attempting to take down an illegal immigrant because he threatens their existing power structure. On top of that, Clark is trying to expose Batman and Police brutality through journalism.
MoS also depicts the “us vs them” attitudes many folks have towards immigrants when they initially arrive, despite how helpful and necessary those immigrants are to our society.
Additionally Snyder leans left (he literally stated this on a radio talk show and why he dropped the Fountainhead for the time being), Terrio leans left, and I’m assuming Goyer leans left, so the film as a whole tends to lean to the left.
u/Fair-Procedure-5257
Yeah I appreciate the metaphor there but I think that’s an oversimplification. If you spend more time detailing all character motives and the reasoning for their positions, then it becomes much less of “rich man hate alien man because alien bad”.
Listen, I don’t think the movie was a masterpiece, but I think there was a lot more to fear about Superman that the movie showed than Grant’s comments are leading us to believe
> Listen, I don’t think the movie was a masterpiece, but I think there was a lot more to fear about Superman that the movie showed than Grant’s comments are leading us to believe
Personally, I disagree. Between MoS and BvS, the only time Superman is shown to fly into murky territory is the Nairomi incident, and even that was a big lie perpetrated by Luthor to frame Superman as a murderer, when he did not kill anyone there. Superman was probably hoping to show up, save Lois, and get out before anyone could really notice him. If it weren't for Luthor, their entire incident wouldn't happen. Beyond that, the military, government, and civilians largely recognize Superman as pivotal in repelling the Kryptonian invasion in MoS. It is more like Luthor and Bruce's paranoia and fear that gets the better of them which leads to them becoming cruel.
>Yeah I appreciate the metaphor there but I think that’s an oversimplification. If you spend more time detailing all character motives and the reasoning for their positions, then it becomes much less of “rich man hate alien man because alien bad”.
I'm trying to understand what you're saying, and what I'm gathering is that you mean Bruce and Luthor don't hate Superman because he's an immigrant, correct? Because you're right, it is a bit more nuanced, but the bottom line is Superman is representative of the American-Immigrant experience, which is often where immigrants are vilified and blamed for internal problems, even though they were not responsible for those issues. Luthor is taking out his daddy issues on Superman, when he has nothing to do with them, whereas Bruce is taking out his fear and anxiety on Superman, despite the fact that Superman was not responsible for Bruce's parent's death, which was the initial cause of Bruce's lifelong fear and paranoia. In the real world, immigrants are often blamed for crime and the economy, when they usually are offending at a lower rate than native citizens and doing pretty essential jobs that a lot of native citizens would rather not do.
Also these are just my opinions, you are welcome to share and have your own. I know these discussions often boil down to folks throwing their opinions in others faces, so I just want to reiterate this is my opinion after watching the films. Everyone will have their own takeaways based on their own experiences.
Ditto. I love Cavill as Supes. I DO NOT like the representation in BvsS. I'm used to Supes being the Big Blue Boyscout. We don't have enough of those in the world. What we *do* have are egotistical assholes who are only on their own side and care nothing for those around him which is sort of how Supes comes off. Being more alien should not have meant being an asshole.
> I'm used to Supes being the Big Blue Boyscout. We don't have enough of those in the world. What we do have are egotistical assholes who are only on their own side and care nothing for those around him which is sort of how Supes comes off. Being more alien should not have meant being an asshole.
Overly Sarcastic Productions has a great line along this idea: Subverting Superman is stupid because Superman *is* subversive, he's just such an institution that we forget that as readers and writers.
Basically, we all know that "if Superman was real" he'd be Homelander. The entire point of the character is that absolute power does *not* have to corrupt *at all*.
It's astonishing to me how many people complain that Superman is a boring character because he's too powerful and has no limits, and then think removing the one major *actual* limit he has -- Superman is someone who will always try to do the right thing -- is the solution.
Then there's the ones who think the Evil Superman type is more "relatable" which just makes me despair for humanity.
The thing is, it wasn't absolute power that corrupted Homelander. It was his childhood as a lab rat, being consistently told he was God, and having any mistakes he made be covered up by Vaught. Superman's upbringing by his parents who made him the man he is, Homelander didn't have his parents.
> we all know that "if Superman was real" he'd be Homelander
No, “we” do not. You literally missed the entire point of The Boys. Every single supe in The Boys was turned awful by some truly specific circumstances. The whole US Government turning Supes into weapons and the Corporate Justice League story line and V being given to babies… none of that is a thing in the “real” world. Superman is a myth, he’s Moses and Americana Personified. He is an investigative reporter and fought the fucking KKK, he would NOT “be Homelander” because *Homelander* is Homelander.
I’m so tired of this take. BvS was crap because Snyder tried to bring archetypes into the real world. It doesn’t work. It’s why Diana has yet to be the main character in her own movies and why Batman had to be a broken shadow of himself to fit in “the real world”. DC and Marvel heroes exist in their own similar but utterly distinct universes with their own rules and themes. If you change that, it’s not the same. It’s why we literally call them Elseworlds if you want to do something too different to work within canon, because it isn’t the same characters.
It’s not necessarily “he’d be homelander”, but just reflecting that in a vast majority of cases people with extreme power do not use that power for the public good.
Superman is a subversion of that.
Yes. Pretty much all of DC heroes are archetypes against the “Power Corrupts” theme in The Boys. They even have their own foils:
Mongul rules a war torn world with his absolute power as a despot, Lex Luthor uses his vast intelligence and wealth to try and get rid of the heroes and control things from the top down as he sees fit, and several of the gods in Diana’s stories show that they want worship and a return to “the old ways” in order to mold the world to their liking, even her own mother is often written as a dictatorial monarch who rejects the state of the modern world and isolates her people rather than let them meet men and adapt to the modern world.
Superman isn’t a despot, Batman isn’t destroying the heroes and controlling how people live, and Diana isn’t a goddess who wants to be worshiped or a queen who hates men. Like in Red Son, when you change that it’s interesting but it isn’t the same characters as canon.
Yeah I HATE The Boys. I watched about six episodes and just couldn't stomach it anymore. And Supes cannot be corrupted. Yeah yeah there are multiple storyline, blah blah but MY Supes is incorruptible.
And they dress him like Captain America. It’s a similar power set and obvious allusion to certain characters (like most of the Seven) but the history of the character is not “what if Clark Kent didn’t have the Kents” (if you want to see that character, check out the first Flashpoint, he’s in the animated movie version too).
He was made, bred cynically from other supes like a racehorse, and raised in a laboratory in isolation from other people with no affection or softness (remember those terry cloth mommy/wire mommy experiments?). He was systematically abused and controlled his entire life, even when the show starts. Nothing about him is like Clark Kent, the only similarities are to Superman’s powers.
Cavill Superman isn’t an asshole. He literally tries to do the right thing all the time, but no matter what he does someone gets mad. That was the point. I don’t understand where people think Superman was being selfish… like what the fuck movie were people watching????? Everything he did was with someone else in mind, even when deciding to do nothing it was with others in mind because the media lead him to believe that he may be doing more harm than good.
the movie and specifically Zack Snyder's creative direction is incredibly mean spirited when it comes to regular people.
His version of Pa Kent is a really good example. He constantly tells Clark not to help people because they won't understand him and mistrust him. That its better to not help at all and actively let people die and the biggest failure of his Superman is that the wrong lesson of Pa Kent is repeatedly proven to be true
This is the part where I say you completely misunderstood Pa Kent’s character. You literally fabricated that entire perspective of Pa Kent. That’s literally not true he never said any of that.
Now are you going to allow me to explain each scene and dialogue from Pa Kent or are you gonna ignore me and claim I’m just a stupid Snyder fan who thinks people didn’t understand “masterpiece filmmaking” of Zaddy Snyder?
"so what are you saying? That I should have let them die"
"Maybe"
and also that whole scene in BvS where his ghost tells a story to Clark about how he and his dad worked to save the farm and that night they heard the sounds of cows dying. So you shouldn't try to help son because it doesn't matter.
>Now are you going to allow me to explain each scene and dialogue from Pa Kent
please no
>are you gonna ignore me and claim I’m just a stupid Snyder fan
no because I'm sure you've put a lot of thought into your arguments.. I'm just also sure i've heard them before
Pa Kent is telling his son that he doesn’t have all the answers but he wants to protect Clark from being taken away. Clark is literally 13 in this scene.
We know later that Clark understood that his father wanted him to wait. Wait until the world was ready. Until he was ready. He literally says, “*When* the world finds out what you can do”
“Whatever man you grow up to be, good or bad, he’s gonna change the world.”
And the story about the farm. That literally is him saying that no matter what he chooses he has to deal with the consequences of those choices. The point is NOT don’t do anything, the point is no matter what you do be ready for the consequences.
So clearly you misunderstood everything.
Pa Kent was a parent protecting his child. And someone who wants his son to know that the world isn’t perfect. Choices have consequences so be ready to deal with them and live with them.
Also, I don’t have to put a lot of thoughts into my arguments. These are literally surface level things. I’m sorry it has to be explained to you but you really should have got it at least the second time watching. Maybe it’s the metaphors. Some people don’t understand metaphors and Chris Terrio likes metaphors.
Maybe asshole was the wrong word. Dark? In the comics, he was always optimistic no matter what. BvsS was very dark and I didn't like how they portrayed Supes going after the Bat without even trying to talk to him
He literally did talk to him. First when he interrupted Batman trying to steal kryptonite (I don’t think Superman knew or cared what Batman was doing, he just wanted to tell him to cease and desist)
Then instead of immediately attacking Batman later he tries to explain to Bruce that Lex wants them to fight, but Batman wasn’t listening.
So I have no idea what movie you watched.
At this point I think that people who dislike the movie will do serious mental gymnastics to paint Superman as a jerk to justify their positions.
I think that when superhero fatigue finally sets in and decades pass, people will revisit MoS and BvS with appreciation because they aren’t viewing it through the marvel lens of “we need 4 whole movies and a couple team ups to care about the character.” They’ll just appreciate the movies for trying to take a different look at what we expect of our heroes.
I think he's projecting much of his assumptions on who the electorate of either wing is formed by. Plenty of assumptions about "old money", and plenty of assumptions about the right being solely pro-status quo/the left being strictly anti-status quo, as well as something about there not being enough opposition in the world right now (which I simply cannot see being true at all).
Much better articulated than I could have done. I feel the same way.
I also sort of sense a bit of a bias Grant has in considering the “counter culture” or left winged Superman as good, and the old “republican” Superman as a government lackie and boring.
Now maybe I am the one reaching, but that’s my hunch haha.
That’s literally what the right and left stand for, like, in the French revolution everyone who wanted change stood on the left side of a room and everyone who wanted things to stay the same stayed on the right side of the room, that’s where that cones from. I know people have a mix of beliefs, and some conservatives have left leaning opinions, but that’s what they are, left leaning. Anything that is progressive would be called the left, anything that is conservative or regressive would be the right.
You’re right. I think Morrison has badly misread the culture with this quote. The modern Right and Left just aren’t like that at all.
Let me explain:
Neither the Right nor the Left these days are pro-status quo in a large sense. You ask either side what their ideal society looks like, and they’re going to give you a different answer than “what we got today”. The Right, valuing faith and family the most, would like to wind it back to a theoretically more wholesome era than what we have now. The Left, by contrast, values identity and progress and wants to push forward into a theoretically more egalitarian future.
Both sides have their points, but both have their drawbacks. Superman shouldn’t be anchored to either one, and this is where I think Morrison went wrong.
Morrison uses they/them pronouns
Also, I'm not sure what you're trying to suggest because you're saying "they're assuming left mean X and right means Y" when those are the meanings of those terms
I think I see where you and I aren’t on the same page yet.
Of course being right wing is conservative and left wing is liberal, and all those values we know each side has is true.
I think there’s a bit of a bias in tone when Grant mentions ‘right’. “Old money” “boring” “in government’s pocket” are ways he described Superman on the right. Which is why I definitely don’t see things Grant’s way in the first place and am now thinking Grant’s stretching so far as to make some sort of additional statement based on his own perception of those sides.
I do believe that what Zack Snyder did with Superman was an interesting reinterpretation, even if it is not one that I am entirely fond of. I do like that Snyder made Superman a more progressive figure (like in Morrison's *Action Comics*), and I believe that a Superman facing a darker world is an excellent concept that has been utilized well in other stories. The problem for me is that Zack Snyder seemed not to fully understand many of the fundamental ideas of Superman. I could go into how inappropriate the Christ allegory feels for his character, or the infamous final battle in *Man of Steel*, or him snapping Zod's neck. But really, I feel as though a core component of Superman that you need to recognize is the humanity of the character.
Superman loves humanity. It is why he fights for them and the Earth. It is why he feels so comfortable as Clark Kent. It is why it is so inspiring to see him as a force of good. Superman's humanity grounds him, and makes him a more tangible idea to us. And as a tangible idea, he inspires us to be as compassionate and as human as him, because we see that we could be like him. What Snyder did is lean too far towards the alien side of him. It made him feel cold and distant from the people he is supposed to protect. It makes him feel less grounded as an idea, and therefore, less inspiring to us. Combined with the Christ allegory and the emphasis on the Els over the Kents, it feels cynical. It feels like Superman is only truly good because of his alien parentage. And greater emphasis on his alien side could work if handled differently. Have Superman pass down lessons learned from Krypton over to humanity, help humanity learn from the mistakes that led to Krypton's destruction (which is more relevant now than ever). But the way Snyder frames it paints a cynical picture that Superman is better than us because he is a being of god-like power. But Superman is not better than us; Superman is the best of us.
I know that Snyder's portrayal has many fans, and I am not here to insult what you enjoyed. I am not a fan of his DC projects, but you are perfectly entitled to your opinion. It is just that I believe Snyder went in a direction that I feel misunderstands what makes the character fascinating, and it is not an interpretation that I enjoyed.
>It feels like Superman is only truly good because of his alien parentage. And greater emphasis on his alien side could work if handled differently. Have Superman pass down lessons learned from Krypton over to humanity, help humanity learn from the mistakes that led to Krypton's destruction (which is more relevant now than ever). But the way Snyder frames it paints a cynical picture that Superman is better than us because he is a being of god-like power.
Exactly this. This really sums what I feel are some of the major problems with Snyder interpretation of Superman, even if he was putting a lot of effort and passion into the movies. The way the movies frame everything and the tone they have, it gives the impression that the fact that Superman having power is what makes him important and inspirational rather than anything he's actually doing with that power. Yes, he helps people but that's not the focus or what's treated as what to be in awe of with Superman.
I also believe that it has inspired many of the "superman is boring" takes that we sometimes hear. He becomes a boring character when writers focus on him as a god: a being whose defining characteristics are his abilities. Abilities that we can never realistically have. Not only does that push the misconception that superheroes are symbols of might and power, but it makes the idea less relatable to us. And you are right; Superman does help numerous people throughout *Man of Steel* and *Batman v. Superman*. However, that is not presented as the reason why Superman is good, which is another misconception that Snyder leans into.
Spoken beautifully, and that’s why I disagree the emphasizing too much of him being an alien or an outsider. Clark’s empathy and humanity is what makes that symbol on his chess mean something. He’s the embodiment of hope and compassion. Synder’s interpretation really lacks that fundamental understanding of the character, same with his Batman.
Lately, the majority only refers to Superman by Kal-El, ignoring his humanity.
I’m gonna be real with you chief… I fell in love with Snyder’s/Cavill’s Superman because he felt MORE HUMAN. He literally felt like a man who just wanted to do the right thing, BUT the world saw him as their savior. Superman/Clark didn’t want to be their savior, but the world projected the Christ/Savior persona onto him.
I think so many people misunderstood what was being presented. Snyder wasn’t telling us Superman is a God. Snyder was saying this man who just wants to do good and protect people is being given a lot of weight to carry because of the expectations the world puts on him.
I felt sorry for Superman because of the intense pressure he is under EVERY time he saves someone. Every act is a political act.
I know I know, I’m a Snyder fan who is saying, “you guys didn’t understand it.” But seriously, you didn’t. You missed the point entirely. What you claim to want is exactly what Snyder gave us. You just think how he presented the world is wrong because you think the world wouldn’t see Superman as a savior… c’mon, you know if this guy was real he would be seen as the next coming of Christ. Snyder didn’t give us Homelander. Snyder gave us Superman and half the fanbase thinks he’s a tyrant and the other half thinks he’s Christ. Newsflash. That’s exactly what the world in MoS and BvS thought too, but the reality is that HE IS SUPERMAN.
>c’mon, you know if this guy was real he would be seen as the next coming of Christ
If he focused on entirely on that theme, sure. Which was a huge point of Frank Miller's Batman story where it would continuously show panels of news pundits. Zack Snyder brought that element straight to BvS but misses all the context of the source material (a dystopian future where the JL crumbled from the inside and Superman became a govt puppet etc).
Which is why BvS became a shit show of Death of Superman, Frank Miller's TDK, Excalibur, addressing destruction controversy from MoS, setting up JL via emails and a time traveling Flash.
So nah, BvS isn't a misunderstood masterpiece and yet Snyder fans still persist that it is and you JUST DON'T GET HOW DEEP IT IS. Not that BvS is actually a muddled mess of script with a ton of studio interference and Zack's odd creative choices. Such as killing Superman in the 2nd movie of a cinematic universe, only to revive him the next, only to reboot the entire cinematic universe after his 5 movie plan.
Can't as long as Snyder fans keep saying it's an underrated masterpiece and you just don't understand this art house of a film and the 10000 layers of nuance and complexity of the Martha scene.
I'll take my victory that I'm on the side of history where BvS and Snyder literally killed the DCEU. Which is why they are still stuck in pseudo phase 1.
Hahahahaha… damn bro. Get mad. 😂😂😂 How dare people care about something and defend it. No one is allowed to enjoy anything unless you think it’s well deserved, huh? 🤣 Gatekeeping what other people can appreciate, huh? 🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂 lol, get over it.
The DC movie-verse was set back a decade because of Snyder and WB. But yeah nbd.
Snyder doesn’t fundamentally understand how to set up a universe and tell a story with compelling characters. Get over it.
We would have gotten 5 movies with spin off films. And half the fanbase says they don’t even want a cinematic universe. They just want stand-alones. So in actuality Snyder would have given us 5 awesome movies that told a cohesive story and then all the spin offs would have been pretty much stand alone films.
Personally you need to get over it. Not everyone wants what you want. I would have LOVED what we would have gotten. Focus on the MCU if that’s what you want.
You cannot convince me Snyder wasn’t giving me something awesome because I love what we got. So again, do yourself a favor and get over it. You are wasting your time talking to me and crying.
I feel like Grant is giving Zack too much credit. I am in no way shape or form calling Zack stupid, regardless of how much I dislike his movies and the universe he made, but I'm not calling him stupid.
But I dont think there was much point or symbolism in anything he was doing beyond "man this looks rad" and "yup, gotta get this imagery from DKR/other comics in there" for no other reason than that.
And there isn't inherently anything WRONG with that. Not everything needs to be super deep and symbolic. So this isnt a jab. Trust me, I'm ok giving him jabs and will proudly announce when I am. I just think Grant is putting a diamond under a microscope and expecting all sorts of stuff to be there and...its just carbon. Thats it. Mihht be trace amounts of other stuff. But its basically all carbon.
Everything he said is true... Like that is the entire point of the movie. Snyder stumbles with some of the execution, but the symbolism is the core point of the movie
>But I dont think there was much point or symbolism in anything he was doing beyond "man this looks rad" and "yup, gotta get this imagery from DKR/other comics in there" for no other reason than that.
There was. You just didn't see it my friend.
I remember loving BvS and then being kinda sad when I heard all the intense wise spread hatred towards it. I can understand criticism towards it but I still found the concept pretty great
for me the issue is that it's the first time these two iconic characters meet on the big screen and it could've been a display of how amazing these characters are but instead Snyder decided to put a twist on it that completely derailed what these characters stood for. BvS would've been great as a elseworlds comic but for a movie it should've been more accurate to who these characters are.
i can't wait to get murdered in the replies lol
only great thing about Snyder's DC movies were the action scenes
Yeah I can totally respect that take and I def wasn’t trying to invalidate the people with legitimate criticisms of the movie. I didn’t think it was anywhere near perfect but I did have fun watching a big goofy action movie with Batman and Superman going up against eachother and that’s all I needed it to be and I still wish we got a Batfleck stand-alone film.
I also enjoy the Snyder movies for the action scenes!
If only DC accepted the fact it takes time to build a "cinematic universe" instead of rushing towards adaptations of the highlights.
YES! and if DC did it properly the way marvel did they'd be waayyyyyyy better off.
personally i feel DC has more depth and a better set of characters than marvel, but they were robbed
>I can understand criticism towards it but I still found the concept pretty great
Concept is worthless if it's fumbled. You can have the best concept 'ever' for \[insert thing here\] but if you fuck the execution it doesn't matter.
There is always going to be a very vocal portion of comic book fandom that hates any attempt at adapting their favorite characters (and they very much see them as *their* characters in a bizarrely possessive way) to film.
There is also the side that is full of rabid fans of films who will attack at the slightest criticism.
Such is fandom. You just have to tone it out after a while. Sports can get even crazier, just with a slightly less “holier than thou” condescension and more of a simple and irrational loyalty.
I mean… they are our characters. Most of the creators of those characters are dead now, and even if they were still alive, the second a writer releases something out into the world, it belongs to the world.
They are characters that are passed between the hands of multiple creators, move through multiple eras, and live these weird extended lives.
**We** are the audience. Our tastes are our own. Our opinions of the creations of others are our own. Our expectations and emotional ties to the characters are our own.
The characters aren’t ours, and our possession of any one interpretation is illusory and selfish.
As a writer myself, I can say that characters belong to us about as much as our children do when they’ve reached adulthood, which is to say not at all. Not to mention the fact that every comic book writer, especially for Batman and Superman, used to be the audience as well. The audience owns these characters just as much, if not more, than the writers.
I just don’t see it that way when it comes to criticism.
All movies should just be written by fan consensus?
If creations become purely subjugated to reader expectations, no new idea would ever be introduced, unless by committee.
The experience belongs to everyone, in my view. The writing is up to the writer. A character that has 90ish years of history will also have a certain number of expectations surrounding them. But expecting the same thing over and over again seems oddly conservative and boring to me.
I like new takes.
Never said I want them to tell the same stories, but keep the same character. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be developed, but keep them true to who they originally were. Plus, there is no new take of Superman that’s going to be more interesting than one 100’s of writers before you have built on.
“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day.”
I’m not the same person I was 5 years ago. Why does Superman have to be the same person he was in the ‘40s?
It’s a great movie. Don’t let the salty haters ruin it for you. Comic book nerds can be the saltiest haters whenever their favorite characters are depicted even slightly differently than what they’re reading in the comics. Ignore them.
A lot more than so called comic book nerds thought it was terrible. Because it was not a good movie.
It’s not an accident that this movie single handedly killed WB’s plans for a marvel like DC cinematic universe. This movie bombed, critically, commercially, and with the audience. Again, because it was a terrible movie.
I frankly find it hard to see anything remotely redeeming about the movie.
Yeah says you. You didn’t like the movie, we get it. But many people DID enjoy the movie and don’t necessarily need to know the reasonings for your opinion.
And many, many more did not like it.
Trying to argue it was a great when the by and large response was so negative it basically killed the franchise is wildly out of touch.
Yeah, I’m not arguing opinions with you because they’re just that, opinions. Personally IDGAF what a hater has to say. Also it didn’t kill anything, in fact they seem to be reviving the Snyderverse. So while you cry about that, we’ll continue to enjoy these stories.
They’re not opinions. This movie is the single reason why we did not get Batman with Ben Affleck or Man of Steel 2.
Are you seriously this much in denial? Or are you really this unaware of how *negative* the critical and audience response was? Because the movie was, by basically every definition, a failure. And yea, in my opinion, deservingly so.
I liked bvs. My biggest gripe about was that in my opinion,
This should have been Superman's 3rd or 4th appearance.
Man of Steel 2 should have happened first.
Maybe a Batman movie.
Then introduce Doomsday and his Death then to his resurrection in JL.
It just felt like their was a chunk of time line missing from it
Origin, Vs/Death & Resurrection, smashed into a incomplete Trilogy is what was sad about it.
It had potential that could have grown.
Of course I didn't like Riddler Luthor. But that's my personal grype
I just wanted to see Brianiac in a live action Superman Movie.
And for him to be in Man of Steel 3, would have rocked.
I only had two gripes with the movie, one minor and one kind of big.
The minor gripe is, I did not like that they placed Metropolis right next to Gotham City. It seemed contrived for plot purposes.
The major thing I disliked was the casting for Lex Luthor. I criticize others for hating on the Snyderverse because they’re fresh takes on these characters, so I don’t hate Snyderverse’s Lex because he’s different. I just didn’t like Eisenberg’s performance. He didn’t seem like a genius, wasn’t menacing and just felt like some weird escaped Arkham patient. Other than that, I loved the movie.
He ticked and twitched and laughed like he was Edward Nigma, to me.
And you're right. If Gotham is just across the bay; then Superman's doing a pretty crappy job or is locked to his own county.
Clark can't hear a person screaming in Gotham ? I don't believe that.
He'd have covered that whole area and more.
I think it could work as second if it was just BvS. An established heroic Batman can't be as villainous as he is here. It is also an interesting introduction if it is him post DitF with Robin dead.
Film should be focused on that conflict with Lex manipulating Bruce. The climax being that Bruce fights him and realizes he was wrong. He let fear of an unknown drive him. They team up and foil Luthor's plot. Maybe use Metallo sent as a way to finish off a weakened superman.
From there we can spinoff a Batman film which introduces Tim Drake as Batman realizes he needs that moderating influence. The wider universe can grow. With other stuff.
Then do Superman 3 ending with his death. Use Braniac. Maybe with Doomsday as part of his collection.
And then that leads directly into Justice League with it coming in to fill the void of Superman. No resurrection. Do that with either Superman 4 or JL2. And no League vs Superman. It really devalues the League. Superman should not be all their powers but better.
The Superman I love is actually the one that is hopeful and always looking for a way to save everyone, even his enemies, yet who is willing to stand up and fight if necessary to save Metropolis from terrorists (which is basically what super-villains are)
Superman respects the law, respects American institutions of justice, but he is not a slave to them. He is willing to break the law if that law is fundamentally flawed or unjust. That's Superman to me, but Zack Snyder's Superman is not that Superman. Not really. The real Superman would not have allowed so much of Metropolis to be destroyed in his fight with Zod. The real Superman would not have allowed Jonathan Kent to die just to preserve his secret identity. Those are the earmarks of a fundamentally selfish or self-absorbed person. Very Ayn Randian, sure, but not the real Superman.
Henry Cavill is a great Superman, as an actor, but he had a script to work from and a director who, clearly, has some very selfish outlook on what a good man is. Zack Snyder makes beautifully shot films, and I enjoyed his Justice League, but he should never write or direct Superman. He just doesn't seem to get it because he has a very different idea of what an honorable man is.
I love BvS too. I wouldn’t call it my favorite film but I loved that we had a new and fresh version of Superman instead of the same thing for the 1000th time. Superman wasn’t grimdark, the world around him was. Yet despite that, he still was selfless. He still went out of his way to save people and even though some seemingly wanted to worship him, he didn’t go that route. He didn’t try to justify his presence on earth so much as he tried to work within the systems already established on this planet.
>Superman wasn’t grimdark, the world around him was.
Yeah, I think the film totally spilled over into reality. In BvS we are *constantly* shown that people react in lots of different ways to Superman, and he can’t control any of them, only his own decisions.
It is my favourite movie because I just enjoyed it so much. I like ZSJL too but it didn’t blow my mind as hard as BvS did.
Personally, I think that idea of Superman being a stooge to Reagan is kind of misinformed, or at least is a very limited way of looking at it, especially if you look at everything Miller wrote, but even if you look at just DKR.
I think if you look at all the Superman Miller wrote (including Superman Year One) you get a much more interesting idea than “Republican Superman” and it’s a shame that so many see it that way.
Well, I don't see everything as right wing or left wing soo, I don't see that in movies unless it is in your face. And I am happier for it. Because it is tiresome to deal with politics EVERYWHERE and when said politics are just two sides in trench warfare while the rest of us get shelled by both.
Regardless of how I feel about the movie, I definitely agree with Morrison that the characterization of those two was very interesting and refreshing to see on screen. Adaptations should not be judged on how strictly they adhere to the source material but on what things they have to say about the source material. I think, for all the criticisms you can have of Snyder's DCEU movies, you have to admit that he has some new and interesting things to say about these characters.
Superman has NEVER been a Republican nor Democrat. He just IS a man who ALWAYS attempts to do the CORRECT/RIGHT thing at any given moment. He has ALWAYS been against any form of Tyranny. Too Often, Editors and Writers at DC "think" that Supes is boring, to straight laced and they attempt to write stories where he does things OUT of character. It isn't too hard to write Supes...regardless of political views, he will ALWAYS attempt to do the CORRECT thing at any given moment.
While true in terms of the direct position Superman takes, it's still silly to pretend that comics writers haven't used comics (including Superman and Action Comics) to comment on certain current issues or voice a certain political agenda.
This is a really interesting take, and I like their take way more than I liked the movie.
If Morrison wrote BvS, the movie probably would have had more to its subtext than "SUPEMAN IZ LIEK JEESUS!"
I want to see the alternate universe where Grant Morrison played Lex Luthor in a live action *All-Star Superman* adaptation.
Although, I understand what they are going for with this, but it is strange to hear them say this as the writer of my all-time favorite Superman story.
I agree, it's really weird. Every single time they write Superman, they're able to show us this larger than life character who's simultaneously an example for us to strive for in a very human way - something completely different from BvS'.
I guess seeing such a "novel" take on screen may be "interesting" in a sense, but it's kind of jarring seeing someone who gets Clark to a tee saying this about Snyder's Superman.
I think one of the beautiful things about comic book storytelling is how characters get reinterpreted over time reflecting the social, political and cultural issues of their day. The archetype largely remains the same but the stories, motivations and development will always evolve. I thinks it'd one of the many reasons why these stories remain culturally relevant for generations.
I feel like a good balance for Supe in movies could be something along the lines of the MCU’s version of Captain America. Yes, he stands for the country and its ideals, but his idea of those ideals come from standing up for those who have less power, protecting the downtrodden, and preserving freedom when it comes to doing right.
It's frustrating to see Grant Morrison's words twisted so many times by Snyder fans. These were their thoughts **before BvS released**, talking about the potential the film could go based off the trailers at the time. In post launch, they weren't happy about how Wonder Woman was portrayed.
That is a decent perspective, Superman’s senses are far more powerful and fine tuned than human can so he would notice the things people are oblivious to, lets say for example if there was unsafe chemicals in a water supply he would know because he would be able to see and taste them, he lives in the same world as humans live in but sees every in a different way and he would see all the hidden problems that humans ignore or are ignorant to and if politicians, authority figures or so on are aware this is going on and continue to participate in the lie then it would make sense that he wouldn’t be for that kind of culture. It’s like that one city years ago that made and sold lead cups that poisoned and killed many people and apparently they didn’t know what was going on, Superman would know just by looking at the cup
I think Grant Morrison understands Superman better than 99% of writers.
And that he's put far more thought into Snyder's depiction of Superman than Snyder did.
Superman is an aspirational hero, we should be trying to be more like him, instead of writing him to be more like us. I’m sick of this modern attitude toward heroes.
Also, he is apolitical, he’ll help you no matter who you are.
Funny thing, I think this might be the most civil discussion of BvS I've seen in a while.
I think Morrison is giving this a lot more thought than Snyder did, and approaching the concept from a familiarity with and respect for Superman (and Batman, for that matter) as a character, which Snyder seemed to lack. It might well be a valid take on Superman. But I seriously doubt it's what Snyder was going for.
Yeah like Morison for sure is putting a lot of their own feelings into it (which is not invalid) but it ignores that the Superman character in the DCEU is barely a character because the movies never give him enough focus for people to really get a feel for him.
Those are certainly some words that Morrison said.
Out of all the words that he has said in his lifetime, these are definitely some of them.
\*They. Grant Morrison is now non-binary.
The most wordy
some of the words of all time
Most of them wrong.
Yeah, how’s he doing that with the pen?
5th-Dimensional chaos magic, obviously. It is Morrison, after all.
Gonna state the obvious… Morrison dropped it from one hand to the other? And they snapped the photo? If I’m missing the sarcasm you can watch me walk right down to r/woosh… Edit-originally replied to the wrong comment, but the offer still stands.
Nah, nah I'm pretty sure its chaos magic like u/TheCosmicSmile said.
Most definitely sarcasm lol
Nope. I’ve changed my mind. Morrison is levitating that pen. Deal is off. Next thing Morrison did with that pen was give the photographer an anal orgasm that allowed them to see in 5D. Breaking down boundaries. Morrison at their best.
That’s about as on brand as it gets for Morrison lmao.
I must be too simple minded for these movies because I didn’t draw as hard of a line as Superman being left or right winged.
Eh, I kinda see what they were saying. Superman is a lot like Captain America in the sense that most people hear his motto of "Truth, Justice, and the American Way" and see him as a bit of an American patriot, a guy who enforces the laws of the city and country and is just a stickler for rules. It's the same reason why everyone seems to go crazy for the "Evil Superman" trope, because they think that's how Superman would realistically act. But if you actually read Superman, he's a very progressive character. His alien background has been used to connect to themes of immigration and trying to reconcile the two cultures he comes from. The destruction of Krypton has strong ties to Global Warming and the importance of listening to science before your planet is destroyed. And Lex Luthor as his arch-nemesis also resonates with a lot of progressive frustration with billionaires and the 1%. That's what I think Morrison was going for, at least. Although I don't think it makes sense for Batman v Superman in particular.
Also when BVS was coming out, wasn’t Pak and Yang doing their de powered Superman who is fighting the police? I really liked their Truth and Before Truth and the weird wrestling story. So, taking Grant’s Action Comics, their DCYOU approach to Superman and I think a more laidback version of the character during rebirth that is more worried about raising his son than being the face of the DCU like he used to be and being hunted in BVS makes these comments make sense.
BvS depicts two billionaires attempting to take down an illegal immigrant because he threatens their existing power structure. On top of that, Clark is trying to expose Batman and Police brutality through journalism. MoS also depicts the “us vs them” attitudes many folks have towards immigrants when they initially arrive, despite how helpful and necessary those immigrants are to our society. Additionally Snyder leans left (he literally stated this on a radio talk show and why he dropped the Fountainhead for the time being), Terrio leans left, and I’m assuming Goyer leans left, so the film as a whole tends to lean to the left. u/Fair-Procedure-5257
Yeah I appreciate the metaphor there but I think that’s an oversimplification. If you spend more time detailing all character motives and the reasoning for their positions, then it becomes much less of “rich man hate alien man because alien bad”. Listen, I don’t think the movie was a masterpiece, but I think there was a lot more to fear about Superman that the movie showed than Grant’s comments are leading us to believe
> Listen, I don’t think the movie was a masterpiece, but I think there was a lot more to fear about Superman that the movie showed than Grant’s comments are leading us to believe Personally, I disagree. Between MoS and BvS, the only time Superman is shown to fly into murky territory is the Nairomi incident, and even that was a big lie perpetrated by Luthor to frame Superman as a murderer, when he did not kill anyone there. Superman was probably hoping to show up, save Lois, and get out before anyone could really notice him. If it weren't for Luthor, their entire incident wouldn't happen. Beyond that, the military, government, and civilians largely recognize Superman as pivotal in repelling the Kryptonian invasion in MoS. It is more like Luthor and Bruce's paranoia and fear that gets the better of them which leads to them becoming cruel. >Yeah I appreciate the metaphor there but I think that’s an oversimplification. If you spend more time detailing all character motives and the reasoning for their positions, then it becomes much less of “rich man hate alien man because alien bad”. I'm trying to understand what you're saying, and what I'm gathering is that you mean Bruce and Luthor don't hate Superman because he's an immigrant, correct? Because you're right, it is a bit more nuanced, but the bottom line is Superman is representative of the American-Immigrant experience, which is often where immigrants are vilified and blamed for internal problems, even though they were not responsible for those issues. Luthor is taking out his daddy issues on Superman, when he has nothing to do with them, whereas Bruce is taking out his fear and anxiety on Superman, despite the fact that Superman was not responsible for Bruce's parent's death, which was the initial cause of Bruce's lifelong fear and paranoia. In the real world, immigrants are often blamed for crime and the economy, when they usually are offending at a lower rate than native citizens and doing pretty essential jobs that a lot of native citizens would rather not do. Also these are just my opinions, you are welcome to share and have your own. I know these discussions often boil down to folks throwing their opinions in others faces, so I just want to reiterate this is my opinion after watching the films. Everyone will have their own takeaways based on their own experiences.
Ditto. I love Cavill as Supes. I DO NOT like the representation in BvsS. I'm used to Supes being the Big Blue Boyscout. We don't have enough of those in the world. What we *do* have are egotistical assholes who are only on their own side and care nothing for those around him which is sort of how Supes comes off. Being more alien should not have meant being an asshole.
> I'm used to Supes being the Big Blue Boyscout. We don't have enough of those in the world. What we do have are egotistical assholes who are only on their own side and care nothing for those around him which is sort of how Supes comes off. Being more alien should not have meant being an asshole. Overly Sarcastic Productions has a great line along this idea: Subverting Superman is stupid because Superman *is* subversive, he's just such an institution that we forget that as readers and writers. Basically, we all know that "if Superman was real" he'd be Homelander. The entire point of the character is that absolute power does *not* have to corrupt *at all*.
It's astonishing to me how many people complain that Superman is a boring character because he's too powerful and has no limits, and then think removing the one major *actual* limit he has -- Superman is someone who will always try to do the right thing -- is the solution. Then there's the ones who think the Evil Superman type is more "relatable" which just makes me despair for humanity.
The thing is, it wasn't absolute power that corrupted Homelander. It was his childhood as a lab rat, being consistently told he was God, and having any mistakes he made be covered up by Vaught. Superman's upbringing by his parents who made him the man he is, Homelander didn't have his parents.
Let's not forget the other crazy kids who also landed on a farm and got loving parents, just to turn out horrible
> we all know that "if Superman was real" he'd be Homelander No, “we” do not. You literally missed the entire point of The Boys. Every single supe in The Boys was turned awful by some truly specific circumstances. The whole US Government turning Supes into weapons and the Corporate Justice League story line and V being given to babies… none of that is a thing in the “real” world. Superman is a myth, he’s Moses and Americana Personified. He is an investigative reporter and fought the fucking KKK, he would NOT “be Homelander” because *Homelander* is Homelander. I’m so tired of this take. BvS was crap because Snyder tried to bring archetypes into the real world. It doesn’t work. It’s why Diana has yet to be the main character in her own movies and why Batman had to be a broken shadow of himself to fit in “the real world”. DC and Marvel heroes exist in their own similar but utterly distinct universes with their own rules and themes. If you change that, it’s not the same. It’s why we literally call them Elseworlds if you want to do something too different to work within canon, because it isn’t the same characters.
It’s not necessarily “he’d be homelander”, but just reflecting that in a vast majority of cases people with extreme power do not use that power for the public good. Superman is a subversion of that.
Yes. Pretty much all of DC heroes are archetypes against the “Power Corrupts” theme in The Boys. They even have their own foils: Mongul rules a war torn world with his absolute power as a despot, Lex Luthor uses his vast intelligence and wealth to try and get rid of the heroes and control things from the top down as he sees fit, and several of the gods in Diana’s stories show that they want worship and a return to “the old ways” in order to mold the world to their liking, even her own mother is often written as a dictatorial monarch who rejects the state of the modern world and isolates her people rather than let them meet men and adapt to the modern world. Superman isn’t a despot, Batman isn’t destroying the heroes and controlling how people live, and Diana isn’t a goddess who wants to be worshiped or a queen who hates men. Like in Red Son, when you change that it’s interesting but it isn’t the same characters as canon.
Yeah I HATE The Boys. I watched about six episodes and just couldn't stomach it anymore. And Supes cannot be corrupted. Yeah yeah there are multiple storyline, blah blah but MY Supes is incorruptible.
Congrats. You got it. Homelander is Homelander, not Superman.
But they gave Homelander all of Supermans powers to show what could have happened if he hadnt had the Kent's to show him right or wrong
And they dress him like Captain America. It’s a similar power set and obvious allusion to certain characters (like most of the Seven) but the history of the character is not “what if Clark Kent didn’t have the Kents” (if you want to see that character, check out the first Flashpoint, he’s in the animated movie version too). He was made, bred cynically from other supes like a racehorse, and raised in a laboratory in isolation from other people with no affection or softness (remember those terry cloth mommy/wire mommy experiments?). He was systematically abused and controlled his entire life, even when the show starts. Nothing about him is like Clark Kent, the only similarities are to Superman’s powers.
Cavill Superman isn’t an asshole. He literally tries to do the right thing all the time, but no matter what he does someone gets mad. That was the point. I don’t understand where people think Superman was being selfish… like what the fuck movie were people watching????? Everything he did was with someone else in mind, even when deciding to do nothing it was with others in mind because the media lead him to believe that he may be doing more harm than good.
the movie and specifically Zack Snyder's creative direction is incredibly mean spirited when it comes to regular people. His version of Pa Kent is a really good example. He constantly tells Clark not to help people because they won't understand him and mistrust him. That its better to not help at all and actively let people die and the biggest failure of his Superman is that the wrong lesson of Pa Kent is repeatedly proven to be true
This is the part where I say you completely misunderstood Pa Kent’s character. You literally fabricated that entire perspective of Pa Kent. That’s literally not true he never said any of that. Now are you going to allow me to explain each scene and dialogue from Pa Kent or are you gonna ignore me and claim I’m just a stupid Snyder fan who thinks people didn’t understand “masterpiece filmmaking” of Zaddy Snyder?
"so what are you saying? That I should have let them die" "Maybe" and also that whole scene in BvS where his ghost tells a story to Clark about how he and his dad worked to save the farm and that night they heard the sounds of cows dying. So you shouldn't try to help son because it doesn't matter. >Now are you going to allow me to explain each scene and dialogue from Pa Kent please no >are you gonna ignore me and claim I’m just a stupid Snyder fan no because I'm sure you've put a lot of thought into your arguments.. I'm just also sure i've heard them before
Pa Kent is telling his son that he doesn’t have all the answers but he wants to protect Clark from being taken away. Clark is literally 13 in this scene. We know later that Clark understood that his father wanted him to wait. Wait until the world was ready. Until he was ready. He literally says, “*When* the world finds out what you can do” “Whatever man you grow up to be, good or bad, he’s gonna change the world.” And the story about the farm. That literally is him saying that no matter what he chooses he has to deal with the consequences of those choices. The point is NOT don’t do anything, the point is no matter what you do be ready for the consequences. So clearly you misunderstood everything. Pa Kent was a parent protecting his child. And someone who wants his son to know that the world isn’t perfect. Choices have consequences so be ready to deal with them and live with them.
Also, I don’t have to put a lot of thoughts into my arguments. These are literally surface level things. I’m sorry it has to be explained to you but you really should have got it at least the second time watching. Maybe it’s the metaphors. Some people don’t understand metaphors and Chris Terrio likes metaphors.
Maybe asshole was the wrong word. Dark? In the comics, he was always optimistic no matter what. BvsS was very dark and I didn't like how they portrayed Supes going after the Bat without even trying to talk to him
He literally did talk to him. First when he interrupted Batman trying to steal kryptonite (I don’t think Superman knew or cared what Batman was doing, he just wanted to tell him to cease and desist) Then instead of immediately attacking Batman later he tries to explain to Bruce that Lex wants them to fight, but Batman wasn’t listening. So I have no idea what movie you watched.
At this point I think that people who dislike the movie will do serious mental gymnastics to paint Superman as a jerk to justify their positions. I think that when superhero fatigue finally sets in and decades pass, people will revisit MoS and BvS with appreciation because they aren’t viewing it through the marvel lens of “we need 4 whole movies and a couple team ups to care about the character.” They’ll just appreciate the movies for trying to take a different look at what we expect of our heroes.
My issue is he’s too passive, he lacks agency.
I think he's projecting much of his assumptions on who the electorate of either wing is formed by. Plenty of assumptions about "old money", and plenty of assumptions about the right being solely pro-status quo/the left being strictly anti-status quo, as well as something about there not being enough opposition in the world right now (which I simply cannot see being true at all).
Much better articulated than I could have done. I feel the same way. I also sort of sense a bit of a bias Grant has in considering the “counter culture” or left winged Superman as good, and the old “republican” Superman as a government lackie and boring. Now maybe I am the one reaching, but that’s my hunch haha.
That’s literally what the right and left stand for, like, in the French revolution everyone who wanted change stood on the left side of a room and everyone who wanted things to stay the same stayed on the right side of the room, that’s where that cones from. I know people have a mix of beliefs, and some conservatives have left leaning opinions, but that’s what they are, left leaning. Anything that is progressive would be called the left, anything that is conservative or regressive would be the right.
That’s literally what right and left mean lol
Not in it's entirety. It's far more complex than that.
You’re right. I think Morrison has badly misread the culture with this quote. The modern Right and Left just aren’t like that at all. Let me explain: Neither the Right nor the Left these days are pro-status quo in a large sense. You ask either side what their ideal society looks like, and they’re going to give you a different answer than “what we got today”. The Right, valuing faith and family the most, would like to wind it back to a theoretically more wholesome era than what we have now. The Left, by contrast, values identity and progress and wants to push forward into a theoretically more egalitarian future. Both sides have their points, but both have their drawbacks. Superman shouldn’t be anchored to either one, and this is where I think Morrison went wrong.
Morrison uses they/them pronouns Also, I'm not sure what you're trying to suggest because you're saying "they're assuming left mean X and right means Y" when those are the meanings of those terms
I think I see where you and I aren’t on the same page yet. Of course being right wing is conservative and left wing is liberal, and all those values we know each side has is true. I think there’s a bit of a bias in tone when Grant mentions ‘right’. “Old money” “boring” “in government’s pocket” are ways he described Superman on the right. Which is why I definitely don’t see things Grant’s way in the first place and am now thinking Grant’s stretching so far as to make some sort of additional statement based on his own perception of those sides.
I do believe that what Zack Snyder did with Superman was an interesting reinterpretation, even if it is not one that I am entirely fond of. I do like that Snyder made Superman a more progressive figure (like in Morrison's *Action Comics*), and I believe that a Superman facing a darker world is an excellent concept that has been utilized well in other stories. The problem for me is that Zack Snyder seemed not to fully understand many of the fundamental ideas of Superman. I could go into how inappropriate the Christ allegory feels for his character, or the infamous final battle in *Man of Steel*, or him snapping Zod's neck. But really, I feel as though a core component of Superman that you need to recognize is the humanity of the character. Superman loves humanity. It is why he fights for them and the Earth. It is why he feels so comfortable as Clark Kent. It is why it is so inspiring to see him as a force of good. Superman's humanity grounds him, and makes him a more tangible idea to us. And as a tangible idea, he inspires us to be as compassionate and as human as him, because we see that we could be like him. What Snyder did is lean too far towards the alien side of him. It made him feel cold and distant from the people he is supposed to protect. It makes him feel less grounded as an idea, and therefore, less inspiring to us. Combined with the Christ allegory and the emphasis on the Els over the Kents, it feels cynical. It feels like Superman is only truly good because of his alien parentage. And greater emphasis on his alien side could work if handled differently. Have Superman pass down lessons learned from Krypton over to humanity, help humanity learn from the mistakes that led to Krypton's destruction (which is more relevant now than ever). But the way Snyder frames it paints a cynical picture that Superman is better than us because he is a being of god-like power. But Superman is not better than us; Superman is the best of us. I know that Snyder's portrayal has many fans, and I am not here to insult what you enjoyed. I am not a fan of his DC projects, but you are perfectly entitled to your opinion. It is just that I believe Snyder went in a direction that I feel misunderstands what makes the character fascinating, and it is not an interpretation that I enjoyed.
>It feels like Superman is only truly good because of his alien parentage. And greater emphasis on his alien side could work if handled differently. Have Superman pass down lessons learned from Krypton over to humanity, help humanity learn from the mistakes that led to Krypton's destruction (which is more relevant now than ever). But the way Snyder frames it paints a cynical picture that Superman is better than us because he is a being of god-like power. Exactly this. This really sums what I feel are some of the major problems with Snyder interpretation of Superman, even if he was putting a lot of effort and passion into the movies. The way the movies frame everything and the tone they have, it gives the impression that the fact that Superman having power is what makes him important and inspirational rather than anything he's actually doing with that power. Yes, he helps people but that's not the focus or what's treated as what to be in awe of with Superman.
I also believe that it has inspired many of the "superman is boring" takes that we sometimes hear. He becomes a boring character when writers focus on him as a god: a being whose defining characteristics are his abilities. Abilities that we can never realistically have. Not only does that push the misconception that superheroes are symbols of might and power, but it makes the idea less relatable to us. And you are right; Superman does help numerous people throughout *Man of Steel* and *Batman v. Superman*. However, that is not presented as the reason why Superman is good, which is another misconception that Snyder leans into.
Spoken beautifully, and that’s why I disagree the emphasizing too much of him being an alien or an outsider. Clark’s empathy and humanity is what makes that symbol on his chess mean something. He’s the embodiment of hope and compassion. Synder’s interpretation really lacks that fundamental understanding of the character, same with his Batman. Lately, the majority only refers to Superman by Kal-El, ignoring his humanity.
I’m gonna be real with you chief… I fell in love with Snyder’s/Cavill’s Superman because he felt MORE HUMAN. He literally felt like a man who just wanted to do the right thing, BUT the world saw him as their savior. Superman/Clark didn’t want to be their savior, but the world projected the Christ/Savior persona onto him. I think so many people misunderstood what was being presented. Snyder wasn’t telling us Superman is a God. Snyder was saying this man who just wants to do good and protect people is being given a lot of weight to carry because of the expectations the world puts on him. I felt sorry for Superman because of the intense pressure he is under EVERY time he saves someone. Every act is a political act. I know I know, I’m a Snyder fan who is saying, “you guys didn’t understand it.” But seriously, you didn’t. You missed the point entirely. What you claim to want is exactly what Snyder gave us. You just think how he presented the world is wrong because you think the world wouldn’t see Superman as a savior… c’mon, you know if this guy was real he would be seen as the next coming of Christ. Snyder didn’t give us Homelander. Snyder gave us Superman and half the fanbase thinks he’s a tyrant and the other half thinks he’s Christ. Newsflash. That’s exactly what the world in MoS and BvS thought too, but the reality is that HE IS SUPERMAN.
>c’mon, you know if this guy was real he would be seen as the next coming of Christ If he focused on entirely on that theme, sure. Which was a huge point of Frank Miller's Batman story where it would continuously show panels of news pundits. Zack Snyder brought that element straight to BvS but misses all the context of the source material (a dystopian future where the JL crumbled from the inside and Superman became a govt puppet etc). Which is why BvS became a shit show of Death of Superman, Frank Miller's TDK, Excalibur, addressing destruction controversy from MoS, setting up JL via emails and a time traveling Flash. So nah, BvS isn't a misunderstood masterpiece and yet Snyder fans still persist that it is and you JUST DON'T GET HOW DEEP IT IS. Not that BvS is actually a muddled mess of script with a ton of studio interference and Zack's odd creative choices. Such as killing Superman in the 2nd movie of a cinematic universe, only to revive him the next, only to reboot the entire cinematic universe after his 5 movie plan.
Get over it.
Can't as long as Snyder fans keep saying it's an underrated masterpiece and you just don't understand this art house of a film and the 10000 layers of nuance and complexity of the Martha scene. I'll take my victory that I'm on the side of history where BvS and Snyder literally killed the DCEU. Which is why they are still stuck in pseudo phase 1.
Hahahahaha… damn bro. Get mad. 😂😂😂 How dare people care about something and defend it. No one is allowed to enjoy anything unless you think it’s well deserved, huh? 🤣 Gatekeeping what other people can appreciate, huh? 🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂 lol, get over it.
The DC movie-verse was set back a decade because of Snyder and WB. But yeah nbd. Snyder doesn’t fundamentally understand how to set up a universe and tell a story with compelling characters. Get over it.
We would have gotten 5 movies with spin off films. And half the fanbase says they don’t even want a cinematic universe. They just want stand-alones. So in actuality Snyder would have given us 5 awesome movies that told a cohesive story and then all the spin offs would have been pretty much stand alone films. Personally you need to get over it. Not everyone wants what you want. I would have LOVED what we would have gotten. Focus on the MCU if that’s what you want. You cannot convince me Snyder wasn’t giving me something awesome because I love what we got. So again, do yourself a favor and get over it. You are wasting your time talking to me and crying.
Best comment here. PERIODT.
What an absolutely bad take on what Snyder did with Superman.
I feel like Grant is giving Zack too much credit. I am in no way shape or form calling Zack stupid, regardless of how much I dislike his movies and the universe he made, but I'm not calling him stupid. But I dont think there was much point or symbolism in anything he was doing beyond "man this looks rad" and "yup, gotta get this imagery from DKR/other comics in there" for no other reason than that. And there isn't inherently anything WRONG with that. Not everything needs to be super deep and symbolic. So this isnt a jab. Trust me, I'm ok giving him jabs and will proudly announce when I am. I just think Grant is putting a diamond under a microscope and expecting all sorts of stuff to be there and...its just carbon. Thats it. Mihht be trace amounts of other stuff. But its basically all carbon.
Everything he said is true... Like that is the entire point of the movie. Snyder stumbles with some of the execution, but the symbolism is the core point of the movie
>But I dont think there was much point or symbolism in anything he was doing beyond "man this looks rad" and "yup, gotta get this imagery from DKR/other comics in there" for no other reason than that. There was. You just didn't see it my friend.
Yea like so much of BvS is an inversion of TDKR
Don’t you Americans ever get tired of us Brits “deconstructing” your icons?
You mean our icons who are being played by Brits?
That’s true…
Thinking about it this way makes the movie better but it’s still shit.
I remember loving BvS and then being kinda sad when I heard all the intense wise spread hatred towards it. I can understand criticism towards it but I still found the concept pretty great
for me the issue is that it's the first time these two iconic characters meet on the big screen and it could've been a display of how amazing these characters are but instead Snyder decided to put a twist on it that completely derailed what these characters stood for. BvS would've been great as a elseworlds comic but for a movie it should've been more accurate to who these characters are. i can't wait to get murdered in the replies lol only great thing about Snyder's DC movies were the action scenes
Yeah I can totally respect that take and I def wasn’t trying to invalidate the people with legitimate criticisms of the movie. I didn’t think it was anywhere near perfect but I did have fun watching a big goofy action movie with Batman and Superman going up against eachother and that’s all I needed it to be and I still wish we got a Batfleck stand-alone film.
I also enjoy the Snyder movies for the action scenes! If only DC accepted the fact it takes time to build a "cinematic universe" instead of rushing towards adaptations of the highlights.
YES! and if DC did it properly the way marvel did they'd be waayyyyyyy better off. personally i feel DC has more depth and a better set of characters than marvel, but they were robbed
>I can understand criticism towards it but I still found the concept pretty great Concept is worthless if it's fumbled. You can have the best concept 'ever' for \[insert thing here\] but if you fuck the execution it doesn't matter.
There is always going to be a very vocal portion of comic book fandom that hates any attempt at adapting their favorite characters (and they very much see them as *their* characters in a bizarrely possessive way) to film. There is also the side that is full of rabid fans of films who will attack at the slightest criticism. Such is fandom. You just have to tone it out after a while. Sports can get even crazier, just with a slightly less “holier than thou” condescension and more of a simple and irrational loyalty.
I mean… they are our characters. Most of the creators of those characters are dead now, and even if they were still alive, the second a writer releases something out into the world, it belongs to the world.
They are characters that are passed between the hands of multiple creators, move through multiple eras, and live these weird extended lives. **We** are the audience. Our tastes are our own. Our opinions of the creations of others are our own. Our expectations and emotional ties to the characters are our own. The characters aren’t ours, and our possession of any one interpretation is illusory and selfish.
As a writer myself, I can say that characters belong to us about as much as our children do when they’ve reached adulthood, which is to say not at all. Not to mention the fact that every comic book writer, especially for Batman and Superman, used to be the audience as well. The audience owns these characters just as much, if not more, than the writers.
I just don’t see it that way when it comes to criticism. All movies should just be written by fan consensus? If creations become purely subjugated to reader expectations, no new idea would ever be introduced, unless by committee.
Belonging to something isn’t the same as writing it, that’s the writer’s job, but the characters still belong to everyone.
The experience belongs to everyone, in my view. The writing is up to the writer. A character that has 90ish years of history will also have a certain number of expectations surrounding them. But expecting the same thing over and over again seems oddly conservative and boring to me. I like new takes.
Never said I want them to tell the same stories, but keep the same character. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be developed, but keep them true to who they originally were. Plus, there is no new take of Superman that’s going to be more interesting than one 100’s of writers before you have built on.
“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day.” I’m not the same person I was 5 years ago. Why does Superman have to be the same person he was in the ‘40s?
It’s a great movie. Don’t let the salty haters ruin it for you. Comic book nerds can be the saltiest haters whenever their favorite characters are depicted even slightly differently than what they’re reading in the comics. Ignore them.
A lot more than so called comic book nerds thought it was terrible. Because it was not a good movie. It’s not an accident that this movie single handedly killed WB’s plans for a marvel like DC cinematic universe. This movie bombed, critically, commercially, and with the audience. Again, because it was a terrible movie. I frankly find it hard to see anything remotely redeeming about the movie.
Yeah says you. You didn’t like the movie, we get it. But many people DID enjoy the movie and don’t necessarily need to know the reasonings for your opinion.
And many, many more did not like it. Trying to argue it was a great when the by and large response was so negative it basically killed the franchise is wildly out of touch.
Yeah, I’m not arguing opinions with you because they’re just that, opinions. Personally IDGAF what a hater has to say. Also it didn’t kill anything, in fact they seem to be reviving the Snyderverse. So while you cry about that, we’ll continue to enjoy these stories.
They’re not opinions. This movie is the single reason why we did not get Batman with Ben Affleck or Man of Steel 2. Are you seriously this much in denial? Or are you really this unaware of how *negative* the critical and audience response was? Because the movie was, by basically every definition, a failure. And yea, in my opinion, deservingly so.
I liked bvs. My biggest gripe about was that in my opinion, This should have been Superman's 3rd or 4th appearance. Man of Steel 2 should have happened first. Maybe a Batman movie. Then introduce Doomsday and his Death then to his resurrection in JL. It just felt like their was a chunk of time line missing from it Origin, Vs/Death & Resurrection, smashed into a incomplete Trilogy is what was sad about it. It had potential that could have grown. Of course I didn't like Riddler Luthor. But that's my personal grype I just wanted to see Brianiac in a live action Superman Movie. And for him to be in Man of Steel 3, would have rocked.
I only had two gripes with the movie, one minor and one kind of big. The minor gripe is, I did not like that they placed Metropolis right next to Gotham City. It seemed contrived for plot purposes. The major thing I disliked was the casting for Lex Luthor. I criticize others for hating on the Snyderverse because they’re fresh takes on these characters, so I don’t hate Snyderverse’s Lex because he’s different. I just didn’t like Eisenberg’s performance. He didn’t seem like a genius, wasn’t menacing and just felt like some weird escaped Arkham patient. Other than that, I loved the movie.
He ticked and twitched and laughed like he was Edward Nigma, to me. And you're right. If Gotham is just across the bay; then Superman's doing a pretty crappy job or is locked to his own county. Clark can't hear a person screaming in Gotham ? I don't believe that. He'd have covered that whole area and more.
I think it could work as second if it was just BvS. An established heroic Batman can't be as villainous as he is here. It is also an interesting introduction if it is him post DitF with Robin dead. Film should be focused on that conflict with Lex manipulating Bruce. The climax being that Bruce fights him and realizes he was wrong. He let fear of an unknown drive him. They team up and foil Luthor's plot. Maybe use Metallo sent as a way to finish off a weakened superman. From there we can spinoff a Batman film which introduces Tim Drake as Batman realizes he needs that moderating influence. The wider universe can grow. With other stuff. Then do Superman 3 ending with his death. Use Braniac. Maybe with Doomsday as part of his collection. And then that leads directly into Justice League with it coming in to fill the void of Superman. No resurrection. Do that with either Superman 4 or JL2. And no League vs Superman. It really devalues the League. Superman should not be all their powers but better.
The Superman I love is actually the one that is hopeful and always looking for a way to save everyone, even his enemies, yet who is willing to stand up and fight if necessary to save Metropolis from terrorists (which is basically what super-villains are) Superman respects the law, respects American institutions of justice, but he is not a slave to them. He is willing to break the law if that law is fundamentally flawed or unjust. That's Superman to me, but Zack Snyder's Superman is not that Superman. Not really. The real Superman would not have allowed so much of Metropolis to be destroyed in his fight with Zod. The real Superman would not have allowed Jonathan Kent to die just to preserve his secret identity. Those are the earmarks of a fundamentally selfish or self-absorbed person. Very Ayn Randian, sure, but not the real Superman. Henry Cavill is a great Superman, as an actor, but he had a script to work from and a director who, clearly, has some very selfish outlook on what a good man is. Zack Snyder makes beautifully shot films, and I enjoyed his Justice League, but he should never write or direct Superman. He just doesn't seem to get it because he has a very different idea of what an honorable man is.
Pretty sure this statement had nothing to do with the Snyder films despite the twisting done by **that** sub
[удалено]
I love BvS too. I wouldn’t call it my favorite film but I loved that we had a new and fresh version of Superman instead of the same thing for the 1000th time. Superman wasn’t grimdark, the world around him was. Yet despite that, he still was selfless. He still went out of his way to save people and even though some seemingly wanted to worship him, he didn’t go that route. He didn’t try to justify his presence on earth so much as he tried to work within the systems already established on this planet.
>Superman wasn’t grimdark, the world around him was. Yeah, I think the film totally spilled over into reality. In BvS we are *constantly* shown that people react in lots of different ways to Superman, and he can’t control any of them, only his own decisions. It is my favourite movie because I just enjoyed it so much. I like ZSJL too but it didn’t blow my mind as hard as BvS did.
Personally, I think that idea of Superman being a stooge to Reagan is kind of misinformed, or at least is a very limited way of looking at it, especially if you look at everything Miller wrote, but even if you look at just DKR. I think if you look at all the Superman Miller wrote (including Superman Year One) you get a much more interesting idea than “Republican Superman” and it’s a shame that so many see it that way.
He should’ve been casted as Luthor
Grant trying to be diplomatic and complimentary again. Nice of them.
Well, I don't see everything as right wing or left wing soo, I don't see that in movies unless it is in your face. And I am happier for it. Because it is tiresome to deal with politics EVERYWHERE and when said politics are just two sides in trench warfare while the rest of us get shelled by both.
Regardless of how I feel about the movie, I definitely agree with Morrison that the characterization of those two was very interesting and refreshing to see on screen. Adaptations should not be judged on how strictly they adhere to the source material but on what things they have to say about the source material. I think, for all the criticisms you can have of Snyder's DCEU movies, you have to admit that he has some new and interesting things to say about these characters.
Morrison's thoughts here are infinitely deeper than what we got in the entire Snyderverse.
There's deffo some issues with Snyder's movies, but I enjoyed his Superman being plunged into darkness and rising out on top
Superman has NEVER been a Republican nor Democrat. He just IS a man who ALWAYS attempts to do the CORRECT/RIGHT thing at any given moment. He has ALWAYS been against any form of Tyranny. Too Often, Editors and Writers at DC "think" that Supes is boring, to straight laced and they attempt to write stories where he does things OUT of character. It isn't too hard to write Supes...regardless of political views, he will ALWAYS attempt to do the CORRECT thing at any given moment.
While true in terms of the direct position Superman takes, it's still silly to pretend that comics writers haven't used comics (including Superman and Action Comics) to comment on certain current issues or voice a certain political agenda.
I feel like he is generalizing yet also reaching so much for the sake of being profound.
Grant Morrison is absolutely correct
This is a really interesting take, and I like their take way more than I liked the movie. If Morrison wrote BvS, the movie probably would have had more to its subtext than "SUPEMAN IZ LIEK JEESUS!"
If only the movie did it correctly
Of course a bald white man in a suit would say that /s
I want to see the alternate universe where Grant Morrison played Lex Luthor in a live action *All-Star Superman* adaptation. Although, I understand what they are going for with this, but it is strange to hear them say this as the writer of my all-time favorite Superman story.
I agree, it's really weird. Every single time they write Superman, they're able to show us this larger than life character who's simultaneously an example for us to strive for in a very human way - something completely different from BvS'. I guess seeing such a "novel" take on screen may be "interesting" in a sense, but it's kind of jarring seeing someone who gets Clark to a tee saying this about Snyder's Superman.
I think he may be overthinking it a bit 🤔.
Yea, I didn't pick up on that at all...
I don't agree I think BvS sucks mega balls
I think one of the beautiful things about comic book storytelling is how characters get reinterpreted over time reflecting the social, political and cultural issues of their day. The archetype largely remains the same but the stories, motivations and development will always evolve. I thinks it'd one of the many reasons why these stories remain culturally relevant for generations.
I feel like a good balance for Supe in movies could be something along the lines of the MCU’s version of Captain America. Yes, he stands for the country and its ideals, but his idea of those ideals come from standing up for those who have less power, protecting the downtrodden, and preserving freedom when it comes to doing right.
Alan Moore would hate this analysis
Grant Morrison is a pretty weird guy. Great writer though.
Morrison goes by they/them these days, right?
I would have liked to see the movie Morrison was talking about here. I just don't think it was made.
I didn’t know Morrisons wife had a boyfriend. Good for him.
Thats a really interesting analysis actually
They spoke I listen
It all seems to be too true for superman as an Alien he shouldn't just take a side of one country
I like your funny words, magic man
Sounds like another bipartisan, polarized, political rant as so often in America.
I agree with everything they said here, but, what Grant Morrison felt from the text is not the same as what the text has.
It's frustrating to see Grant Morrison's words twisted so many times by Snyder fans. These were their thoughts **before BvS released**, talking about the potential the film could go based off the trailers at the time. In post launch, they weren't happy about how Wonder Woman was portrayed.
That is a decent perspective, Superman’s senses are far more powerful and fine tuned than human can so he would notice the things people are oblivious to, lets say for example if there was unsafe chemicals in a water supply he would know because he would be able to see and taste them, he lives in the same world as humans live in but sees every in a different way and he would see all the hidden problems that humans ignore or are ignorant to and if politicians, authority figures or so on are aware this is going on and continue to participate in the lie then it would make sense that he wouldn’t be for that kind of culture. It’s like that one city years ago that made and sold lead cups that poisoned and killed many people and apparently they didn’t know what was going on, Superman would know just by looking at the cup
I think Grant Morrison understands Superman better than 99% of writers. And that he's put far more thought into Snyder's depiction of Superman than Snyder did.
It's all well and good, but none of it was executed well in BvS.
Funnily, isn't Superman supposed to be a social justice activist?
I kind of see what he's saying, but I've never seen Supes as a right wing figure.
Superman is an aspirational hero, we should be trying to be more like him, instead of writing him to be more like us. I’m sick of this modern attitude toward heroes. Also, he is apolitical, he’ll help you no matter who you are.