Unpopular opinions go here

[Aldarc]

Meanwhile, I find it kind of boring to rehash the origins AGAIN. I was happy that they chose to bypass that for Tom Holland's run on Spider-Man.

Although I agree, I would actually like to watch an entire movie that was only about the day that Bruce Wayne lost his parents. So you know that everything will lead up to them being killed. You know that it will traumatize young Bruce Wayne and set him on his path. But let's really explore this sequence of events and the characters throughout that day over the course of a two-hour film rather than through a 30-second flashback clip.

 

[Thomas Shey]

"Don't kill people" isn't being a paragon -- it's being an average person.

And the way Clark got that way was just good parenting. It's certainly possible to show that dramatically -- there are tons of great works about parenting -- but it doesn't tend to need superheroics to get there.

A super character who has to be taught that murder is bad belongs in the Invincible universe, not in Smallville. No value judgements: It's simply a different character.

Nothing from MoS tells me Clark didn't understand murder was bad. That might not be what you're saying, but if it is, its a serious misread of the movie IMO.

 

[Umbran]

Although I agree, I would actually like to watch an entire movie that was only about the day that Bruce Wayne lost his parents. So you know that everything will lead up to them being killed. You know that it will traumatize young Bruce Wayne and set him on his path. But let's really explore this sequence of events and the characters throughout that day over the course of a two-hour film rather than through a 30-second flashback clip.

I don't say "never" to hypothetical films. There have been too many that, for me, were far better than they had any right to be. But I don't know that I'd be interested in that. Bruce's responses to these events are most justified if, from the Wayne perspective, it is just a normal, uninteresting day. Not much of a movie.

Nothing from MoS tells me Clark didn't understand murder was bad. That might not be what you're saying, but if it is, its a serious misread of the movie IMO.

Yeah. It is a moment in which Clark faces the question: What do you do with a villain who would kill the entire human race, when you have no jail enough to hold them?

The problem that MoS has with that question is that this is pretty much the first villain Clark faces in this timeline. He isn't really transgressing from an established standard behavior. This continues in the following movies - Superman is only applied to problems in which complete destruction of the enemy is the only apparent solution.

Superman as blunt instrument is the least interesting Superman.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I


Yeah. It is a moment in which Clark faces the question: What do you do with a villain who would kill the entire human race, when you have no jail enough to hold them?

The problem that MoS has with that question is that this is pretty much the first villain Clark faces in this timeline. He isn't really transgressing from an established standard behavior. This continues in the following movies - Superman is only applied to problems in which complete destruction of the enemy is the only real solution.

Maybe against Steppenwolf he could have said "Hey, Darkseid, have your dog back and go away", but in the first two its not like he had much useful options with Zod or Doomsday, so, yeah. There's a reason traditionally some version of the Phantom Zone has been available to Supes.

(Otherwise known as my agreeing with you, if its not clear. This is why I say the problems with Superman's situation in those movies were less problems with his characterization than him being placed in impossible situations (especially in MoS when, as I noted, he's been operating as a superhero for about ten minutes) by writing choices. So its less his characterization than the conventions that normally surround him being ignored).

 

[Micah Sweet]

Maybe against Steppenwolf he could have said "Hey, Darkseid, have your dog back and go away", but in the first two its not like he had much useful options with Zod or Doomsday, so, yeah. There's a reason traditionally some version of the Phantom Zone has been available to Supes.

(Otherwise known as my agreeing with you, if its not clear. This is why I say the problems with Superman's situation in those movies were less problems with his characterization than him being placed in impossible situations (especially in MoS when, as I noted, he's been operating as a superhero for about ten minutes) by writing choices. So its less his characterization than the conventions that normally surround him being ignored).

Well, bad characterization is certainly different from bad plot, but both are bad writing and both lead to a bad movie.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Well, bad characterization is certainly different from bad plot, but both are bad writing and both lead to a bad movie.

At least in MoS (I have more complex feelings about the two follow-ups) I don't even think it was so much bad plot as inappropriate plot in some ways. It made a coherent story, it showed some interesting things about Clark and most of the other characters (Jonathon notwithstanding) and many scenes were effective. It just forced Clark into a situation that, bluntly, the character was only in because the scriptwriter wanted those particular beats. It would have been easy to have most of the structure of the story without those.

 

[MGibster]

Pointing out that a work of literature or a movie contains this trope or that trope isn't really a criticism.

 

[Campbell]

At least in MoS (I have more complex feelings about the two follow-ups) I don't even think it was so much bad plot as inappropriate plot in some ways. It made a coherent story, it showed some interesting things about Clark and most of the other characters (Jonathon notwithstanding) and many scenes were effective. It just forced Clark into a situation that, bluntly, the character was only in because the scriptwriter wanted those particular beats. It would have been easy to have most of the structure of the story without those.

I feel the same way about Man of Steel I feel about most of Snyder's adaptations. Pretty good as movies. Not great as adaptations. I do have a certain love of visual storytelling which is where Snyder really excels.

Except Batman vs Superman. That was trash.

 

[CleverNickName]

Unpopular opinion: we have too many of these meta-commentary threads.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I feel the same way about Man of Steel I feel about most of Snyder's adaptations. Pretty good as movies. Not great as adaptations. I do have a certain love of visual storytelling which is where Snyder really excels.

Except Batman vs Superman. That was trash.

Well, whatever problems Snyder had put in were just compounded by studio interference there. If you watch it for pacing, its very obviously two movies smashed together; Superman does a self-sacrifice gig twice in less than ten minutes. It makes much more sense if you assume those scenes weren't supposed to be in the same movie.