Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
LordofHats wrote: I actually think the broader issue with MoS is that it completely ignored Clark Kent as a mask Superman wears.
I think this is where a lot of writers get in trouble. I'll blame Tarantino for the epic speech, but writing Clark as a mask is what causes Superman to become boring. He might hide his powers as Clark, but more out of preservation for what's really important. Clark is far more of who he is than Superman. Superman is relatively aimless. He maintains the status quo but isn't looking to fundamentally change the world and actively rejects guiding the general populace or in any way interfering with their lives. Clark's dreams in life have nothing to do with his powers. He wants friends, he wants love, and significantly, he wants his words and ideas to matter. He seeks acceptance, not as an all powerful godlike being, but as a peer. He finds joy in the simply ordinary wonder of our world and all the people in it. He'd be happy just being Clark, but the world needs Superman and he's the only man for the job.
Yeah. As I know you know, the bumbling "Clark mask" hasn't really been a thing in the comics since the Crisis in the '80s. DC flipped the character then and just about every Superman writer in every medium since has followed suit. There are a couple notable exceptions, but that's because those writers wanted retro tributes (Superman Returns, All-Star Superman).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/02/17 20:51:45
MoS is interesting because it got a lot right. I think the villains are cool and the action is very well directed and feels right to me in a way most Superman movie action doesn't. If I compare it to the previous superman movies there's no comparison, the ludicrous Lex Luthor from those movies is not anywhere near as good a villain as Zod is here.
But they screwed up the character of Clark Kent and Martha and Jonathon Kent really badly, because Snyder is a big fan of Ayn Rand and wanted to incorporate that idea into the movie, and so lost the small town heart from the character, that kind of compassion and humility that is what makes Superman likeable.
It's a shame. Because that stuff is really important to Superman.
Right, I left out the part where in the time it takes those kids to grow up, the original writers or someone similar has allowed the story to grow, often incorporating their own life experiences now that they've grown up and seek to see the characters grow along with them.
Da Boss wrote: I think that comics is fundamentally a serial medium and trying to have an arc like in a novel or a movie is a fundamental mistake.
We all consider stuff like Sandman and Watchmen classic because it follows the traditional narrative structure and therefore is very satisfying.
Serial writing can't really do that. Or if it does, it's actually a mistake, essentially that writer being selfish and messing up the status quo for the person that comes after them. A good serial writer can work within the confines and still do something interesting and entertaining while leaving the status quo alone.
If you don't do that, you end up changing the status quo to the point that it is unrecognisable to newcomers (spiderman in his forties with two kids is not the character new readers are expecting) or weighing it down with so much baggage that it becomes totally unwieldy (making a psychic clone in a jar a recurring character).
I personally think this is rather silly. I've read tons of interesting comics where the status quo wildly shifts over time, from standalone series to more serial entries (Brian K. Vaughn is a saint and has contributed heavily to both those categories). Maybe it doesn't work for headliner series where readers have expectations coming in, but for lesser-known comics I don't see any reason not to actually have the characters and their situations change over time.
LordofHats wrote:I actually think the broader issue with MoS is that it completely ignored Clark Kent as a mask Superman wears.
But Clark Kent isn't his mask - he is Clark Kent. It's just that Clark Kent happens to have incredible powers and abilities that other farm boys from Kansas don't have.
In terms of how Clark Kent identifies himself, he identifies as an Earthling first and foremost. Him being an alien isn't really that critical to his ideology or beliefs, because he was raised with good parents, with good morals, on Earth.
If you asked him for his name, the one he likely calls himself in his head, it's Clark. Not Kal-El, not Superman - Clark. Superman is just the mantle he puts on so he can keep enjoying the "normal" life he actually wants, without being guilty through inaction. Because, as another mentor put it, with great power comes great responsibility.
Fundamentally, Clark's a farm boy with a ton of power, and therefore, a responsibility to use it well.
LunarSol wrote:
LordofHats wrote: I actually think the broader issue with MoS is that it completely ignored Clark Kent as a mask Superman wears.
I think this is where a lot of writers get in trouble. I'll blame Tarantino for the epic speech, but writing Clark as a mask is what causes Superman to become boring. He might hide his powers as Clark, but more out of preservation for what's really important. Clark is far more of who he is than Superman. Superman is relatively aimless. He maintains the status quo but isn't looking to fundamentally change the world and actively rejects guiding the general populace or in any way interfering with their lives. Clark's dreams in life have nothing to do with his powers. He wants friends, he wants love, and significantly, he wants his words and ideas to matter. He seeks acceptance, not as an all powerful godlike being, but as a peer. He finds joy in the simply ordinary wonder of our world and all the people in it. He'd be happy just being Clark, but the world needs Superman and he's the only man for the job.
Da Boss wrote: MoS is interesting because it got a lot right. I think the villains are cool and the action is very well directed and feels right to me in a way most Superman movie action doesn't. If I compare it to the previous superman movies there's no comparison, the ludicrous Lex Luthor from those movies is not anywhere near as good a villain as Zod is here.
But they screwed up the character of Clark Kent and Martha and Jonathon Kent really badly, because Snyder is a big fan of Ayn Rand and wanted to incorporate that idea into the movie, and so lost the small town heart from the character, that kind of compassion and humility that is what makes Superman likeable.
It's a shame. Because that stuff is really important to Superman.
I didn't feel like that was the case. It felt more akin to a "coming out" moment than anything else, IMO. As romanticized as "small town America" is, in the Midwest it's not Mayberry.
Different can be lonely. Different can be ostracizing, not just for the individual in question...but their families too. Can't speak for anyone else, but that's the takeaway I had from the kid/manager who saw Clark saving the bus as a teenager and the fact that even years if not decades later...he's hesitant to talk about Clark being different to an outsider like Lois.
Hell, that was part of the whole bit about Clark being overwhelmed as a kid. The kids treat him differently, as though he's broken. It's why Martha goes to the school. The teacher doesn't seem to know what to do about it and the kids are just standing outside, acting like he's a freak. Like he's a monster.
I could relate more to that scared little kid than I could the kids outside, whispering about Clark being weird or broken. That's my life experience--I've been the one kids thought "broken" or "weird".
Man of Steel and the way Cavill played Clark/Superman? I could feel that hope far more than I could from Reeves. Reeves was just a padded suit with quippy one-liners and a bright color palette. It was that romanticized Midwest, where Ma and Pa Kent were idealized versions of Midwestern values.
I dunno. Maybe I'm viewing the movie through my own lens more than anything else. This was more Superman than Reeves was, for me. He's a symbol of hope. That tomorrow will be a better day.
Cavill's portrayal of Clark+Superman? That was there, even with the filters and grit.
I dunno. Maybe I'm viewing the movie through my own lens more than anything else. This was more Superman than Reeves was, for me. He's a symbol of hope. That tomorrow will be a better day.
That's definitely not the messaging I got from the current films.
Tomorrow will be worse (assuming it isn't just a pile of rubble), and it will most definitely be at least partially superman's fault.
As a symbol, a false messiah (which is really the thrust of the flailing attempts at 'deconstruction'), this superman simply attracts destroyers, and he's more than willing to share out destruction in a large radius.
If he's a broken person, he's more than willing to share that too.
Da Boss wrote: If I compare it to the previous superman movies there's no comparison, the ludicrous Lex Luthor from those movies is not anywhere near as good a villain as Zod is.
Even as a kid watching Superman: The Movie in the theaters, I couldn’t figure out how that was supposed to be Lex Luthor. The LL of the day was a mad scientist of Clark’s age (they were friends originally) who wore a purple suit and fought Superman using his inventions and weapons. The LL that came after the Crisis was an older ruthless capitalist billionaire who fought him with money and laws. (Current version blends these two). Movie Lex was an older criminal real estate developer who lived underground with two incompetent twits as henchmen. In Superman Returns Singer even doubled down on that mistake! As he’d be able to keep his precious land after people figured out what he did in either case.
Watching S:TM with my dad is an important memory for me. And Superman was already my guy, so it helped take my fandoms to 100. But the movie itself just doesn’t hold up well now, for a bunch of reasons that have nothing to do with SFX etc. Great Caesar’s Ghost, what’s the message of the movie at the end? That’s it’s good to mess around with human history, screw the consequences? Or at least when his favorites are involved? Yikes.
There's good and bad things about the old Superman movies. Gene Hackman very much fits in the 'bad' I think. The endings are another thing too...
I think what people are able to do now is separate the various elements of the films out from the overall mess. - I can't help but think one day someone is going to do a documentary about Donner versus Salkind as a mirror to Snyder (after all there was 'The Donner Cut' of Superman II).
Ultimately though, there were things that were really good in the Reeve films, that people can pull out from the mess. Just like there are elements, even now, that can be pulled out from the Snyder films.
Trying to be positive again.... Flight is an amazing sequence in Man of Steel, as was the Warehouse scene in BVS, and of course, Alfred and Diana. I'd also say Perry, what little we saw of him, was good too.
But going back to Reeve films, there is still so much good in them. From Lois as the walking whirlwind to Pa Kent's scene that brings tears to my eyes every time I see it.
And the thing is... I think Henry Cavill could do this too, he could be as great - we see flashes of it through the movies, such as during the 'Flight' sequence.
He just needs to be given a director and a script that will let him. Actually let him be a modern mix.
Now, I can pretty much guess that most people aren't fans of the CW shows, but I think their version of Clark does manage to give off the '78 vibe, but still manages to play it more straightly, like people would expect of a modern incarnation (although, it is of course worth pointing out that Lois made fun of Superman in the 1978 movie of being old fashioned too).
I think, given the right director and opportunity, Cavill's Superman can come closer to this feel to make people like me happier, but still not lose all elements of the Snyder style.
gorgon wrote: If you actually watch the film, it makes the point multiple times that Clark is helping people during his travels.
Angstily wandering the earth is not an element of the Superman character and turning Papa Kent into Uncle Ben (but completely uninspiring) is not an improvement.
what more should the creators have done?
Told a story about a troubled but trying person and not a wangsty teenager's idea of how a troubled but trying person behaves. If you have to montage to opening, then there's already a problem. Montages are for abridging events that are important to know happened but would be tedious show in detail. It's a horrible way to provide characterization but that's more a nitpick against the movie than anything.
I suspect that you're solely focused on the boss battle. Fine...but there's a lot of movie before that.
I think your confusing me with someone else. I said nothing about the boss battle and honestly have no opinion on it one way or the other (I think the arguments about it ignore that 'Superman doesn't kill' has always been a loose rule when it comes to the character, who has in fact killed people over his publication history). In context, it's also just a bizarre obsession, cause Zod was literally threatening genocide and I've never seen anyone complain about the thought of Hitler getting one between the eyes. With the destruction shown in the movie not killing Zod in that moment would have been bizarre*. The movie achieved mediocrity well before that scene imo. I think the scene probably could have worked, but the rest of the movie was such a heartless sell I couldn't care one way or the other by the time it came up. The movie was a weak take on Superman.
*Then again, if he hadn't I think people would complain about that instead. The scene isn't really the problem with the movie. The problem with the movie is that it's on the dull side. The ending becomes a hate sink because it's the last thing a lot of the audience remembers from it. Everything else is really rather forgettable beyond the description "and then there were explosions."
And are you saying that Clark should be feeling human emotions or not?
Disappearing for years because your dad died is not a normal human reaction. It's melodramatic swill, and it's bizarre in MoS because Superman has never been Spiderman so I don't know why Uncle Ben was killed, am unconvinced that that whole plot point actually paid off in any meaningful way, and I think Snyder thinks edgy teenager behavior is deeper than it really is. I'd almost accuse the people behind MoS of thinking they had to imitate the tone Nolan's Batman trilogy to the darkest edginess, where the edges sticking out everywhere weren't so much a strength as an annoyance people who liked those movies were willing to overlook. It helped that being Batman made dark and edgy sort of a 'comes with the territory' deal, but dark and edgy Superman is a weird take on what is normally Batman's optimistic counterpart.
Feeling like an outsider, searching for his place in the world, being regretful about his failings, etc....isn't that a very human Kal-El?
Very. It's a shame it's completely hand waved away in both movies. Overbearing amounts of angst are not deep or insightful. If the point was to present Clark as struggling to find his place in the world, both movies completely failed. MoS montages that entire bit and then throws it aside to get going on the main plot. BvS was too confused and convoluted plot wise to ever offer much for it.
writing Clark as a mask is what causes Superman to become boring.
Disagree. When DC threw this aspect of the character out the window is when the character started floundering and Superman has struggled to find footing ever since. Clark Kent is central to the Superman character. The dissolution of that to simply tell stories about Superman being super is tantamount to Batman suddenly deciding his parent's being dead is an unimportant factoid of his life rather than it's defining element.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2021/02/18 05:16:12
LunarSol wrote: The basic cycle of retcon is essentially that when kids grow up to work on comics, they go out of their way to make the comics like they remembered them when they were kids.
That... doesn't make sense. That means the next generation of writers is trying to copy the original, then the 3rd gen is trying to copy the original (since 'copy of the original' is what they grew up on) and so forth. That's just stasis and likely why DC particularly is a painful series of reboots that don't go anywhere. But that cycle doesn't require much retconning.
Retconning is often the product of specifically diverging from the source material, either because it was stupid, follows outdated social standards, technology outdates a plot element (so many comic plots are nullified by the ubiquity of cellphone cameras) or the author just plain didn't like that element. Its intentionally _not_ trying to make them as remembered.
The editor in chief of DC is on record having actually said he was doing that. He says"keep the classic characters classic. Do new stuff with the new characters". It's why Hal Jordan is green lantern again instead of all the paralax going mad and killing everyone then becoming the specter thing. They had moved way past Hal with Kyle Raynor for years until he took over.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
Da Boss wrote: If I compare it to the previous superman movies there's no comparison, the ludicrous Lex Luthor from those movies is not anywhere near as good a villain as Zod is.
Even as a kid watching Superman: The Movie in the theaters, I couldn’t figure out how that was supposed to be Lex Luthor. The LL of the day was a mad scientist of Clark’s age (they were friends originally) who wore a purple suit and fought Superman using his inventions and weapons. The LL that came after the Crisis was an older ruthless capitalist billionaire who fought him with money and laws. (Current version blends these two). Movie Lex was an older criminal real estate developer who lived underground with two incompetent twits as henchmen. In Superman Returns Singer even doubled down on that mistake! As he’d be able to keep his precious land after people figured out what he did in either case.
I loved the Gene Hackman Lex. But then, I'd read few Superman comics and none of them had Lex in. Superman at the time was pretty ridiculous. Making giant vacuum cleaners at super speed to suck up toxic clouds, etc.
Sure, there was a bunch of laughs at Otis' expense ("he spotted those catlike reflexes"/"It's not that I don't trust you....... I don't trust you") but I remember the dialogue of the high frequency message to lure Superman to his lair and the kryptonite, laden with contempt for Superman's world view.
Reading 'Lex' stories later on, in his awful outfit that in retrospect looks like an even worse version of Buzz Lightyear and Dr Evil, I couldn't understand who this creature was. But I guess if you come late to a character, without 'growing up' with them the ludicrousness is more apparent.
There has been recent things with the idea of Clark 'wandering the Earth,' I think that's been most well done with 'Superman: Birthright.'
But, it's handled differently, it's very done as a 'I'm trying to find my place in the world, figuring out how best to help people, what I can do.'
But it's done in a completely different way. Birthrights wander is about Clark meeting new people, understanding the world, building connections with all of humanity.
As opposed to being the grumpy silent guy at the back of the boat that doesn't really speak with people.
The culmination of Birthright, is Clark, in his capacity as a roving reporter meets and becomes friends with a Nelson Mandela type figure in Africa. This person becomes a local symbol of hope and inspiration for people in his country. He's then killed and its from this that Clark gets the idea that he can be a symbol of hope, one that can't be ended with a bullet.
So, it's a very similar factual events but the symbolism behind it is completely different.
Snyder seems to have taken wikipedia page of Injustice and gone, 'oh, Lois and Martha the only people he cares about in the world' without realising that Injustice is a darker world with not-our-Superman, and even then it involved:
1) Him being directly responsible for Lois', and his childs, death.
2) Everyone in the Daily Planet, all his friends, all his coworkers dying as a result.
3) In fact, all of Metropolis dying.
I'm not a super comic fan I'd read a couple, I knew who Captain America, Iron Man, Falcon, Black Widow and a few others were. I'd read some DC but not nearly as much. My "go to" was Grifter and Wild C. A. T. S. I enjoyed enough most of the Superman movies and enjoyed the hell out of all the Batman movies, even the ones with armour nipples.
I hadn't watched Smallville or any Arrow verse (but my kid watches Teen Titans Go and I find it a nice show like Justice Friends should have been).
I *hated* BvS so didn't have high hopes for JL. It was soso. It was ok but not a good ensemble movie, the heroes overlapped too much and the story was mediocre. I'd like to see the Snyder cut to see if it could improve the story like the Highlander 2 directors cut did.
I'm not expecting a major new story put together from the bits and the acting of some characters was atrocious.
gorgon wrote: If you actually watch the film, it makes the point multiple times that Clark is helping people during his travels.
Angstily wandering the earth is not an element of the Superman character and turning Papa Kent into Uncle Ben (but completely uninspiring) is not an improvement.
But he WASN'T wandering the earth to be 'angsty'. He was searching for information about where he came from. It makes some sense to me...he couldn't fly yet but by moving around his vision and hearing abilities could be pretty handy. We have to presume that something led him to Alaska, because he's there for a while and it's there that he gets the tip about the Kryptonian scout ship in the ice. When he returns to Smallville and greets Martha, that's what that conversation is about. "I found them!"
I'm genuinely perplexed that you'd watch the film and think he's just walking around randomly for no reason. Then stumbles across the key information while working at a random dive bar in the middle of nowhere? When we watch a piece of entertainment, some of the connective tissue is on us. If we refuse to do that, then almost anything we watch is going to seem random and dumb.
Also...Clark traveling the world and doing some stuff before becoming Superman has been part of the mythos for decades now. It's been in the comics and had some live action mentions IIRC.
Da Boss wrote: If I compare it to the previous superman movies there's no comparison, the ludicrous Lex Luthor from those movies is not anywhere near as good a villain as Zod is.
Even as a kid watching Superman: The Movie in the theaters, I couldn’t figure out how that was supposed to be Lex Luthor. The LL of the day was a mad scientist of Clark’s age (they were friends originally) who wore a purple suit and fought Superman using his inventions and weapons. The LL that came after the Crisis was an older ruthless capitalist billionaire who fought him with money and laws. (Current version blends these two). Movie Lex was an older criminal real estate developer who lived underground with two incompetent twits as henchmen. In Superman Returns Singer even doubled down on that mistake! As he’d be able to keep his precious land after people figured out what he did in either case.
I loved the Gene Hackman Lex. But then, I'd read few Superman comics and none of them had Lex in. Superman at the time was pretty ridiculous. Making giant vacuum cleaners at super speed to suck up toxic clouds, etc.
Sure, there was a bunch of laughs at Otis' expense ("he spotted those catlike reflexes"/"It's not that I don't trust you....... I don't trust you") but I remember the dialogue of the high frequency message to lure Superman to his lair and the kryptonite, laden with contempt for Superman's world view.
Reading 'Lex' stories later on, in his awful outfit that in retrospect looks like an even worse version of Buzz Lightyear and Dr Evil, I couldn't understand who this creature was. But I guess if you come late to a character, without 'growing up' with them the ludicrousness is more apparent.
I appreciate Hackman's performance. And even as a kid I'm not sure that I needed him to be in the purple suit. Comic LL at the time was driven more by a vendetta against Superman that came from when they were teens, and that doesn't work well for various reasons. But movie Lex was just trying to make money in real estate...really violently. He's like some kind of failed version of the corporate Lex that came later in the comics. That Lex would have made his money in real estate through brains and yes, some violence...but no nuking fault lines required. Maybe it's important to consider that the guy who wrote the story was primarily known for Mafia crime novels.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/02/18 14:24:51
gorgon wrote: But he WASN'T wandering the earth to be 'angsty'. He was searching for information about where he came from.
I think he was being angsty XD
I'm genuinely perplexed that you'd watch the film and think he's just walking around randomly for no reason
I didn't say there was no reason. I think the reason is dumb. Turn papa kent into a backwards Uncle Ben and Clark is sad and searching for answers? If you want to make that the point of the movie you could probably get away with it, but that got handwaved off about 40 minutes in so the whole thing was really just a waste of time that preceded things exploding and Supes trying to save the world. Even then it's not what I'd expect from the Superman character.
I'd also point out how it foreshadowed how incredibly one-note most of DC's current LA films and characters are. The entire DCU has this problem of confuse edgy teenagers for adults. I could actually buy it in Wonder Woman cause she's an Amazon and maybe the whole immortality thing means she doesn't grow out of that immaturity as fast, but I really started getting tired of it before MoS was even thirty minutes into the movie. I watch anime. I don't need more angst playing out on screen. The only movie it really works in in Shazam! and Shazam actually is about an edgy teenager so it's not nearly as groan inducing for me. I feel like this rounds back to an earlier suggestion I made that mainstream comic books have a demographic problem. They want to appeal to a wider audience, but they continually bind themselves to being juvenile entertainment and it would really help if they picked a lane. You can't be mainstream comics and the deconstructive comics Snyder loves so much, so the DCU has this constant tonal problem where it acts like its making some kind of commentary and has an intelligent stream to it, but it's too mired in melodrama to really make any of that coherent or meaningful.
When we watch a piece of entertainment, some of the connective tissue is on us. If we refuse to do that, then almost anything we watch is going to seem random and dumb.
True. It's especially hard to buy into it when what we're watching actually is random and dumb. MoS was random and dumb.
Also...Clark traveling the world and doing some stuff before becoming Superman has been part of the mythos for decades now.
Not like this it's not.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/02/18 15:17:51
Compel wrote: Snyder seems to have taken wikipedia page of Injustice and gone, 'oh, Lois and Martha the only people he cares about in the world' without realising that Injustice is a darker world with not-our-Superman, and even then it involved:
Jimmy Olsen is arguably a more important to Clark's character than Lois Lane in that regard.
I have a hard time disagreeing with that too. - Of course, Jimmy also got shot in the head and killed by the Joker in Injustice, in like the.... 3rd panel?
It was *exceptionally* early.
Of course, Snyder doesn't even acknowledge Jimmy's existence, except the BVS Ultimate Cut, where he never even meets Clark, and is a secret CIA spy that dies immediately after meeting Lois.
Funnily enough I rewatched the Ultimate Cut this week in preparation of the Snyder Cut, and I had a similar thought.
I do wonder if somewhere out there in Snyder world there's a James Olsen still covering local dog shows, yet to land his dream job at the Planet and meet Lois and Clark, and completely unaware his identity was stolen by a CIA black operative.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Compel wrote: I have a hard time disagreeing with that too. - Of course, Jimmy also got shot in the head and killed by the Joker in Injustice, in like the.... 3rd panel?
It was *exceptionally* early.
Of course, Snyder doesn't even acknowledge Jimmy's existence, except the BVS Ultimate Cut, where he never even meets Clark, and is a secret CIA spy that dies immediately after meeting Lois.
I would absolutely *lay money* that Snyder's pitch to the studio for the DCEU (remember that MoS was the Nolans' idea and not explicitly the launch of a 'universe'...in fact they never liked that concept) was that Injustice would be a big influence. You can see it all over BvS and his original plans for JL...in which Lois would die and then Clark would succumb to the Anti-Life Equation and turn evil. Hell, you can see it in the costumes. I'm sure the studio ate it up considering how popular that sub-franchise was.
Then at what point did the studio start to ask...um...is this really what we wanted? LOL. When they started getting dailies? At the first screening? From what I've read, even a little before the release of BvS the studio was asking him to change his JL plans. And getting this back on topic, what we're going to get on HBO Max isn't really Snyder's ORIGINAL story. This was what he shot after the studio demanded changes. The LIGHTER version, LOL. Then the studio still didn't like what they saw, which is when Snyder was fired and Whedon brought on board to overhaul it.
I feel like...everyone involved was wrong? The studio meddling was beyond belief, and they should have known Snyder. And yet Snyder seemed to make those films for an audience of one. That's partly on the studio for putting Snyder in charge...but don't you have to know that your bosses need 'four-quadrant' films? Kids watching and asking their parents for toys? For the franchise to have legs that can't be there if half the characters get capped? Jay Baruchel once called BvS "the world's most expensive indy film', and he's right! It was Snyder with $250 million being allowed to make a movie for himself.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote: Man of Steel had "Jenny", that was actually supposed to fill the role of a young, aspiring newsperson.
I've always wondered if Jimmy Olsen in BvS was supposed to be just a spy who used a forged identity.
I feel confident that was Snyder's take on Jimmy and that he was happy to cap him. I mean, he said that intended the dead Robin to be Dick. But Chris McKay was pitching a Nightwing film to the studio around that time. So I think that's why BvS made it unclear which Robin it was. But Snyder was fine with removing Grayson from DCEU. It's that stuff that I can't get my head around.
Regarding Jimmy, would that have been the retcon after a mild reboot under a different director? Yeah, probably.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/02/18 18:49:49
gorgon wrote: I feel like...everyone involved was wrong?
I think that the first few DCU entries absolute and very visibly suffered from a case of "too many hands on the wheel trying to steer the ship." It helped absolutely nothing (I'd hazard to guess that MoS lackluster performance, and then nervousness leading to the release of BvS made the suits super nervous about what they'd gotten into). It's especially glaring in Batman v Superman and Justice League, then Aquaman, Wonder Woman, and Shazam! feel like they're three different styles of film making. Aquaman was very corporate driven, Wonder Woman very collaborative between execs and the directing team, and Shazam! was somewhat hands off where the creative team was left to their own devices. Not sure if or when they'll figure out what they want to do. Of those movies, Shazam! is the only one I'd call unquestionably good, but none of them were bad and they were all better than Snyder's obsession with the edge. WW1984 was a mess of a movie but the COVID.
Snyder's Justice League I think is definitely a mix of a vanity project on Snyder's part (This is how it should have been!) and some boardrooms noticing that they can probably make money off the deal regardless of whether it's any good or not, since most of the footage already exists and all they'll have to pay for is some extra post-production and marketing.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/02/18 19:10:27
I think that the first few DCU entries absolute and very visibly suffered from a case of "too many hands on the wheel trying to steer the ship."
It helps to remember the timing:
June 28, 2006 Superman Returns
May 4, 2007 Spider-Man 3
May 2, 2008 Iron Man
June 13, 2008 The Incredible Hulk
July 14, 2008 The Dark Knight
May 7, 2010 Iron Man 2
May 6, 2011 Thor
June 17, 2011 Green Lantern
July 22, 2011 Captain America: The First Avenger
May 4, 2012 Marvel's The Avengers
July 20, 2012 The Dark Knight Rises
May 3, 2013 Iron Man 3
June 14, 2013 Man of Steel
November 8, 2013 Thor: The Dark World
April 4, 2014 Captain America: The Winter Soldier
August 1, 2014 Guardians of the Galaxy
So, at the dawn of the MCU, DC had a successful competitor. Iron Man was super exciting and got people talking about this march to an Avengers movie, but the story of the summer was The Dark Knight. DC had a winner in its own style. It's also pretty clear that Green Lantern was developed as a more direct answer to Iron Man. It takes a similar styled character (arrogant guy who flies around shooting lasers) who similarly hasn't had a lot of public exposure and has the opportunity to really explode and is very similar to the early MCU films in terms of pacing and tone. It's failing seems to have pushed DC towards going more with what works and at the time we were all desperate for Nolan's follow up, so its not like DC was failing in their niche. A Nolan style Superman had been in the works since The Dark Knight succeeded where Superman Returns failed.
Then Avengers absolutely explodes and DKR by comparison doesn't fail by any means, but definitely doesn't stand up to the competition. When Man of Steel doesn't totally work either, DC finds themselves way too far behind to catch up and goes into full catchup mode, committing to a huge slate of films basically to meet shareholder demands. The bet on the table here is pretty clear. Mash together two of the most successful comics in DC's entire history under the vision of the guy who had successfully adopted the other big DC title and follow it up by beating Marvel to the punch with the original version of Thanos in the sequel. It's really not until BvS experienced one of the biggest second week drop offs ever that we saw things go completely off the rails. At this point Justice League was in flight. Filming was starting for the first of two films based on a movie that got rejected pretty hard by the public. From here on everything is basically a mix of salvage efforts, trend chasing and damage control. I sincerely doubt things would have gone better had Snyder's family tragedy not pulled him away. It's possible the Snyder cut will redeem the film; but I I think that might have a lot to do with the benefit of hindsight at this point.
2021/02/18 22:36:21
Subject: Re:Zack Snyder's Justice League new trailer
Yeah. As we've discussed, the problem was the lack of agility. They'd put all their eggs in one basket and gave themselves no time to course-correct.
I saw your mention of trend-chasing. FWIW, I heard that the studio found the characters that audience-tested best in JL were WW, Aquaman, and Flash. Bats and Supes were at the bottom. I can't remember what was said about Cyborg, but I think the top three were clearly those I mentioned. Harley Quinn in SS tested off the charts, IIRC. And which films happened and which didn't?
Sure, a WW sequel was a given, but the studio gave Jenkins creative control and let her keep it. Aquaman was already in the works and Wan had control and a big budget...but those things didn't stop them on JL with Snyder. Birds of Prey happened in order to feature Harley. Flash seems like a cursed project with a recently controversial star that fans don't seem to be clamoring for, yet WB keeps trying to push it forward. Meanwhile, Batman was rebooted (Affleck had something to do with this, but still), and Henry Cavill will probably never get a MoS sequel. The studio's gotten pitches for MoS2 from good directors and writers...they just haven't bitten. Shazam, the character who was sued into oblivion for being a Superman ripoff, got a film while the actual Superman character is sidelined indefinitely...Cavill or no Cavill.
To me, this reeks of letting audience tests, social media reactions, etc. drive the enterprise instead of good creative management. (Hmm...maybe it's not a coincidence that Cavill's management has him so active on social media.) Course corrections are a legit thing, but I'm not convinced that WB has been reading the room well at any step. So much probably would have been different if they'd immediately given MoS a sequel, perhaps under a different director. MoS was divisive, but I think it's important to note that Batman Begins wasn't wildly embraced by everyone either. But it broke some eggs that needed to be broken and set the stage for a superior sequel. And I get the sense that opinions about MoS actually have softened with time even without a sequel. The studio just need to keep the faith, stay patient and make small corrections and good decisions.
Birds of Prey happened in order to feature Harley.
It also seemed quite notable that the early stuff for that film made it seem like, well, an actual Birds of Prey film, and it shifted over time to the Harley-'sploitation film it ended up as.
The studio just need to keep the faith, stay patient and make small corrections and good decisions.
They mostly just need to make good films, rather than drek. Its _really_ bizarre to watch a studio consistently misjudge the general audience when other studios can just sleepwalk their way to billions with really basic formulas.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/02/18 22:43:57
Birds of Prey happened in order to feature Harley.
It also seemed quite notable that the early stuff for that film made it seem like, well, an actual Birds of Prey film, and it shifted over time to the Harley-'sploitation film it ended up as.
The movie struck me as yet again another film with too many hands on the wheel (I always forget it happened...).
There were two films in this movie;
-An ensemble film with several characters who could be spun off into future movies (Black Canary, Huntress, The Question, etc).
-A Harly Quinn centric movie in the vein of Dead Pool.
And when thrown together those two things kind of beat each other over the head, and I'm not even sure why the first thing was a thing at all. The Birds of Prey aren't even B-list in super hero circles, they're a really niche thing. If they wanted to make something Harley centric but that could be spined into future films they would have been better off focusing on Harley and Poison Ivy, who remain a popular pair of characters for numerous reasons (and the Harley Quinn animated series did this to great success). And paradoxically, I don't think Harley has ever even been associated with the Birds of Prey team, though she runs in the same circles as many characters who have been.
They mostly just need to make good films, rather than drek. Its _really_ bizarre to watch a studio consistently misjudge the general audience when other studios can just sleepwalk their way to billions with really basic formulas.
I've pointed out many times over the years that DC wants Avengers money and they want it now. Something that's hard to do when you're completely unwilling to put in the work necessary to build the foundation for such a film.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/02/18 23:33:28
Birds of Prey happened in order to feature Harley.
It also seemed quite notable that the early stuff for that film made it seem like, well, an actual Birds of Prey film, and it shifted over time to the Harley-'sploitation film it ended up as.
The movie struck me as yet again another film with too many hands on the wheel (I always forget it happened...).
There were two films in this movie;
-An ensemble film with several characters who could be spun off into future movies (Black Canary, Huntress, The Question, etc).
-A Harly Quinn centric movie in the vein of Dead Pool.
And when thrown together those two things kind of beat each other over the head, and I'm not even sure why the first thing was a thing at all. The Birds of Prey aren't even B-list in super hero circles, they're a really niche thing. If they wanted to make something Harley centric but that could be spined into future films they would have been better off focusing on Harley and Poison Ivy, who remain a popular pair of characters for numerous reasons (and the Harley Quinn animated series did this to great success). And paradoxically, I don't think Harley has ever even been associated with the Birds of Prey team, though she runs in the same circles as many characters who have been.
They mostly just need to make good films, rather than drek. Its _really_ bizarre to watch a studio consistently misjudge the general audience when other studios can just sleepwalk their way to billions with really basic formulas.
I've pointed out many times over the years that DC wants Avengers money and they want it now. Something that's hard to do when you're completely unwilling to put in the work necessary to build the foundation for such a film.
It also doesn't help they don't have a singular vision that Kevin Feige helped set with the MCU, so alongside the cash-grab attempts to follow the trend set by Marvel, they have competing and conflicting ideas for what the universe should look like that is dictated by the public reception of each movie they release. It's no wonder they keep creating Frankenstein monster movies.
They should model it after how the DCAU was run, with people like Paul Dini, Bruce Timm and the like who actually get the characters.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/9174781/supes.gif)
Jay Baruchel once called BvS "the world's most expensive indy film', and he's right! It was Snyder with $250 million being allowed to make a movie for himself.
