Marvel vs DC

[Justice and Rule]

I think the complaint is he does no rescues or those kinds of heroics in costume, as Superman. I think there's one soldier he whooshes out of the way of gunfire in Smallville.

Eh, I feel like that's way more specific than the complaint is usually made.

At a certain level I think people react viscerally to the ending and end up painting with a broad brush. I mean, there are few movies I've seen the internet have such a knee-jerk reaction to as Man of Steel. It's a flawed movie, but I find most of the time people really go beyond what they need to trying to make a point.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Tony, I get not being in his wheelhouse. Reed and Hank, though...

Yeah, this is why I prefer distinct complete stories, and wish they’d make the next reboot a true reboot, at least in the case of DC.

Eh, I feel like that's way more specific than the complaint is usually made.

At a certain level I think people react viscerally to the ending and end up painting with a broad brush. I mean, there are few movies I've seen the internet have such a knee-jerk reaction to as Man of Steel. It's a flawed movie, but I find most of the time people really go beyond what they need to trying to make a point.

Yeah the ending is viscerally bad.
However, the focus of Superman is that he saves people.

I have a fanfic project that I’m sure I’ll never finish, involving the main players of the DCU, starting on “Day One”. Bruce returns to Gotham, Clark starts at the Daily Planet, Diana returns from several years of recovery and refocusing in Paradise, and a few old heroes (here we recast the Justice Society of America as Alan Scott, Wonder Woman, Lucius Fox, Alfred Pennyworth, Steve Trevor, and most of the normal JSA team, now very retired) manipulate them and a few others toward heroism.

In that set of stories, the plan is to never even show Superman hit anyone until the end of “year one” when Zod finally shows up. He just saves people, and inspires others toward heroism.

 

[billd91]

Tony, I get not being in his wheelhouse. Reed and Hank, though...

It's not in Reed's wheelhouse either. He's a weird space and dimensional tech scientist. Hank Pym is a weird biological science and you'd think that Pym particles might be useful in shrinking tumors if they can be localized enough. And yet all the smart guys in the Marvel universe can't cure Captain Marvel's cancer with their technology, nor their magic (since Dr. Strange and Thor are both involved in the attempt to try to cure Mar-Vell's cancer).
Cancer, like other real, major problems were defined, at one time, as problems that superpowers, even super intelligence, simply can't fix. And, honestly, they should remain that way.

 

[Ryujin]

I think Snyder basically doesn't like Superman as-is, thinks he's corny, and sees him as other. There's a lot of xenophobia in Snyder's work.

I think that you may have hit on why so many of us don't like BvS. Maybe it isn't that Snyder doesn't like Superman as much as he was trying to show us all why Batman saw him as a danger, but went overboard. He set up the visuals in a way that gave us a brooding Superman, looking down from on-high, instead of the benevolent alien god amongst men that is his general portrayal. The grim-dark really doesn't suit (I know I've perhaps used this analogy too much) a sun god. Maybe Snyder just got too far up his own butt, to see?

 

[ART!]

Eh, I feel like that's way more specific than the complaint is usually made.

At a certain level I think people react viscerally to the ending and end up painting with a broad brush. I mean, there are few movies I've seen the internet have such a knee-jerk reaction to as Man of Steel. It's a flawed movie, but I find most of the time people really go beyond what they need to trying to make a point.

The movie doesn't care about the destruction and loss of life in Metropolis at all. After Zod is dead, we get a scene with Superman telling a general not to track him and a soldier saying he's hot, and then he's Clark Kent riding his bike to work all hunky-dory in Metropolis. At best, Snyder just doesn't care about the violence and destruction.

In that set of stories, the plan is to never even show Superman hit anyone until the end of “year one” when Zod finally shows up. He just saves people, and inspires others toward heroism.

I'm sure I've said this on these forums before, but I have this theory that all people really want in a Superman movie is to see him rescuing people and mitigating or even stopping disasters.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I'm sure I've said this on these forums before, but I have this theory that all people really want in a Superman movie is to see him rescuing people and mitigating or even stopping disasters.

Yep. 100%. My theory is that you could make a successful Superman movie without a villain at all.

 

[Justice and Rule]

The movie doesn't care about the destruction and loss of life in Metropolis at all. After Zod is dead, we get a scene with Superman telling a general not to track him and a soldier saying he's hot, and then he's Clark Kent riding his bike to work all hunky-dory in Metropolis. At best, Snyder just doesn't care about the violence and destruction.

I... I'm not going to go that far (given that he kills Zod specifically before he can evaporate a family), but I don't disagree with the critique of the carelessness in how that fight was done. Conceptually speaking having that thing be an insanely traumatic event could potentially be interesting, but Snyder doesn't have the storytelling chops to do it. Also the coda for that thing is incredibly tone-deaf; there's a such a weird sense of victory and moving on when an introspective ending that is somewhat bittersweet but also hopeful could have really alleviated some of the problems with the ending.

I'm sure I've said this on these forums before, but I have this theory that all people really want in a Superman movie is to see him rescuing people and mitigating or even stopping disasters.

You're not wrong, though I think I'd settle for having an indirect villain (which Superman has plenty of) causing havoc and Superman saving the day.

 

[Ryujin]

I'd settle for going back to Golden Age Superman levels of power, so destruction of cities (or even worlds) isn't really a thing anymore

 

[trappedslider]

I'd settle for going back to Golden Age Superman levels of power, so destruction of cities (or even worlds) isn't really a thing anymore

• Super Strength: The character was depicted as having the ability to move large vehicles, including cars, trains, and ships.
• Super Speed: Superman could run faster than an express train.
• Enhanced Leaping: could leap over an 8th of a mile or over a tall building.
• Super Durability: Superman was highly resistant to injury. However, he was not so invulnerable as in his modern depictions; although immune to conventional firearms, heavy artillery could injure and possibly kill him.
• Super Senses: Superman’s eyesight and hearing were far in excess of a human being’s.
  
  then we can see if a M109A7 will kill him or if you'll need a Hellfire missile or just a few AC-130s maybe a nuke.

 

[MarkB]

Eh, I feel like that's way more specific than the complaint is usually made.

At a certain level I think people react viscerally to the ending and end up painting with a broad brush. I mean, there are few movies I've seen the internet have such a knee-jerk reaction to as Man of Steel. It's a flawed movie, but I find most of the time people really go beyond what they need to trying to make a point.

It wasn't the ending that killed it for me. It was when he let his father die to preserve his secret identity. No Superman I can respect would place that secret above the life of even a complete stranger, let alone a loved one.