DC Comics on Film

[captveg]

When was the last time you watched Superman II? (Either version). It's.... It's not that good.

Let's not forget that Man of Steel was Nolan's concept. Snyder didn't create it in a vacuum.

[captveg]

I'm glad you enjoyed it, but let's not uniformly dismiss the film's critics as lightweights who just can't handle the cold, hard truths that Zack Snyder is serving up.

I find the fact that they're being interpreted as "cold hard truths" in the first place rather telling, because that's not what they even are. At all.

Since when was an affirmation of Superman's inherent goodness a hard truth?

[tenia]

I think there's little question that The Dark Knight is a (the?) pinnacle of the superhero sub genre, not because or in spite of its tone, but because it's both very well made and very entertaining.

I remember having lengthy discussions about how TDK is not a very good movie, a rather boring one in the end (especially in its 2nd half), only saved by Ledger’s performance despite the rather superficial underlying subtext of the movie (ie some kind of approval of the Bush interventionist politics, because hey ! it’s for the greater good and he doesn’t want any praise for it, he’s just doing his job even if it mans being perceived as the bad guy).

So I guess there’s at least that question.

plus the Nolan and Burton films which are very serious to the point of being a little pofaced and drak respectively are greatly beloved and respected.

The 1st Burton Batman was already quite fun. It has tons of light moments, exacerbated by the Joker extravaganza and the overall production design (plus the Prince music).
Batman Returns is even more delirious and extravagant to the point it’s almost operatic. Sure, it’s not light like, say, The Avengers’ Friends-style jokes (“ha ha, Hulk smashes Thor”) or Ant-Man nice-and-funny tone, but it’s quite far from what Nolan has been doing (which isn’t only rather dark, but also tackles pure terrorism and US 9/11 trauma).

The other issue I have with saying these movies are dark is what we’re comparing them to. I feel we’re usually comparing them with each other amongst the Super-Heroes movies available, lots of them being usually upbeat.

“Oh, there isn’t a joke every 2 min in this one, wow, how dark it is !”

Sure, it's not Autumn Sonata, but really, is that enough ?

Hell, even the most respected thing to come out of Marvel recently is the fairly moody television series.

And I still don’t understand how their extremely superficial movies manage to appeal to such a wide audience. It’s not very well done, not very funny (with lots of joke either very low or just falling flat) and more and more boring. I’d rather take a thrilling serious movie over a superficial boring but lighthearted one. That’s for instance why I enjoyed much more Man of Steel than most of the Marvel latest efforts (at their best, they made Ant-Man which was rather fun but with nothing to be especially remembered).

[matrixschmatrix]

What about a deadly boring fascistic serious movie

[captveg]

Different strokes and all that, but I was never bored by BvS.


In any case, getting back to the film itself - I do think the North Africa plotline needlessly complicates the film. I get why it's there - they needed some means to

Spoiler

implicate Luthor in setting up Superman to be perceived worse than he actually was, give Lois a busier storyline, and give Bruce and Diana something to investigate in order to uncover the Meta-Humans

But it would have been a lot cleaner if the Metropolis Black Zero event was the whole of the conflict between Batman and Superman, which is what most of us expected it to be.

It seems they needed to create the North Africa element to get the other angles into the film for franchise reasons. It doesn't bother me as much as others, but it's a very noticeable rigmarole.

[knives]

When was the last time you watched Superman II? (Either version). It's.... It's not that good.

Let's not forget that Man of Steel was Nolan's concept. Snyder didn't create it in a vacuum.

About eight months ago. I still like it quite a deal though that it totally irrelevant to what I was saying. It's misdirection.

[captveg]

I wish I still liked Superman II. The dislike for its corniness surpassed my nostalgia about 5 years ago.

Superman '78 still works for me, fortunately. (Though that restored girls scout stuff is terrible, and the rape joke (with the soldiers surrounding the undercover unconcious Miss Tessmacher) bothers me tremendously, so I skip it).

[knives]

Again that has nothing to do with my point. If you refuse to engage with my argument then you aren't worth talking to.

[Trees]

Superman I and II are great comic book films, as far as I am concerned. I was crazy about those pictures when I was a kid.

[captveg]

Again that has nothing to do with my point. If you refuse to engage with my argument then you aren't worth talking to.

Oh. Sorry, I thought you were saying that *you* bringing up Superman II was a misdirection. If you find me not worth talking to due to that it might be for the best - we rarely agree on anything in the first place, and seem to do so with mutual antagonism.

But in regards to your "false dynamic" - I get your point. To be perfectly honest, I think it's a double standard that Batman gets away with - people accept on its face that it's a drama, and engage it on those terms. Yet with Superman the majority think it's boring/frustrating/dreary as a drama because the silver age interpretation is so ingrained in pop culture, and it's not to their tastes, and so they wish to project their own desires onto it. And, I guess that's fine, but I just find it so old hat and tired. I see the actions the character takes as more inspiring when he does it despite the outside questioning rather than if the crowds just cheer him on, so that when he does get cheered on in future installments it's been fully earned. But I guess most just want him as the fully formed hero from the word go. To me that approach would be more about getting the icon of Superman rather than getting the character.

Daredevil (which I quite like, though the middle of S2 is kinda blah now that I've had a chance to watch it) benefits from its medium's longer form, and from, let's face it, cribbing a lot of the themes from Batman Begins (S1) and The Dark Knight (S2).

[Jeff]

If you find me not worth talking to due to that it might be for the best - we rarely agree on anything in the first place, and seem to do so with mutual antagonism.

But what if it turns out your moms have the same first name?

[captveg]

If you find me not worth talking to due to that it might be for the best - we rarely agree on anything in the first place, and seem to do so with mutual antagonism.

But what if it turns out your moms have the same first name?

Ha! Well, I don't have any deep set trauma over mine being killed in front of me*, nor do I see knives as an alien thing without humanity.

* - I'm saying she's still alive; I'm not saying she was was murdered in from of me and that caused no trauma.

[matrixschmatrix]

nor do I see knives as an alien thing without humanity.

Phew, the cover is working

[Feiereisel]

Does anyone else think Snyder and company also severely underestimate their source material? They steal the mood, but little of the substance. The conflict makes the jump from page to screen, but political and social commentary interspersed throughout Miller's story doesn't. The film's commercial aims make the tempering understandable, but it ultimately works against the movie.

I wasn't pining for a more direct adaptation of The Dark Knight Returns and don't believe the film was sanitized in the editing, but the filmmakers' attempt to fuse Miller's visual sensibility to its own, whittled-down, exploration of the line between gods and monsters--Superman and Batman; the inverted painting; Holly Hunter's arc; Lex Luthor's helipad dialogue; Doomsday--doesn't land with the same force.

Miller use of politics in DKR's is pointed as well as functional; the running political commentary provides context for both Batman and Superman's actions in the story. Gotham's ineffectual politicians create a crime-rife milieu that begs for Batman's brutally imposed order; Superman's status as a super-weapon deployed as a deterrent by a Reagan manque precipitates the animosity from Batman that fuels the last act of the story. It creates a very effective ideological opposition that the movie does not muster, resorting instead to elaborate machinations on Luthor's part and consistent but ill-defined angst.

(Hilariously, the animated DKR adaptation and BvS run about the same length, somewhat muting the "time considerations" benefit I was going to allow the latter.)

And that's the persistent underestimation: the assumption that Miller's images can be lifted from their source material while retaining an equivalent level of significance, even though the narrative of the film is different than that of the comic. To be fair, this assumption is also made by other comic-originated films, but between BvS and Watchmen, Snyder has done this extensively. And again in fairness, he isn't alone: Miller has been heavily cannibalized by filmmakers, both directly and indirectly.

Indebted to Miller's visuals while eschewing the substance that drives it, Snyder's iconography is unbalanced, especially in the last half hour, which trades heavily on DKR imagery. It's off-putting, like the realization that's not another step at the top of a flight of stairs. And the murky motivations, persistent grimness, and the appetizers-but-no-entree narrative can't salvage it.

[dx23]

Does anyone else think Snyder and company also severely underestimate their source material?

This has been my main complaint from the beginning and talking to people who work in the comic book industry, they think the same about Snyder and Warner Bros. Basically, as I've said before in this thread, Warner Bros executives feel disdain for the whole comic book industry, like if it was completely beneath them. Many comic book writers that I have talked to that work or worked at DC repeatedly state that WB executives don't even know which characters they own. I'm completely serious about this: one famous writer who was asked to do a pitch for this whole new set of films was asked why Spider-Man or Wolverine couldn't be in the DC films. That's how out of touch these executives are with the properties they own.

Snyder is the perfect tool for these clueless execs. WB simply wants to make money the same way Marvel/Disney is doing on their end and they want to do it now. Snyder, like a great pitchman, sold them on the complete idea that these execs wanted to hear. And this is the main reason why Man of Steel and Batman v Superman essentially don't have heart, or at least the labor of love when compared to what Marvel is doing. Snyder basically cherry picked on what has been popular about DC Comics in the past 30 years: The Dark Knight Series, the Killing Joke, Death in the Family, the Death of Superman, Injustice:Gods Among Us, DC Universe Online, Flashpoint, the Nolan films and the New 52 Justice League. By doing this, Snyder ignores what made these series so influential and popular, which is basic storytelling and fluidity within the story.

Similar to what Will Smith has done in his career, WB's marketing research team is at full work to see what bullet points sell. They feel that destruction sells as it has been shown by the Michael Bay Transformers franchise. They feel that superheroes sell now, as shown by Marvel/Disney. They feel dark and gritty sells as shown by the Nolan Batman films. They feel pushing the PG-13 rating close to R sells as Deadpool did. They feel the whole geek/comic book nerd thing is in and they point out to Big Bang Theory. Warner Bros is going to stay the course with Snyder as long as these properties makes them money. They don't care about the critics and about quality. It's simply putting a product out there while it's hot. When it's stops making money, they'll try to sell it like they have tried with Looney Tunes and the Hanna Barbera properties or like they did with World Championship Wrestling. I don't expect any improvements on the films or change in the way they are presented.

[Luke M]

I can't see Warner Bros. selling DC but I can see Disney making an offer when they're at their most vulnerable.

[SpiderBaby]

I remember a time when comic readers would hope one day for there to be movies that took these characters serious and without Bat Credit Cards or adult Goonies-like team-ups.

I actually think taking the Superman character and the rest of the DC characters toward a more serious tone is the right direction. What's so humorous about the Superman character anyways? You have Thor for the God-like character that is kind of an idiot for that type of stuff.

I always imaged the DC characters as the no-nonsense, larger than life, Alex Ross style, Greek Gods, that Sergei Eisenstein would have a field day with creating propaganda like montages of. I don't think they need that buddy cop comedy.

Not to say that BvS didn't have it's flaws, with plot, pacing, and casting. But tone, was that really the issue?

[matrixschmatrix]

I think the only person who is saying that the objection to this movie is that it takes the characters seriously is a defender- certainly neither Batman nor Superman are particularly goofy characters, for the most part, but their iconography has some specific elements of character that Snyder seems to have no interest in whatsoever.

[captveg]

It's not an issue with Batman, but it's certainly an issue for Superman.

A large section of DC fans just want an icon, not a character. Faraci's rant about Snyder killing Superman because Snyder hates the character is a perfect example of this. Snyder doesn't hate the character of Superman - he loves what he stands for, but is bored with what just having the icon of Superman means for telling stories or for making a character that actually has dramatic conflicts.

Even Donner had to de-power Superman to try and create conflict/drama, because otherwise what does a perfect hero *do* in a film to be an actual character?

One answer is to make the conflict in the Clark Kent portion - how does he keep his secret identity, will Lois ever love Clark over Superman, etc. But that's rather pedestrian, and a big reason why the comics have not been really centered on that for nearly 50 years.

So Nolan, Goyer, Snyder and Terrio went with the God-on-Earth conflicts - how does a Superman find his place in our world? Will he be accepted? What does his presence do to politics, religions, and the criminal minds?

Superman's ideals of truth and justice are great iconic things, but if they aren't put through any challenges they have no dramatic aspects to them. They're just there to be admired, and very little dramatic story can come from it.

I found this Mark Hughes interview with Snyder enlightening in this regard:

"MH: [W]hat good are superhero’s rules and codes of ethics if you don’t challenge it? It’s easy to stick to an unchallenged rule. It’s easy to support freedom of speech for popular speech we all agree with.

ZS: One-hundred percent. One-hundred percent.

MH: The so-called no-win scenario is the only way to test a hero’s rules and ethics.

ZS: And it’s the only way to move forward with a hero, because otherwise the hero drowns in the mire of his own morality, in that he never can go forward, he never can evolve. He becomes an allegory, he’s a lesson, like, “This is the way to be, kids,” not a real *story*. He becomes like one of the Ten Commandments."

The miscalculation? A lot of people can only see Superman as a lesson or a commandment, and balk at anything else.

It's gonna be interesting to see how people respond to a Superman-less DC film slate. I expect the general audiences will take to Suicide Squad and Wonder Woman partly because they have no expectation of what those characters (sans Joker) should be from previous incarnations.

Then, when we get to Justice League it's gonna be primarily a Batman / Wonder Woman centric film. And then in 2018 you'll get Flash, Aquaman and Batman films. Notice who's getting left behind here?

In retrospect, the best thing Snyder could have done for DC was to bury Superman. When he shows up in JL he'll be the icon everyone wants. And any future DC film he shows up in he'll be speaking platitudes, and saving he day. And everyone will cheer, because that's their Superman.

[matrixschmatrix]

I think you are continually creating a false dichotomy with this argument, that either Superman has to be a marble statue, devoid of humanity, or he must be placed in these extreme Kobayashi Maru scenarios where the familiar moral precept of 'hey maybe don't murder people' cannot possibly be obeyed. The interview snippet with Synder makes the same argument. Frankly, it's baffling, and kind of upsetting, to argue that the only way a character can be made human is to make him a killer- sure, Superman the square jawed Boy Scout becomes quickly dull, but it belies a real creative bankruptcy to say that it's either that or what Synder has done, particularly since Snyder (at least in Man of Steel) seemed to have no interest in making him human in the least, preferring instead to make him a mythic icon more remarkable for his power than for his humanity.

[captveg]

Clark/Superman has never been more human in film than he's been in MoS and BvS. We just watched totally different films, I guess.

For example, you see him killing Zod as his "humanizing" moment. Er, no. That's one of his Savior/Icon moments. A challenging one, sure, but one that is all about placing big picture ahead of himself. His human moments are when talking to the priest about whether to turn himself in, or when discussing with Lois in BvS how the Ideal of Superman is struggling. The human moments come from weighing the impact he has on the world and in the *decision* to still act as a hero, not when he actually does the acts of, say, defeating the World Engine, or killing Doomsday.

And anyone who thinks killing Zod was murder doesn't understand what "murder" means. Is it murder when a cop shoots a suspect who is pointing a gun at an innocent?

[matrixschmatrix]

I was thinking more of the mass destruction of innocent people caused by Big S's choice of venue, but horses for courses I guess. I believe the killing of Zod is pretty explicitly what Snyder is referring to as the testing of Superman's morality above.

[captveg]

Zod chose the venue.

Yes, the killing of Zod tests Supes' morality - will he go to this necessary extreme to save the world? I see that as a different question than one regarding his humanity.

One point you made I didn't comment on before - I do think Snyder is misreading the room in regards to making things *so* difficult for Superman. The wiser move would have been to move the needle back towards the middle ground you argue for, if for nothing more than making it easier on the audience. From a populist standpoint his approach of heavy Kobayashi Maru scenarios is a challenge. Sometimes people just wanna save the whales.

[matrixschmatrix]

As I recall, Zod's interest was exclusively in killing Superman, and would presumably have chased him anywhere he went. At any rate, the trope of the sadistic bad guy who will kill people until you stop him by killing them is a really exhausting one, and one that I don't think represents... anything in real life? Ever?

Like, in The Dark Knight, the Joker's ascension is meant to be a development of what happened in the first movie (and between the two films)- the default assumption is that crime and evil are based in human motivations, but when the normal processes become impossible, radicalization starts to happen. The Joker, in turn, isn't an avatar of pure malice, he's meant to be sort of a freefloating metaphor for political chaos, and as such, is an interesting challenge to Batman- they are philosophically opposed in a way that Batman and R'as weren't, and that dichotomy works itself out through action.

The fight in MoS seems to be predicated just on 'what if there existed an evil so great that any action would be justified in destroying it.' That doesn't interest me as a metaphor for reality- where it's generally an argument put forward to justify heinous shit- and it doesn't interest me as a driver for character.

[Feiereisel]

So Nolan, Goyer, Snyder and Terrio went with the God-on-Earth conflicts - how does a Superman find his place in our world? Will he be accepted? What does his presence do to politics, religions, and the criminal minds?

This is a fair question, but given the content of the film, it's a hard sell to claim that the filmmakers answer it. Wayne mentions his perception of Superman as a threat it in conversation with Alfred, but those few lines don't really unpack his thoughts in a substantive way, which is a shame, because I do think there's enough to chew on there.

Superman's ideals of truth and justice are great iconic things, but if they aren't put through any challenges they have no dramatic aspects to them. They're just there to be admired, and very little dramatic story can come from it.

Why not challenge his ideals with a proper ideological threat rather than a hulking monster, then? The Nolan films made an effort at this, as elaborate and strange as some of it got by the end of the third movie. DKR establishes Batman and Superman's specific ideologies before pitting them against one another.

BvS is a sludge of incident that spells things out either in the bluntest terms (Wayne justifying his view of Superman as a threat) or not at all (the fill-in-the-murder-frown at the defaced Robin suit). It leaves all the wrong things to the imagination, putting the onus on the viewer to cobble significance out of the comics they've read.

IAnd I'll second matrix re: Zod-killing. The film's construction of a "necessary" extreme seems far too simplistic for characters that can punch one another into space. The question Pa Kent poses in MoS is morbid, but abstractly interesting; the conception of the finale doesn't rise to answer it.