web
counter

the walking dead / snl / mindhole blowers / netflix / celebrity facts / marvel / liveblogging the 90s


Dear 'Batman vs Superman,' I'm F**king Done With You. Eat Me. Yours, A Huge Batman Fan

By Jodi Clager | Think Pieces | February 3, 2014 | Comments ()


batmanangry.jpg

First came the news that my beloved Batman would be pushed right back into a new movie franchise after the glorious Nolan trilogy. Then that changed to folding Batman into the sequel to Man of Steel, which is bullsh*t. Next thing you know, Ben Affleck is playing Batman, Gal Gadot is playing Wonder Woman, Jesse Eisenberg is Lex Luthor, and the same dickhole director that stripped Superman of his morals is still directing the whole goddamn thing.

Why don’t you just hire M. Night Shyamalan to script and direct Batman and further plunge the knife DIRECTLY INTO MY BATMAN-ADORING HEART, WARNER BROS. YOU BASTARDS.

Nolan got it. He understood Batman. He understood that you don’t turn Batman into a killer just to placate the blood-thirsty public or to try to shake up a character that’s been around since 1939. Zack Snyder, on the other hand, took the Boy Scout of the Justice League and had him straight up MURDER someone in his movie. Superman. The hero that can fly, is impervious to bullets, has heat vision, and can do just about any damned thing he wants to do knows what he is and what he can do. Yet he chooses to have the morals instilled in him by the Kents guide his choices. He chooses to defend those who cannot defend themselves. This is all stripped from him after 76 years of canon in the span of one snap of a neck.

I don’t even like Superman and this pissed me off. I absolutely cannot abide that for Batman. As someone who regrettably paid cash money to see Batman and Robin, I refuse to give money to Snyder and Batman vs. Superman until my fears have been proven to be unfounded. My optimism is basically non-existent at this point.

Marvel is bringing in new fans and introducing people to characters they’ve forgotten about or have never been familiar with before and they are making the box office their bitch while doing it. Marvel is expanding their film universe by carefully casting heroes, choosing directors, picking writers, plotting phases of film release, and building the excitement of a fully realized and faithful adaptation of their characters.

DC and WB are pissing into the wind and running their big screen cash cows into the ground in order to compete. The biggest difference is that DC and WB don’t appear to want to do the work, but they want to enjoy the same success as Marvel. Alienating long-time fans in order to push half-baked bullshit onto screens isn’t going to get you where you want to be, jerks. I’ll stick to your amazing animated features and eschew your live-action horsesh*t until you get your collective heads out of your asses.

Batman2.gif







Are you following Pajiba on Facebook or Twitter? Every time you do, Bill Murray crashes a wedding.


Comments Are Welcome, Bigots and Trolls Are Not


  • Idle Primate

    The fact of the matter is these characters were created for children and
    it was decided lethal force wasn't kosher for that reason.

    Also, pragmatically, these characters exist within serials so it's imprudent
    to knock off your rogues gallery. So you have as part of the narrative
    architecture something that then needs to be justified in story logic.
    Children don't need a lot of logic.

    The problem is wanting to take these characters from children and remake them for our adult selves instead of leaving them in their mythic, fairy tale form to enchant our inner child spirit or rejuvenate our life eroded souls. Trying to remake them for adults requires a lot of twisting and dismantling.

    When making a live action movie that needs to feel plausible to adults--in a world where we are at war, and soldiers are required to kill people in the name of some greater good, where police have a mandate that allows lethal use of force, the notion that there are murderous psychotic supervillains but it's somehow immoral to destroy them is really hard to sell.

    I find the the nonlethal idea kind of absurd at times--after all I am an adult, but the moral quandry creates drama and conflict and is very necessary for a superman to not have really boring stories. By the time you've successfully mutated them into something palatable to a cynical adult, you've removed a lot of joy and fun, you've destroyed idealistic tensions that create satisfying themes and you've drifted sufficiently far from the core character elements that you have a product that is unsatisfying. Even if you are thrilled by the spectacle, you aren't moved in any way.

    Plus, I like to pretend that these characters are still primarily for kids and they need Superman and Batman more than the Punisher to build a rich hero mythology on.

  • It was Nolan and family that crapped on that first Superman film. And it seems WB is doing their best to crap all over the sequel. Zack Snyder is just a director for hire with little to no pull on these movies. He should just quit and let somebody else get this mess hung on them.

  • Penny Marie Sautereau

    Jodi? Sweetie? The difference between Batman and Superman that shoots up your little theory? Snyder DIDN'T drastically alter Superman, because Superman HAS MURDERED PEOPLE. Also, Nolanverse Batman left Ra's to die. That's at LEAST Voluntary Manslaughter. So it was NOLAN who changed the character.

  • Joseph Howe

    Bunch of nonsense. In Superman II, Supes threw two de-powered Kryptonians into a bottomless pit to their deaths when they threatened no one. In Man of Steel he stopped the brutal murder of innocents by killing in defense of the powerless. Bunch of drama queen nonsense here.

  • Foop

    I'm still of the opinion that batman straight up murdered ra's al ghul, so I'd say theres a problem with you claiming that Nolan would never do that to a franchise. I would actually say that was much less justified than Superman snapping Zod's neck, something that has actually happened several times.

  • BlackRabbit

    I don't have an issue with Superman killing Zod. My issue is doing it in the FIRST FILM. Hell, have Luthor make Metallo, a cyborg killer who's so powerful Supes feels that he HAS to kill him. He does it, Lex almost kills the world's trust in him, and eventually Lex reveals he has an army of potential Metallos (or backups of the first). Good emotional crisis for Superman. Make it important, not something wasted in the first film.

  • googergieger

    Nolan got it? Meh, don't care enough about the franchise to have this argument, but if Nolan did in fact "get" Batman, he sure as hell didn't get anything else.

  • Temmere

    "Alienating long-time fans in order to push half-baked bullshit onto screens isn’t going to get you where you want to be, jerks."

    I truly wish this was true, but it isn't. I wish producers would look at movies that bring in $600 million and say, "You know, we made a lot of money there, but I don't think the themes and characterization were strong enough," but they don't. They look at that $600 million and say, "More of that. NOW."

  • Cole Bouchard

    A Superman who kills someone who is in a bloodlust like Zod was (in order to save the lives of a family who were in immediate danger), and have the strength to not let the burden of that choice define him has loads more morals and integrity than any Batman who refuses to kill just because he has a rule about it.
    Batman in the Nolan trilogy is responsible for a lot of deaths indirectly because of his failure to act. He was childlike in his naiveté about the possibility that he may have to end a disgraceful life in order to preserve the potential for someone else to lead a good life.
    You're also cherry picking your argument A LOT. In Batman Begins, Batman causes the circumstances in which Raz Alghul is put in mortal danger and then lets him die, saying "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you." So his unbreakable rule has a massive loophole, wherein he can drop the Joker into an alligator pit and let him die, but because he wasn't personally inflicting the pulse stopping damage, he has adhered to his rule?
    In the Dark Knight HE KILLS HARVEY DENT. Pushes him off a ledge to his death in order to save Gordon's son. He killed the bad guy in a similar circumstance to Superman killing Zod. To save an innocent who was in immediate danger. Actually, Harvey hadn't even finished his coin flip. There was a 50/50 chance that the boy would have been saved by the coin flip itself. Batman risked hurting the boy and chose to do something fatal to Harvey because there was a 50% chance Gordon's son would suffer if he didn't act.
    I'm pretty sure he killed the driver of Talia's truck which led her to driving it off an overpass and dying.
    In short, boyscout superheroes are boring, dated and irrelevant. I'm not saying all superheroes should be using lethal force always, but I am safer around a police officer who is willing to kill an assailant.
    And fans of Nolans trilogy (of which I am) should not use it as an example of the perfect adaptation, because he kills people while deluding himself that he is not.
    Plus the most popular stories of Batman have him killing the Joker, abusing Robin and beating the leader of the Freaks to death.

  • $3150730

    What I agree with the most is that Batman should not be rebooted a mere three years after the Nolan trilogy ended. Heck, even the down time between the Dark Knight and the Dark Knight Rises was longer; These are characters, not iPhones people.

  • John W

    altogether now: NERD RAGE!!!

  • Dennis Albert Ramirez

    i'm actually really happy to frequent a community where posts about Batman reach 122 comments

  • If I could upvote this 100 times I would

  • Just think of the bitchin machine gun Snyder is going to give Batman.

  • Preach it, Clager!

    I think one of the things that some commenters are missing is that, yes, Batman and Superman have both killed. However, you have to look at when those events happened. Comics are split into four eras: Golden Age (late 1930s to early 1950s), Silver Age (mid-1950s to the 1970s), Bronze Age (1970s to 1985), and Modern Age (1980s to now).

    Superman went through many retcons during these Ages. Remember "able to leap tall buildings in a single bound"? Superman originally couldn't fly. It was after the Golden Age and going into the Silver Age that writers decided to give their characters new origin stories. This caused continuity issues, which were rectified by Crisis on Infinite Earths in 1985 by eliminating the DC Multiverse idea and separating everything into pre- and post-Crisis universes. In 2011, DC once more underwent another universal continuity purge and modern update with Flashpoint that brought in The New 52. But that's another comment for another day.

    Modern canon has always maintained that Superman doesn't kill unless he has no other alternatives (Doomsday, a tireless murdering machine, in 1992, for example). He had a choice with Zod in the movie and I think it resonated with the majority of comic fans that this was a tacked-on, poorly written ending. I would've been far more satisfied if he had been sucked into the black hole with everyone else than Superman physically putting his hands on him and snapping his neck. The former would've been a random circumstance that couldn't have been helped or stopped; the latter was intentional and deliberate.

    Coincidentally enough, I thought the most intimate moment between him and Lois in that entire terrible movie was when he clung to her after he murdered Zod and she just stood there in shock.

  • jon29

    The detractors here keep saying "Superman NEVER kills." That MoS ruined the character by having him kill. Etc.

    When we point out that in fact Superman has killed before (even in the modern era, AND even when he didn't have to), we're not "missing" something. We are questioning the assertion that the core of Superman's morality is "stripped from him after 76 years of canon in the span of one snap of a neck."

  • "Modern canon has always maintained that Superman doesn't kill unless he has no other alternatives (Doomsday, a tireless murdering machine, in 1992, for example)." Hello.

  • cypher20

    1 - I'm pretty sure that Superman has killed Zod in the comics as well. It's not something Supes does lightly, but pretty sure there is precedent in the comics for it being done.

    2 - What else would you have had him do? I mean, really, let's get a clear definition of what "murder" is here. If someone is trying to kill my wife and I shoot and kill them, that isn't murder. Zod was trying to incinerate people, Superman killed him. What else was he supposed to do? It's not there's a jail that can hold Zod. I thought it worked well in the film.

  • I don't have much to add except to say that the Nolan trilogy is not going to age well. Ledger's performance will remain iconic, but other than that, I don't see it as definitive in any way or something that can't easily be improved upon. It already seems like the general consensus is shifting away from the "perfection" of The Dark Knight and settling on the idea that "Batman Begins" is the real gem of the three, lacking the overcrowded and convoluted plots of the sequels.

  • Adam Borden

    While I'm a large fan of the Nolan trilogy, I can not with good conscious, say that Nolan "got/understood" Batman.

    Superman has killed in the comics. it's white-washing his history to say he's a complete boy-scout. And it makes complete sense that in his first outing, not really fully understanding his powers, against such a destructive foe, that there would be a lot of collateral damage. what they didn't show is how badly that damage effected Clark. And THAT was a misstep.

  • meadowdancer

    Exactly. I said so upthread that the next movie should be him dealing with the fallout. What made Superman Superman was always him having the power to kill Lex Luthor if he so wanted to but making sure he sat in jail to pay for what he did. I really wish they wouldnt be throwing everyone and their mother in this movie. I wish Synder had worked up a background to re-introduce Batman to us, have a separate movie for Wonder Woman, Flash, Green Latern, etc. I feel like Batman vs. Superman really is just Justice League but they don't want to call it that yet. Sigh.

  • Adam Borden

    Yeah, I'm hoping that the rumors of them filming a Justice League movie back to back are true, and NOT that they're trying to cram all these heroes into a Superman/Batman movie. I'll allow a cameo from ONE other hero, Wonder Woman. But you really are doing a disservice to each character the more you try to cram in there without a bit of a back-story.

  • meadowdancer

    I hope so. It would make it easier. I feel like everyone goes through the Spiderman 3 curse when you throw in too many villans or heroes and it doesnt work. I have to say I was leery of Avengers at first but Joss Whedon did that movie very well. No one got shafted storywise (except maybe Jeremy Renner's character til the end). But the best part is they took years to get IM, Thor, Captain ready for an Avengers movie. I wish Synder would wait too.

  • meadowdancer

    Thank you someone gets it!!

  • Ian Fay

    It astonishes me how right DC gets their animated stuff (Young Justice, Brave and the Bold) and how wrong they get their movies.

  • Adam Borden

    Because Bruce Timm has nothing to do with the live-action movies.

  • NateMan

    They get it right up until they cancel the productions despite solid characters, writing, and ratings.

  • Ian Fay

    AIR, BTAB was ended by the creators not wanting to overstay the welcome, and end on a high note.

    YJ was cancelled by Cartoon Network, who decided to basically stop making any cartoons for anyone over the age of 13 (see Teen Titans Go, a pale shadow of the excellent Teen Titans)

  • NateMan

    I tried with Teen Titans Go. It was so bad. I'm very happy I bought Teen Titans on DVD, especially as my daughter currently loves superheroes. She's still way too young for it, but I hope to watch it with her when she gets older.

  • I think it is a combination of

    a) lower budget requirements, thereby taking pressure off and allowing more experimentation, and
    b) Timm, Dini, and the others doing such a great job establishing the DCAU through the TV that people got used to similar material

  • csb

    I get the feeling that the entire article was just an excuse to post that gif at the end. I approve.

  • Protoguy

    NOOOOO!!!!! DOCTOR FISHIE!!!!

  • Bad Superman

    I think Alexandra Daddario would've made a great Wonder Woman.

  • $3150730

    After that second of True Detective, everyone agrees.

  • NateMan

    A little too much waif-fu for the role, I think, but it'd be interesting casting.

  • jon29

    Superman snaps Zod's neck right before he incinerates a family but 76 years of Superman history tells us he would all-caps NEVER do something like that! Just watch:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

    Oops! Sorry. I think I just saw Superman strip Zod of his powers, and *then* crush his hand, and then murder him (with a smirk) despite him being no threat to anyone.

    Superman has killed before. Golden-aged Superman killed, and threatened to kill, all the time.

  • Spazholio

    And here's the scene that follows it that shows that he actually *didn't* kill them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  • jon29

    I have the Donner cut too, it's an interesting what-if exercise, but you perform a neat bit of linguistic gymnastics when you refer to a scene included in an alternate cut by someone beside the director as "the scene that follows it."

    No sale. Superman kills Zod in Superman II. But he tortures him first, so I guess there's that.

  • Spazholio

    Depends on your take, I suppose. In my mind, that's what Donner intended - Superman depowers and defeats but does NOT kill the bad guys (because that's generally not what he does if he can avoid it). But because of editing by a third party that Donner vehemently disagreed with, his movie now appears to show Superman killing the bad guys.

  • jon29

    I keep thinking about the deleted scenes for Clerks, specifically the ending where the robber kills Dante, and how something getting filmed doesn't mean it was going to end up on screen.

    When a director re-visits a property 30 years later, maybe you get her pure vision, or maybe you get walkie-talkies instead of guns & Greedo shooting first.

    My take would be that what ends up on the screen is what happened. "What did Donner intend?" is a different discussion, to me. But the Donner cut is interesting because who knows how closely that matches what he would actually have done if he'd been allowed to finish II?

  • Dove of Doom

    Flashback to the beloved Superman II that all the MOS haters point to as a morally superior portrayal of Superman: After some trickery in the Fortress of Solitude, Zod has been reduced to a mere mortal while Superman still has his super powers. Now that his enemy is no longer a threat to him, Superman does the decent thing and crushes every bone in his hand, a maiming act of torture, then lifts Zod up like he's nothing, clearly intending to humiliate him in defeat, and finally tosses him down a pit to his death. Of course, we don't see that the now harmless Kyptonians die at the bottom of that pit, but the movie certainly concludes that they've been dealt with permanently. Unless Zod, Non, and Ursa went to live on a farm upstate, they are dead, and two of them were killed by Lois and Clark, Metropolis's answer to Bonnie and Clyde. Add to the murder of two neutralized villains the petty revenge that Superman takes on the guy at that diner who kicked his ass when he was human, once again using his powers to hurt and humiliate someone much weaker than himself, and I wonder what anyone is talking about when they claim that Reeves' Superman has the moral high ground. That Superman is a needlessly homicidal bully in a children's movie that doesn't give any weight to his actions, so of course the children who grew up with it didn't take them seriously. And really, how can there be any weight to his actions in a movie franchise that will literally reverse time so that there are never any meaningful consequences for him? That version of Superman never truly has his moral code tested, and yet he still manages to utterly fail in that regard.

  • Spazholio

    There IS a scene that Donner filmed that shows clearly that Supes didn't kill the other Kryptonians. It just got deleted, and not by him (if memory serves). Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  • Dove of Doom

    Fair enough. Putting aside the logic of "arctic police" being on call in the neighborhood of the FOS, there is at least the potential for a version of Superman II where the Kryptonians are not murdered. Nevertheless the official cut of the film implies that they were. And regardless of whether or not he actually killed Zod, he did horribly maim him and use his powers to bully a human. I find it kind of pathetic that he is so defenseless without powers and so petty in abusing them for revenge once they return. It implies a shallowness to his heroism and his character, that his goodness is based solely on his invulnerability, and when he loses it he's nothing. And even after he's Superman again, he just has to get even for the slights he suffered when he was weak. That Clark Kent is only a nice guy because Superman could crush anybody who offends him. It's kind of creepy.

  • Jae

    Nolan got it? Seriously?
    Yeah, that's what I always wanted: Batman doing no detective work whatsoever.

    Look, I get it.
    These were very entertaining movies. Joker was awesome too.
    But those who say that it got Batman? People, c'mon. There is a difference between "getting Batman" and "making cool shit with kinda-sorta Batman in it".

  • $3150730

    He didn't do detective work in the Dark Knight? What about all that business with the bullet?

  • And for the people who are saying "why are you bitching over a movie that hasn't happened yet?", could you please confirm that you have never, once in your entire existence, complained about an upcoming film because you didn't like the maker's previous work? That means no bitching about: Uwe Boll, Michael Bay, Seltzer/Friedberg, Mark Steven Johnson, Nicolas Cage, Ben Affleck, Keanu Reeves, The Wachowskis, George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, Disney, Marvel, DC, etc.

    All folks who have made popular films that still got critical drubbings, and all people who I have heard folks moan about whenever a new project is announced by them.

    You looking forward to Batman vs Superman? Go right ahead. But don't get in somebody else's face if they didn't like Man of Steel and are afraid that the very same people involved in it are taking on the same character.

  • Slytherin Sister

    Edit: forget it.

  • It kills me that people are surprised that there's intense discussion on something so huge going on in pop culture.

    And hilariously enough the usual "Don't like it, don't watch it!" complaint always comes along. Why don't you take your own advice and don't like it, don't read it? It'll save us all a lot of trouble.

  • greg

    If I didn't like the maker's previous work, why would I complain about their new work. I just wouldn't go see it

  • And that works for you. But some people want to talk about their doubts. Some people want discussion. They certainly don't want their concerns dismissed.

    Plenty of folks here on this site have dogged films I look forward too. I may disagree, question, or outright call them a doodiehead, but I'm not going to tell them "don't like, don't watch". First off, this is still a movie review and discussion site, so that's just silly to say here. Second, that is the same mentality that shouldn't be propulgated, because instead of honest criticism, it encourages sticking oneself in a bubble that only contains the stuff one approves of, regardless of it's actual merit.

  • Spazholio

    Because you love the source material that's being made into a movie and are worried that it will receive the same treatment as [insert bad experience with aforementioned maker here]?

  • Let's get this out of the way: yes, Superman has killed before.

    Here's my problem with Man of Steel: it is codifying this idea that superheroes should be allowed to do whatever it takes to stop the threat, no matter what it costs. The neck break didn't turn me off, the utter destruction of Metropolis did. He cries out for killing Zod (a genocidal maniac who everyone SAYS was worth killing) and we are supposed to feel bad for Superman at that moment. But why that one, but no real display of concern over Metropolis? Hell, he's too busy making out with Lois to get people out of the rubble he helped create!

    Hell, "The Death of Superman" had a biological weapon literally created to kill everything in its path take Supes on, and he still tried to save as many lives as he could. He could have gone buckwild with his powers, but he had to contain himself because HE WASN'T THE ONLY PERSON WHO MATTERED. Even though it lead to his death, he still stopped the threat without sacrificing others.

    And don't get me started on the Kent/Jor-El "messiah complex" team up. Superman is not Jesus. He isn't. Want to know why? Because he CHOSE to help people. There was no destiny, no special plan. He happened to have powers, and he chose to be a hero. His dads didn't tell him he was SPESHUL SNOWFLAKE. Jor-El wanted his son to survive, and Papa Kent wanted him to be safe and a good person. Not the light of humanity. Even Brando's speech in the first Superman film didn't say HE was special, but that humanity by itself was special, and that was why he sent Kal there.

    No, the killing of Zod didn't ruin Man of Steel for me. EVERYTHING ELSE DID.

  • jon29

    He actually tells him exactly those things (special, light of humanity).

    Live as one of them, Kal-El, to discover where your strength and power are needed - but always hold in your heart the pride of your special heritage. Your being is both separate and your own, but I have caused your earthly presence and must share responsibility for your actions. They can be a great people, Kal-El. They wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way. For this reason above all - their capacity for good - I have sent them you. My only son.

  • Neither of those lines you highlighted say that.

    The first says "hey sport, don't forget where you came from, even while you become close to your new people".

    The second assumes that he meant that Kal-El was to be that light. It could be that, but it doesn't mean he was DESTINED for it, or that he was some messianic figure sent from an all-knowing being to save humanity from it's sins. The important part was that the potential for greatness, the "capacity for good", was why he sent his son there. If anything, Jor-El wanted humanity to influence Kal, not the other way around.

  • Sara_Tonin00

    The language is so loaded that I think it's silly to dismiss it - it was clearly written in such a way that people would read messianic intent into it. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but I'm saying that it is foolish to think the language would be that in line with scriptural concepts unintentionally. Even aside from the fact that "el" means "god."

  • Except that the screenwriters didn't name the character. Siegel and Shuster did. And if we are gonna use that, then we have to use the original design of the character, as a anti-establishment rabble rouser who was willing to destroy low income housing on the off chance it would force the government to build better homes.

    As far as the language, it is only loaded in that people look back on them that way. They already set Superman on a pedestal, so of course any statements about him will feel much more loaded with grand meaning. But let's say that is the case. That means that Jor-El really thought that humanity NEEDED his son to be great. So why take the chance of him getting screwed up by sending him to an undeveloped world? This was the last son of Krypton here, and he wasn't going for a summer break.

    If you are looking to save your kid, are you gonna send him to a planet you think is alright, could be better, if you thought that he would have to do all the fixing up? What guarantee would you have that he would even try to fix them? How would you know that he would address the things you see as limitations to them? He could just take over the planet and murder most of the population. That certainly would remove a lot of problems. Cause a few more, but that isn't important to the Savior.

    And hell, if that was the case, why have him be a lone survivor at all? Just have him as a colonist. There are stories that take that tack, and they are good ones. But they aren't Superman.

  • Sara_Tonin00

    Well, yes. Siegel and Shuster did name Superman. And the screenwriter, knowing that, wrote dialogue which deliberately plays into the messianic conceit. It's not even subtle.

    Please understand, I'm not talking about all of canon, or whether I even want Superman to be a savior or Judeo-Christian allegory. I'm saying a screenwriter knew the implications and specifically wrote dialogue about sending an only son to Earth to guide humans, a good race in need of guidance, towards the light. In the same way that in Superman Returns Singer knew the implications of an arms outstretched pose in space before falling to earth to die.

  • And I'm not saying that people haven't done it before Snyder. But I find the concept obnoxious on it's face.

    It denigrates both Supes and Jesus, really, because it basically says that unless you are born special, you can't become important or world-changing. It is elitism and sounds more like something Lex Luthor
    would say to make Supes look bad ("he's only good because he wants you to follow him blindly!"). And, most importantly, it takes away agency for Superman. It turns him into that bland boy scout his detractors keep saying he is. Superman is amazing because, despite the power to literally be God on Earth, he doesn't abuse it. He doesn't force people
    to do what he commands. He doesn't punish or proselytize. He leads, but through example. He wants people to see that it doesn't take powers to
    be a hero, but the willingness, the CHOICE, to put your skills and talents to work for the betterment of humanity. They are tools, not proof of his divine right. His alien nature is a explanation of HOW he
    is Superman, but not WHY.

    And again, I think a lot of that Jesus allegory stuff was put in after he proved to be a massive success and influential figure in his own right. It is not something ingrained in the character, but something glossed onto him. If anything, you can say that the creation of two Jewish guys in the 30s was more of a Moses parallel than a Jesus one.

    Man of Steel did NOT help this impression. Like I said, the destruction of Metropolis was far more
    infuriating than Zod's death. For a supposed savior of humanity, this version of Superman doesn't make me inspired, he makes me afraid. Because he truly feels that the ends justify the means. He is more
    affected by killing his mass-murdering enemy than he is by the near-complete destruction of his new home. They gave no indication that it even dawned on him what happened. If anything, he should have been sad about Zod, but when he saw that family cowering, he would have realized what exactly they had done to these people. THEN I could buy
    this being Superman, or at least on his way.

  • jon29

    I don't think so.

    I think Jor-El uses "heritage" in the "birthright" sense of the term, not the "history, tradition, and cultural artifacts" sense. I grant that there's some room to quibble, but IMO if Jor-El were talking about Kryptonian history, tradition, and culture, then Kal-El's spaceship would have been shown teaching him that instead of Democritus, Shakespeare, & Einstein.

    And the second isn't an assumption - Jor-El sees potential greatness in humanity and sends his son as "the light to guide the way." I mean,that's exactly what he says he's doing.

    And after Superman saves Airforce One and returns to the fortress of solitude, Jor-El tells him again:

    JE: "You...enjoyed it."

    SM: "I don't know what to say. I guess I just got...
    carried away."

    JE: "I anticipated this, my son. I..."

    SM: "You couldn't have! You couldn't have imagined..."

    JE: "How good it felt!"

    Agree to disagree, but to me that reads like Jor-El knew exactly what he wanted Kal-El to do when he learned who he was.

  • Did he want his son to like doing good things for people? To like helping people? Yes. I can see that. A father would want their child to be a positive presence in the world.

    Did he want his son to be the savior of all mankind? To be the paragon of good and right? Possibly. But it wasn't his destiny, not like how they did it in Man of Steel.

    Maybe there is a bit of a miscommunication here. Superman was sent to Earth for the possibility of goodness, not the certainty. Jor-El did not guarantee that Kal would be a superhero, he just knew that Earth was the best chance for his to live a good life. Best CHANCE. It could have all gone wrong, but he was glad that it didn't. He hoped for the possibility, and just so happened to get what he wanted. Hell, look at "Superman: Red Son" or any of the myriad stores about Superman's life going differently. Very rarely do they make his position as the greatest hero a inevitability.

    The way it was presented in Man of Steel, it was like Jor-El could see the future, and was literally guaranteeing that his son was going to be the most awesome dude evarz. Jon Kent did the same damn thing, dumping a whole lot of pressure on Clark, while simultaneously telling him to NOT be a hero if it meant somebody MIGHT see him.

    Superman is the light to humanity, but in a way that says "you can do this too". It isn't his powers that make him great, but his morality and dedication to his adopted planet. But Man of Steel glorifies him because of those powers and his separation from humanity, rather than celebrate his connection.

    Man of Steel worships the big red S on his chest, but Superman should be about the heart that beats beneath it.

  • meadowdancer

    I wish I could upvote this more than once :-)

  • Woah. This is such a huge overreaction to a film that we still know seriously NOTHING about yet. Don't be so quick to jump down their throats, wait until there's actually some footage to judge before freaking out like this.

  • Not so much of an overreaction given WB's larger cinematic track record with its DC properties.

  • 005

    Here's a novel idea:

    How about we wait to watch the movie before we eviscerate it? I mean, I certainly had my issues with Man of Steel, but I think it's the height of stupidity to bitch and moan about a movie two years before it's even in theaters.

    Wait a minute, I found something even more stupid:

    "I refuse to give money to Snyder and Batman vs. Superman until my fears have been proven to be unfounded."

    Well good for you! But you know what's a great way to have your fears proven to be unfounded or not? WATCHING THE GODDAMN MOVIE WHEN IT COMES OUT.

    Seriously, fandom has gone to shit. Grow the fuck up, everyone.

  • JustOP

    Agree. Just seems like a bunch of unfounded bitching and moaning for the sake of bitching and moaning. It's not like Superman has NEVER killed anyone before, film or comic wise, and in Man of Steel you can see pretty clearly that it cuts him up when he has to. Not only that, but WHY would you like to keep retreading old ground inregards to characters as old as these when we can tell new stories and tales?

    As for Batman vs Superman, we have the perfectly capably Affleck, we have Henry Cavill who was fantastic as Superman, and we have Jessie Eisenberg who has proven he has fantastic acting chops. The ONLY person to have doubts about is Gal Gadot and that's because she's relatively unknown.

  • TotesMcGotes

    My problem with Superman killing Zod was mostly how it was handled. He kills Zod,he was all like "GHRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHH" like he didn't want to do that. OK,that's cool,so it's going to show how he never wants to do that ever again,maybe on an actual conversation with Lois or something? Nope,next scene he's crashing an satellite,military chick says he's hot. That's it,probably never going to address that ever again. I didn't hate the movie,but that lack of care from Goyer and Snyder's part does not bode well for the rest of the DC Universe they're hoping to achieve.

  • Dennis Albert Ramirez

    my hope is that plot point would get explored in the upcoming film.

  • lowercase_ryan

    He's tanned, he's rested, he's ready...

  • NateMan

    THE HORROR.

  • meisterchardin .

    Why so butthurt about Superman? He killed before in comic books and he has done it more casually than in MoS (which is shown as obviously traumatizing for him). MoS may be view as flawed in many ways, but it's hard to agree with "murderous/ necessarily gritty Superman is wrong from the start" argument.

  • NateMan

    Just curious: You've got a super-powered villain who can shrug off missile explosions, fly, has laser eyes, and promised to murder every single human on the planet, and has made a damn good start of it. He's about to fry a family right in front of you. How, exactly, do you stop him WITHOUT killing him? Use the Kryptonite no one knows about yet?

  • ed newman

    MOS was a piece of crap and I might have nodded off during an explanation: how can superman kill Zod by snapping his neck in the first place? Why isn't Zod as invulnerable to this move as Superman himself would be?

  • JustOP

    Because they're both kryptonians and thus have the same level of strength. Both Superman and Zod would be immune to a stone cold stunner performed by a human being, but not to members of their own race.

  • ed newman

    So by that logic there can be/have to be other beings that can kill Supes with brute strength?

  • NateMan

    Yep. If Doomsday, Darkseid, or Metallo show up in the films, we'll probably see that possibility.

  • NateMan

    Plus, Zod was new to the planet. Kal 'el had 20-something years to absorb the sun's radiation and grow more powerful. Zod had what, a couple days? Which is another reason to kill him; he's only going to grow more powerful.

  • ed newman

    So Supes gets more powerful as he ages? The only thing that gets more powerful as I age is my snoring.

  • NateMan

    He does. Originally (in the comics) he can lift cars, jump really far, that sort of thing. He grows more powerful as he gets older, plus gains things like the heat vision and flight. Snyder messed with that a little bit, but the gist is still there.

    And I hear ya on the snoring. My C-PAP is not the sexiest bedroom wear ever, but it keeps my wife and I sane.

  • JustOP

    Plus, Superman has literally been Superman for like a day and then he's expected to tackle a full on invasion against his own race (whom were bred solely for the purpose of WARRING). He did pretty well for his first day on the job.

    The level of destruction to me was reasonable - for an inexperienced and young Supes to take on a platoon of Warrior Kryptonians on his own and still save Earth is admirable. No-one cared in The Avengers when skyscrapers were being mauled by Metal Snake Thingy which would have resulted in hundreds of deaths. Why now?

  • NateMan

    My real, genuine theory? Because Man of Steel was tinted darker. Avengers had bright, cartoony colors. Despite explosions and collapsing buildings, nothing is ever obscured, nothing ever actually looks dingy or frightening. For Pete's sake, the aliens are PURPLE. They look like Barney had a drunken one night stand with one of the demons from the Constantine movie.

    And I love, LOVE The Avengers. It's my favorite mindless movie made in the last decade. But it was a live-action cartoon. This isn't a flaw, and it's entirely deliberate. But put those same scenes in Man of Steel, dare to show the grimmer side of interstellar invasion, and people poop broken glass.

  • bastich

    You use your Super-Chest-Emblem-Weapon-Capture-Thingy on him, of course! Duh!

  • NateMan

    Ah, I forgot all about that thing. And I was so glad I did....

  • stella

    Exactally. And wasnt he also raving about how hed never stopped him unless Superman killed him? There didnt seem to be a ton of options...

  • NateMan

    People have 2 main complaints about Supes in the movie.

    1. Superman lets too many innocent people die, because he doesn't do away with the villains in ways they approve of.

    2. Supes kills someone.

    Is he supposed to stop an alien invasion that's killing all sorts of people with hugs? What experience does he have fighting a war? How is he supposed to draw a villain out of a city when, as you said, the villain has already promised to kill everyone there? Is Superman supposed to fly away and hope this guy follows him? Why would Zod do so? He already knows he can cause more pain by continuing to kill humans. He says so. And the longer it goes on, the stronger and more capable Zod is going to get.

    Snyder's film was riddled with flaws (Letting Pa Kent die like that? No. Just no.). But as much as I love The Avengers film, the bloodless invasion of Earth was absurd. Whedon's penchant for killing characters vanished - at least apart from Coulson - and we're left without evidence of a single civilian death after Loki & Hawkeye's theft of the iridium. At least Man of Steel involved some consequences for the protagonist.

  • Idle Primate

    i dont see the avengers' bloodless invasion as absurd, I see it as more in line with the way you depict conflict and action in something more family friendly. It's absurd if you were seeking a real world feeling gritty war drama. but then, so are the protagonists and antagonists. Taking simple children's stories filled and translating them into something gruesome for adults and then expecting them to have a deep logic to them is more absurd. like turning hansel and gretl in to armed bounty hunters. you have no fairy tale goodness anymore yet you have no plausible action movie or adult gravitas. you've got nothing but bizarre spectacle

    man of steel had an awful lot of different problems going on and one of them is he warped it enough that it didn't have the ideas and feelings of its source childrens pulp media while setting it up for adult drama demands that it just can't meet.

    i feel like comic book movies are at their worst when they wrest the heroes from children and bog them down in maturity, logical rationalizations and grim action. I feel they are at their best when they lift us from reason and temporarily free us from the tedium and trauma of adult worldly life. you get something that inspires children and stokes the imagination and reaches into an adult to the enchantable place.

    Obviously these characters are templates and have become mythic so there will be all kinds of stories from different angles and with different intention. some will work better than others, some will be narrative experiments, some will strike a chord more. Snyder's movie does seem to trouble a lot of people. (I'll go on a limb here and suggest that he also just made a bad movie that is often senseless despite trying to have more depth. Snyder has the depth of a puddle and was the wrong guy to make a superman for kids or adults or all ages)

  • Super Knitting, he could have broken out the Silver Age staple of super knitting

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-QVBr...

  • Adam Borden

    I think everyone was expecting to see a fully-formed Superman, and not see him on his road to becoming the Man of Steel. Honestly, I understood WHY the liberties were taken. I thought the execution was a bit lacking, and there were some missed opportunities. But overall, Superman killing someone/not having full control over his powers does NOT "ruin" Superman.

  • calliope1975

    I disagree that there weren't civilian deaths in The Avengers or that they were glossed over. The entire news reel at the end consisted of memorials, missing persons posters, and vigils for those who died. (Granted, those images were very reminiscent of 9/11.)

  • NateMan

    That's a good point, and I forgot about the newsreel. But the only time we actually see civilians in danger is when the heroes are saving them.

  • Dennis Albert Ramirez

    they even actually DO go to space (where the wayne industries satellite cameos), but Zod knocks him right back down, if i recall correctly

  • Steve

    What does that say about us -- that DC would think it acceptable to have film Batman and Superman kill?

  • NateMan

    Um... That it's make-believe and myths change all the time?

  • Steve

    Heh. Patronize much?
    No, I was addressing the *direction* the myth took. Why?

  • ManWIthoutHat

    I don't get people who get all sanctimonious about Batman never killing people but who simultaneously defend Nolan's movies. News flash: Batman totally killed R'as al-Ghul in the first Nolan movie. Sure, he didn't shoot him in the head, but he left him on a speeding train about to plunge off the rails when he easily could have saved him. Same difference. Silver Age Batman doesn't do that--he rescues the guy and puts him in Arkham.

    And then he unquestionably, inarguably killed Two Face in the second Nolan movie. Pushed him right off the top of a building and snapped his neck. Sure, Two Face was holding a gun at the time, but still, Batman straight-up killed him.

    I like the Nolan movies plenty, but let's not pretend that they adhere particularly closely to the "Batman never kills anybody" ethos.

  • BlackRabbit

    Hell, Batman SHOT people when he was first introduced.

  • Idle Primate

    I think that first iteration of batman with a gun was pretty brief though. it doesn't make a strong argument for core character traits.

  • grr arrgh

    You should see the stuff he does in the Arkham video games. My god, you can dive off a building and land directly onto a henchman and STILL kick his ass. Every other melee fight you're basically putting at least a couple people in a coma.

  • Sam Underwood

    Cold weather fans who pretend they know about things b/c they've watched a movie once or twice basically. Agree with you fully, people ignore the facts and see and remember what they want.

  • I think you mean 'fair weather fans.'

  • Idle Primate

    that's a funny idiom error. if I had to imagine cold weather friend as an idiom, it would either be a friend you can count on to stand by you, even in bad weather, or it would be a euphemism for friends with benefits(itself a euphemism), i.e. a friend you get under the covers with.

blog comments powered by Disqus