[Cause]

 Ribald, on 29 March 2016 - 10:28 PM, said:

There are two different reviews of BvS:DoJ up on my website: The first is Spoiler Free and the second is not so spoiler free as it refers to things covered in the trailers.

My friend wrote the first one and I think he enjoyed the film a little more than I did. My main problem was this particular incarnation of Superman.

But I did like Affleck as Batman. I thought he was great.

Spoiler

I completely forgot about his vision with his father. That scene was a disaster. Was he hallucinating? Did god send him a message? Was his father speaking from the beyond. The less thought I give that scene the better.

[QuickTidal]

 Cause, on 30 March 2016 - 12:03 PM, said:

 Ribald, on 29 March 2016 - 10:28 PM, said:

There are two different reviews of BvS:DoJ up on my website: The first is Spoiler Free and the second is not so spoiler free as it refers to things covered in the trailers.

My friend wrote the first one and I think he enjoyed the film a little more than I did. My main problem was this particular incarnation of Superman.

But I did like Affleck as Batman. I thought he was great.

Spoiler

I completely forgot about his vision with his father. That scene was a disaster. Was he hallucinating? Did god send him a message? Was his father speaking from the beyond. The less thought I give that scene the better.

Spoiler

That was actually a really poignant scene for me. It was in his head. He was having an internal conversation with himself about the values that his father (who feared for him) laid out for him as a kid...and bringing the conflict he sees in that path considering what's been happening and how people feel about him. His father was just an avatar for that mental conversation Clark had with himself about how he was raised VS who he thinks he should be now. It made a fair amount of sense to me, and it's followed by him rejecting Lex's idea that he and Bruce fight each other, and trying to get Bruce to see they were set up from the beginning and pointed at one another (he only caves and starts to fight back at Bruce after Bruce busts out the Kryptonite gas...and I saw that more as a survival tactic.

At any rate, it was a turning point moment for Clark's emotional state for the first half of the movie. It gives him direction. And allows him to forgive his father for the protection he structured around Clark made from fear...and realize that he CAN be the hero humanity needs and he SHOULD save people. Think about the fight with Doomsday, there is actually a line of dialogue where Clark says something like "We have to get this thing away from the city center".

Bruce has a similar (if simpler) turning point in his emotional state when he realizes that this super alien god being he's SO afraid of...has a mom. A human mom. A family in the same country that he was raised in. Sure the scene could have been handled a bit better...but it's not about the name Martha..=..that's merely catalyst for Bruce's moment. It humanizes Clark to him, and he realizes that what Alfred has been saying "He is NOT our enemy"...is in fact true.

[Cause]

Spoiler

He is trecking through the mountains in isolation like he is on some kind of spiritual journey. Than his dad appears, he look suprised to see him. Than his dad tells him a story, a story that is recounted as if its the first time its being told. I got the message his father was giving. It just did not come across at all like it was a vivid memory.

[worry]

Contains spoilers:
http://birthmoviesde...the-damage-done

[QuickTidal]

Sorry, I don't read anything written by Faraci. I think he's one of the worst people ever to write on the Internet.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 02 April 2016 - 02:55 AM

[worry]

Makes sense, given the mostly benign history of the written word online.

[QuickTidal]

 Oponn Relationship, on 02 April 2016 - 03:04 AM, said:

Makes sense, given the mostly benign history of the written word online.

It's far too late in the evening for wit sir!

[amphibian]

 Oponn Relationship, on 02 April 2016 - 02:06 AM, said:

Contains spoilers:
http://birthmoviesde...the-damage-done

This reads like George Will writing about baseball of the halcyon days. It's a bad article because it kinda assumes a monolithic audience and perspective on Superman that I believe never existed. I think Superman has appeal to many groups for a variety of reasons; decency isn't particularly high up there among those now (and I believe it never really was, that this is a fiction assembled over the years by nostalgic white dudes who want it to be true).

It's also kinda telling that the language used to describe the 70s in the cities nearly get to dog whistling.

I have seen several people retweet this and most of them are kind of bad critics of things like this.

Keep in mind that I am very aware of Snyder's flaws in presentation and project choices.

[worry]

[worry]

 amphibian, on 02 April 2016 - 03:29 AM, said:

This reads like George Will writing about baseball of the halcyon days.

This is true. Lots of bemoaning.

 amphibian, on 02 April 2016 - 03:29 AM, said:

It's a bad article because it kinda assumes a monolithic audience and perspective on Superman that I believe never existed. I think Superman has appeal to many groups for a variety of reasons; decency isn't particularly high up there among those now (and I believe it never really was, that this is a fiction assembled over the years by nostalgic white dudes who want it to be true).

It's also kinda telling that the language used to describe the 70s in the cities nearly get to dog whistling.

I'm not sure this is. I do think Superman is a monolithic figure of fundamentally decent, boyscout-helping-grannies-cross-the-road American idealism. He's had that reputation as milquetoast do-gooder even next to Batman, despite Batman's own never-kill-anyone principle, and frankly it's the latter who appeals to the make-America-great-again crowd imo (except perhaps this brooding iteration of Supes). Maybe there's a little Leave It to Beaver-ism inherent with Superman, but I don't necessarily think the desire to keep him unsullied is equivalent to white back-to-the-50s yearning. Maybe outside my experience (none of the bigger Superman fans I know personally are white) his image is inherently that kind of thing to a lot of people though, and I just haven't seen it.

I'm also not sure about the 70s dog whistling, but then again when I think of "cocaine and disco" I think of Studio 54 style self-indulgence and conspicuous consumption. Maybe that's a whitewashing of disco culture generally, but in the sense of a real phenomena that hijacked disco in the 70s. Also I hate disco, so I'm gonna psychologically stick with the worst associated phenomena.

Maybe there's more interesting stuff in the comments than in the article itself. For instance one person writes
"In a post 9-11/War on Terror world, Warner Bros. has convinced people that Superman cannot exist.In a post 9-11/War on Terror world, Marvel has convinced people that Captain America not only can exist, but *should*."

And there's discussion of Superman as (essentially) a pacifist, someone whose tendency is to open his hand rather than make a fist, as well as the significance of Cap's "weapon" being a shield. Of course Cap is even more of a "traditional All-American" blonde, corn-fed boy w/ all the visual reinforcement that entails. But his principles still tend to reflect actual idealism rather than the self-serving farce that so often gets dressed up as "realism".


All that said, I don't actually care if Faraci is a good writer or not (I don't know who he is other than this one thing). I was mostly wondering if people who saw the movie agree with the premise that Zack Snyder has intentionally inverted the character to suit a far different agenda than his usual man-of-principle depiction. Has Snyder destroyed Superman and rebuilt him as something else?

[worry]

 Oponn Relationship, on 02 April 2016 - 04:24 AM, said:

All that said, I don't actually care if Faraci is a good writer or not (I don't know who he is other than this one thing). I was mostly wondering if people who saw the movie agree with the premise that Zack Snyder has intentionally inverted the character to suit a far different agenda than his usual man-of-principle depiction. Has Snyder destroyed Superman and rebuilt him as something else?

BTW, this isn't to say that you weren't doing this, amph. Just that, if you feel like it, it would be interesting to hear you expand on what Superman does mean to you (if anything) since it seems counter to my own presumptions, and the same goes for anyone else who wants to talk about that.

[amphibian]

I think the primary appeal of Superman to young kids is that he has really cool powers and he uses them all the time. He flies, he moves incredibly fast, he knocks over buildings, and he shoots laser beams out of his eyes. The story is all leaduo to the time Superman lets loose with those powers.

Saving people is a lesser pursuit (to this audience) than stopping the enemies to this audience. Perhaps this is because we don't really develop empathy in our lives or perhaps it is because Superman comic writers have generally done a terrible job of developing characters outside a handful of people (Lois, Lex, Darkseid, Superman's SuperCousins, Cyborg) over the years.

Superman is in-practice presented more as a good person as most comic book heroes are than an uncommonly good person with a truly rare set of ethics. I know the longtime Superman fans are now saying something, so hang on a second and let me say this: "I won't kill" doesn't particularly resonate to us today. I think this is because we have ended up in a storytelling world where protagonists murdering by intent or purpose is so commonplace and its best examples so good and memorable that "I won't kill" feels like holding back in a waste of time sense rather than decency. Most people don't want to see holding back in our stories and by and large, Superman comic writers haven't made us change our minds.

The writers have also not done a great job of showing Superman imposing/applying his "do the right thing" ethics on situations that aren't created by Lex Luthor. It's somewhat the same problem Zootopia has. The writers for years have presented a vision of the world in a certain way that creates a meta story (as all long running comics tend to do). So the meta story to those who do not pay attention carefully to the stories of the past is that Superman swoops in, bashes the hell out of someone bad, and then flies away to go change back into Clark. It's not really presented in a way that suggests that Superman evaluates anything before taking action. And when he does take action, it's with those powers.

I think most people stay relatively close to that mindset, even as adults. The meta story of Superman thus far doesn't push them to change their expectations. So BvS appears to deliver on those expectations - which is what the majority of the audience wants.

I also think that one comic book page where Superman talks a teen girl down from suicide is a fantastic visual and conceptual story that absolutely should make it to the screen. That would bring across his decency in a way that connects to people. He's not using his powers because that's not the right context, it's not the right danger.

After all, Deadpool got across hugely because half the movie established a compelling and emotionally investing romance with Vanessa, who was also a real person. And then it spent the other half establishing the foil in Francis. If movie makers can sell Deadpool like that, they can get Superman right that way.

[QuickTidal]

 Oponn Relationship, on 02 April 2016 - 04:24 AM, said:

 amphibian, on 02 April 2016 - 03:29 AM, said:

This reads like George Will writing about baseball of the halcyon days.

This is true. Lots of bemoaning.

 amphibian, on 02 April 2016 - 03:29 AM, said:

It's a bad article because it kinda assumes a monolithic audience and perspective on Superman that I believe never existed. I think Superman has appeal to many groups for a variety of reasons; decency isn't particularly high up there among those now (and I believe it never really was, that this is a fiction assembled over the years by nostalgic white dudes who want it to be true).

It's also kinda telling that the language used to describe the 70s in the cities nearly get to dog whistling.

I'm not sure this is. I do think Superman is a monolithic figure of fundamentally decent, boyscout-helping-grannies-cross-the-road American idealism. He's had that reputation as milquetoast do-gooder even next to Batman, despite Batman's own never-kill-anyone principle, and frankly it's the latter who appeals to the make-America-great-again crowd imo (except perhaps this brooding iteration of Supes). Maybe there's a little Leave It to Beaver-ism inherent with Superman, but I don't necessarily think the desire to keep him unsullied is equivalent to white back-to-the-50s yearning. Maybe outside my experience (none of the bigger Superman fans I know personally are white) his image is inherently that kind of thing to a lot of people though, and I just haven't seen it.

I'm also not sure about the 70s dog whistling, but then again when I think of "cocaine and disco" I think of Studio 54 style self-indulgence and conspicuous consumption. Maybe that's a whitewashing of disco culture generally, but in the sense of a real phenomena that hijacked disco in the 70s. Also I hate disco, so I'm gonna psychologically stick with the worst associated phenomena.

Maybe there's more interesting stuff in the comments than in the article itself. For instance one person writes
"In a post 9-11/War on Terror world, Warner Bros. has convinced people that Superman cannot exist.In a post 9-11/War on Terror world, Marvel has convinced people that Captain America not only can exist, but *should*."

And there's discussion of Superman as (essentially) a pacifist, someone whose tendency is to open his hand rather than make a fist, as well as the significance of Cap's "weapon" being a shield. Of course Cap is even more of a "traditional All-American" blonde, corn-fed boy w/ all the visual reinforcement that entails. But his principles still tend to reflect actual idealism rather than the self-serving farce that so often gets dressed up as "realism".


All that said, I don't actually care if Faraci is a good writer or not (I don't know who he is other than this one thing). I was mostly wondering if people who saw the movie agree with the premise that Zack Snyder has intentionally inverted the character to suit a far different agenda than his usual man-of-principle depiction. Has Snyder destroyed Superman and rebuilt him as something else?

I largely agree with Apmh actually.

The ideal that some people have in their head of who Superman is and what makes him up is: Alien godlike being is rasied in the 1930's Midwest and that upbringing tempers him into the white-hatted, boy-scout, do-no-wrong so that this guy with omnipotent powers doesn't seem like a SCARY alien, but a benevolent one. Come to save us, from ourselves.

Right?

Okay, but here's the problem. That's a bigtime fantasy not set in a fantasy world. It's set in ours. And in our world, the ideologies of 1930's America simply isn't a believable thing anymore. What's more, it's bloody boring. Oh, look over there, the guy who does no wrong saves the day again. Wonderful. For a ten cent dimestore novel for children of that same era.

In 2016? Not even a little bit. In fact, Snyder has gone for the hard view. That to make this guy BE even close to that boy-scout hero he has to be run through the same human paces that everyone else does. Start that off with a father who fears that the world will react to him poorly and nab him or try to imprison him ect. Say what you will about Jonathan Kent in MoS...that is a FATHER. A man who wants to do everything in his power to keep his son from the harm he assumes might come his way if people know about him. Are parental choices like this good or thoughtful and do they even make SENSE? Nope. But it is what it is. Any parent worth their salt could easily make the same choices as Kent did. No one is saying they are the right ones (or even if the right ones exist)...but they are believable. So then you move that young man into his adult life and then throw (arguably) the most vicious criminal his own planet has ever seen..and give him the same powers, and this young untrained man has to try to deal with it. All goes mostly wrong, but he DOES succeed in the end (at the great personal cost of snapping Zod's neck) and saves the world and even MOST of Metropolis...(anyone who says they destoyed the city wasn't paying attention...the city shot after the fact shows about 1/4 of the city was damaged). Is it perfect? God no. Is it starting to temper this guy? Yeah...but that evolution occcurs as slowly as ours does.

Then you move onto BvS. The guy is now more comfortable saving people, but is still facing the mob mentality in the country (which again, is EXACTLY what would happen in 2016....exactly) He would have already been tried in the court of public opinion and found wanting. Yet he's TRYING to rise above it, but his life on earth has given him human doubts and human depression, and basically a mental health issue. This is the reason for the scene with his mom. "Save these people, or don't. You don't OWE them anything." and that's goddamn right. He doens't. Snyder isn't giving the easy answer here. We don't get to hit a button and have the boy in red and blue come round...yet. This is a guy who is so intent on saving his girlfriend from a thug that it blinds him to the power with which he takes a guy through a wall. Is that a smart choice? Nope. And he knows it after the fact as he walks calmly into the senate and accepts what's about to happen to him. This is a guy who is STILL learning how to naviagte his own emotions and reactions...while also trying to figure out his place in the world.

Captain America is a different guy. Whoever said that in the comments doesn't understand these two characters at all. Cap is FROM the 1940's. He's from the so-called Golden Age. He literally IS a boyscout from the era of the first Superman comics...brought INTO our time. His values are that of 1930's-40's America. That is why he is like that, and why the difference exists. This Superman in these movies was born in 1980. The global socio-dynamic is wholy different. They were raised in two different worlds. Notice that EVERYONE in Marvel U treats Cap like he's an old fuddy duddy, a relic.

I think some of the most vocal comic fandom expect the 1930's Superman (Mark Waid...old white guy) himself stood up in the theatre in MoS and shouted at the screen and then ranted afterwards that "This Isn't Superman!"....and when I challeneged him "This isn't YOUR Superman, but it is A Superman"...he basically told me I was wrong and don't understand a comic character I've been reading since I was a wee kid. I like Mark Waid's writing, but the guy has an attitude a mile wide, and he's a traditionalist. And that to me is anathema to good storytelling. IP characters like Superman should be malleable. They should be allowed to grow. Especially if they are ones born in our era and have to deal with our humnaity and our fears. Anything else would just feel fake.

Snyder's Superman is organic and still developing. And there are many out there who refuse to wait for that to bloom...and a few more who think he should come on the screen fully formed...which is asinine.

EDIT: Going to see it a second time in a few hours.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 02 April 2016 - 12:48 PM

[worry]

As a white-hatted, boy-scouty, do-no-wrong kinda guy myself, I find that post very problematic and insulting. But I will take your assessment of the character under consideration.

I just get the feeling that Snyder's take on Superman is inherently nasty and dumb (since that's his MO), especially when compared to my personal favorite take:

Spoiler

[amphibian]

I thought Snyder's Watchmen was incredibly faithful to the spirit of the comics, despite Moore's protests and caterwauling. Moving it beyond the 80s Cold War was smart and handled well.

I too like Man of Steel (for the reasons QuickTidal mentions above and for its willingness to show how truly nutbar fights between these godlike beings would look).

He also made 300 work on-screen and Sucker Punch was a beautiful mess that nearly worked both story-wise and thematically.

Snyder figured out his wheelhouse fairly early on and has stayed mostly within it with success. I do not think he is an elite level director, but he visually understands/directs cinematic action in a way that few people do. His weakest spot seems to be figuring out how to present relationships, romantic and friendly, in a non operatic/two people finding solace in a deadly world way. Just can't do it for some reason (have not seen BvS yet).

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

I thought this movie was fine. It had plenty of flaws, but I was entertained. I thought it was better than the last batman and both of the last superman movies. Batfleck was fine, I would be interested in the batman movie he has written. The worst part of the movie was the jokerish lex luthor.

I get that people are annoyed because it isn't completely true to the characters. Superman is played like batman, batman is played like a crazy person. Whatever. Superman is normally one of the worst superheroes, at least this was fresh take. Batman, while not holding to his traditional code and practices, was entertaining and we need a different version to keep him interesting.

[QuickTidal]

You now what? Every time someone talks about Batman's Code about not killing...I can't help but laugh a bit.

The guy administers severe beatings to MOST of the bad guys he encounters. Like head smacking, leg breaking, throw you at a wall or hang you upside down from a grapple (till the police get there no less!)...and yet everyone is all like "Batman doesn't kill!"...no, not outwardly like a gun in the face or a sword though the belly...but I would wager that the beatings he administers routinely end up with guys in the hospital and there is no way that a portion of them don't either die from those injuries, or have serious trauma for the rest of their lives.

Back when the whole "Batman doesn't kill." notion was biggest in his early days, he would punch a guy out and tie them up. It was never traumatic.

Batman in the comics (at least since the 1990's) has so much collateral damage piling up from his nightly outings that he's probably killed in the hundreds and we just don't see it.

So yeah, Batman kills. Anyone who thinks his code is anything but the illusion of a rich vigilante is kidding themselves.

[Nevyn]

 QuickTidal, on 06 April 2016 - 06:02 PM, said:

You now what? Every time someone talks about Batman's Code about not killing...I can't help but laugh a bit.

The guy administers severe beatings to MOST of the bad guys he encounters. Like head smacking, leg breaking, throw you at a wall or hang you upside down from a grapple (till the police get there no less!)...and yet everyone is all like "Batman doesn't kill!"...no, not outwardly like a gun in the face or a sword though the belly...but I would wager that the beatings he administers routinely end up with guys in the hospital and there is no way that a portion of them don't either die from those injuries, or have serious trauma for the rest of their lives.

Back when the whole "Batman doesn't kill." notion was biggest in his early days, he would punch a guy out and tie them up. It was never traumatic.

Batman in the comics (at least since the 1990's) has so much collateral damage piling up from his nightly outings that he's probably killed in the hundreds and we just don't see it.

So yeah, Batman kills. Anyone who thinks his code is anything but the illusion of a rich vigilante is kidding themselves.

A spoof on that very subject

[worry]

LOL who even reads DC comics, let alone since the 1990s? If your reference points aren't the cartoons, you been doin' it wrong.

[Macros]

 Nevyn, on 06 April 2016 - 06:29 PM, said:

 QuickTidal, on 06 April 2016 - 06:02 PM, said:

You now what? Every time someone talks about Batman's Code about not killing...I can't help but laugh a bit.

The guy administers severe beatings to MOST of the bad guys he encounters. Like head smacking, leg breaking, throw you at a wall or hang you upside down from a grapple (till the police get there no less!)...and yet everyone is all like "Batman doesn't kill!"...no, not outwardly like a gun in the face or a sword though the belly...but I would wager that the beatings he administers routinely end up with guys in the hospital and there is no way that a portion of them don't either die from those injuries, or have serious trauma for the rest of their lives.

Back when the whole "Batman doesn't kill." notion was biggest in his early days, he would punch a guy out and tie them up. It was never traumatic.

Batman in the comics (at least since the 1990's) has so much collateral damage piling up from his nightly outings that he's probably killed in the hundreds and we just don't see it.

So yeah, Batman kills. Anyone who thinks his code is anything but the illusion of a rich vigilante is kidding themselves.

A spoof on that very subject

my favourite Badman segment:




probably nsfw