Just got back from seeing this. I. How the fuck did they let it get this bad? I am absolutely convinced Snyder and Goyer don't have a fucking clue who these characters are. Like at all. Warner sure as hell doesn't know who they are and they have no interest in finding people who do. Maybe if Suicide Squad does well commercially and critically they'll recognize that there are people who can actually get shit done, but I doubt it. The train has way left the station on some of those movies.
Weirdly I found B vs S better written than MoS. Goyer didn't write the screenplay, he was only involved in the outline. It'd have been worse if he was the one writing it, so we got off lucky there. I thought B vs S was both better and worse in various parts than MoS. Embracing the grimderp tone helped it as well, rather than making it dull. And it had more characters that I either liked or were entertaining to watch. The best examples were Batman, Alfred and WW. I liked how they made not! female Jenny Olsen and that female assistant to the US general into minor characters too.
I didn't think the writing was bad, nor really the acting (other than Eisenberg). The story itself is just dumb. I just don't understand how you take these two characters and THIS is the fucking best you could come up with. Like, are you nuts? The story is right out of the mid 90's. It's Forever, Batman & Robin, X-Men Origins levels of stupid. And none of it makes any fucking sense. Luthor's plan is so god damned stupid. And really:
I'm to believe he can lure Superman to Africa, but he can't smuggle some fucking Kryptonite into the country. What the fuck?!
I think my biggest complaint is that this was Warner obviously not wanting to take their time to actually build their DC Universe in the way Marvel (accidentally) did. How many movies did we have before Marvel and Disney felt comfortable making Avengers? How many fucking duds has Warner had? The public does not buy their non-Nolan treatment of these characters and why should they?
It's just frustrating. I honestly left the theater shaking my head. What a trainwreck.
How many movies did we have before Marvel and Disney felt comfortable making Avengers?
One. They made Iron Man and decided to take a risk on building an overall universe. Hence the Colonel Fury tag at the end.
However, if you think pre-MARVEL Studios matters, the answer is twenty-one. And Blade, Spider-Man, and X-Men count for nine of those. But really, none of those twenty-one films were intended to start a whole connected universe.
If Iron Man had failed, then they don't lose out on much because nothing else had mattered up until then. And if Avengers had failed, then they probably still had the individual movies anyway. But the greatest difference, at the end of the day, was MARVEL decided to build the world first and give Avengers a shot.
DC/WB tried that first with Green Lantern. When that failed, they tried again with MoS. It came out a year after Avengers and when it didn't totally suck green and yellow balls, they dove right in and decided to just rush into Justice League as quickly as possible.
I'm talking about setup. The Avengers didn't come out after Iron Man. We had movies for four of the characters most associated with the group, with other characters sprinkled throughout the movies, and then an actual team movie. The Avengers was wink-winked in each of these, but none of the movies felt like it was all in service as set up. This is exactly what Batman vs. Superman felt like.
I'm talking about setup. The Avengers didn't come out after Iron Man. We had movies for four of the characters most associated with the group, with other characters sprinkled throughout the movies, and then an actual team movie. The Avengers was wink-winked in each of these, but none of the movies felt like it was all in service as set up. This is exactly what Batman vs. Superman felt like.
Honestly, I believe Marvel/Disney and to some extent Paramount had the greatest success in the fact that they were able to quickly course correct themselves at any stage of production to suit the direction audiences wanted. This is partly due to having several smaller productions rather than trying to get these massive tentpole films through at the start giving them a foundation to work from.
The best example really is how people disliked Iron Man 2 for putting the nods and winks to the upcoming Avengers over the actual story, so the rest of the films suddenly had scaling back on these references and could act as standalone films.
0
Options
Mego Thor"I say thee...NAY!"Registered Userregular
How many movies did we have before Marvel and Disney felt comfortable making Avengers?
One. They made Iron Man and decided to take a risk on building an overall universe. Hence the Colonel Fury tag at the end.
However, if you think pre-MARVEL Studios matters, the answer is twenty-one. And Blade, Spider-Man, and X-Men count for nine of those. But really, none of those twenty-one films were intended to start a whole connected universe.
If Iron Man had failed, then they don't lose out on much because nothing else had mattered up until then. And if Avengers had failed, then they probably still had the individual movies anyway. But the greatest difference, at the end of the day, was MARVEL decided to build the world first and give Avengers a shot.
DC/WB tried that first with Green Lantern. When that failed, they tried again with MoS. It came out a year after Avengers and when it didn't totally suck green and yellow balls, they dove right in and decided to just rush into Justice League as quickly as possible.
I had the exact same thought about Green Lantern while it was on TV the other day. Green Lantern nailed the looks of all the characters, but WB crammed way, way too much into it. They should have tentatively planned on it to be a trilogy; with the first movie as a simple origin story with Hal learning to use his ring while fighting Earth-based baddies, and ending with a post-credit stinger where he meets Sinestro (who is still a green lantern). Second movie introduces the Corps, and Sinestro falls while fighting a cosmic menace. Third movie is Parallax war.
If they had gone with something like that, then we'd probably already have a Justice League movie with Ryan Reynolds as GL.
Jeedan, you're position that the Kents aren't subtley objectivist is gallant and I could perhaps even buy into the idea that this was just catastrophically bad writing, but in the very next movie we have Martha rattling off about how clark doesn't owe anyone anything.
This really is a case of if it quacks like a duck...
I'd wonder what the hell a duck is doing here and then watch the movie about a guy with superpowers who DOESN'T owe anyone anything, but does the right thing and saves people?
He does the right thing out of obligation rather than because he wants to. The movies haven't shown him ever being happy as super-hero. He hates it, or at minimum loathes doing it. The times where we do seem happier about is when people are going to die.
Like fighting Zod, or rescuing Lois from the general.
He fights against their influence, yet it burdens him tremendously like an enormous weight. Nor does he truly argue with his parents about subjects like this or anyone really. Contrast him with Benoist's Supergirl. It's night and day.
Doing the right thing "purely out of obligation, not because you want to" (assuming thats whats going on) is deeply anti-objectivist. Thats the kind of Kantian notion of duty that objectivists are directly opposed to. An objectivist says that helping people is cool only if the person doing the helping enjoys it for their own reasons.
How many movies did we have before Marvel and Disney felt comfortable making Avengers?
One. They made Iron Man and decided to take a risk on building an overall universe. Hence the Colonel Fury tag at the end.
However, if you think pre-MARVEL Studios matters, the answer is twenty-one. And Blade, Spider-Man, and X-Men count for nine of those. But really, none of those twenty-one films were intended to start a whole connected universe.
If Iron Man had failed, then they don't lose out on much because nothing else had mattered up until then. And if Avengers had failed, then they probably still had the individual movies anyway. But the greatest difference, at the end of the day, was MARVEL decided to build the world first and give Avengers a shot.
DC/WB tried that first with Green Lantern. When that failed, they tried again with MoS. It came out a year after Avengers and when it didn't totally suck green and yellow balls, they dove right in and decided to just rush into Justice League as quickly as possible.
I had the exact same thought about Green Lantern while it was on TV the other day. Green Lantern nailed the looks of all the characters, but WB crammed way, way too much into it. They should have tentatively planned on it to be a trilogy; with the first movie as a simple origin story with Hal learning to use his ring while fighting Earth-based baddies, and ending with a post-credit stinger where he meets Sinestro (who is still a green lantern). Second movie introduces the Corps, and Sinestro falls while fighting a cosmic menace. Third movie is Parallax war.
If they had gone with something like that, then we'd probably already have a Justice League movie with Ryan Reynolds as GL.
Yeah but then we wouldn't have deadpool.
Worth it imo.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Jeedan, you're position that the Kents aren't subtley objectivist is gallant and I could perhaps even buy into the idea that this was just catastrophically bad writing, but in the very next movie we have Martha rattling off about how clark doesn't owe anyone anything.
This really is a case of if it quacks like a duck...
I'd wonder what the hell a duck is doing here and then watch the movie about a guy with superpowers who DOESN'T owe anyone anything, but does the right thing and saves people?
He does the right thing out of obligation rather than because he wants to. The movies haven't shown him ever being happy as super-hero. He hates it, or at minimum loathes doing it. The times where we do seem happier about is when people are going to die.
Like fighting Zod, or rescuing Lois from the general.
He fights against their influence, yet it burdens him tremendously like an enormous weight. Nor does he truly argue with his parents about subjects like this or anyone really. Contrast him with Benoist's Supergirl. It's night and day.
Doing the right thing "purely out of obligation, not because you want to" (assuming thats whats going on) is deeply anti-objectivist. Thats the kind of Kantian notion of duty that objectivists are directly opposed to. An objectivist says that helping people is cool only if the person doing the helping enjoys it for their own reasons.
This is precisely right.
Acting based on obligation isn't in any sense Objectivist. A Kantian acts only for the sake of duty, regardless of feelings. I guess it would be nice to also enjoy doing your duty, but enjoyment is morally irrelevant.
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
0
Options
Mego Thor"I say thee...NAY!"Registered Userregular
How many movies did we have before Marvel and Disney felt comfortable making Avengers?
One. They made Iron Man and decided to take a risk on building an overall universe. Hence the Colonel Fury tag at the end.
However, if you think pre-MARVEL Studios matters, the answer is twenty-one. And Blade, Spider-Man, and X-Men count for nine of those. But really, none of those twenty-one films were intended to start a whole connected universe.
If Iron Man had failed, then they don't lose out on much because nothing else had mattered up until then. And if Avengers had failed, then they probably still had the individual movies anyway. But the greatest difference, at the end of the day, was MARVEL decided to build the world first and give Avengers a shot.
DC/WB tried that first with Green Lantern. When that failed, they tried again with MoS. It came out a year after Avengers and when it didn't totally suck green and yellow balls, they dove right in and decided to just rush into Justice League as quickly as possible.
I had the exact same thought about Green Lantern while it was on TV the other day. Green Lantern nailed the looks of all the characters, but WB crammed way, way too much into it. They should have tentatively planned on it to be a trilogy; with the first movie as a simple origin story with Hal learning to use his ring while fighting Earth-based baddies, and ending with a post-credit stinger where he meets Sinestro (who is still a green lantern). Second movie introduces the Corps, and Sinestro falls while fighting a cosmic menace. Third movie is Parallax war.
If they had gone with something like that, then we'd probably already have a Justice League movie with Ryan Reynolds as GL.
Yeah but then we wouldn't have deadpool.
Worth it imo.
I'd sacrifice 'Pool for a DCCU as good as the Marvel movies.
+6
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Other than lucking into Chris Nolan, I legitimately believe that there's no one at Warners that has the first clue what to do with their tentpole licenses, and it's been that way for years.
- Terminator
- Looney Tunes
- Charlie & the Chocolate Factory
- DC Comics
- TNMT
- I Am Legend
- The Hobbit
- 300
Just their DC brand alone has seen the release of Catwoman, Jonah Hex, Superman Returns, Constantine (both the movie and failed TV show), Green Lantern, and now this Snyder debacle.
If the property wasn't in the hands of a legit auteur or cabal of creative partners (Chris Nolan, Tim Burton, the Harry Potter team), they have time and time again screwed the pooch on these brands.
They have people, they just think it's better to bank on people who are highly successful in the medium they're going to move it to. No reason those people they have can't take part and direct the person who's good at the medium around.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Jeedan, you're position that the Kents aren't subtley objectivist is gallant and I could perhaps even buy into the idea that this was just catastrophically bad writing, but in the very next movie we have Martha rattling off about how clark doesn't owe anyone anything.
This really is a case of if it quacks like a duck...
I'd wonder what the hell a duck is doing here and then watch the movie about a guy with superpowers who DOESN'T owe anyone anything, but does the right thing and saves people?
He does the right thing out of obligation rather than because he wants to. The movies haven't shown him ever being happy as super-hero. He hates it, or at minimum loathes doing it. The times where we do seem happier about is when people are going to die.
Like fighting Zod, or rescuing Lois from the general.
He fights against their influence, yet it burdens him tremendously like an enormous weight. Nor does he truly argue with his parents about subjects like this or anyone really. Contrast him with Benoist's Supergirl. It's night and day.
Doing the right thing "purely out of obligation, not because you want to" (assuming thats whats going on) is deeply anti-objectivist. Thats the kind of Kantian notion of duty that objectivists are directly opposed to. An objectivist says that helping people is cool only if the person doing the helping enjoys it for their own reasons.
This is precisely right.
Acting based on obligation isn't in any sense Objectivist. A Kantian acts only for the sake of duty, regardless of feelings. I guess it would be nice to also enjoy doing your duty, but enjoyment is morally irrelevant.
If you want an objectivist superhero your best bet would be Iron Man 2, Starks declaration that the government can't take his suit as it would be tantamount to slavery since there is no division between his intellectual property and his person is about straight up Randian as you can get for a superhero short of being Mr A.
Jeedan on
0
Options
Doctor DetroitNot a doctorTree townRegistered Userregular
I thought the comics people were involved with Green Lantern.
Which would explain why they backed off that for MoS and BvS.
Other than lucking into Chris Nolan, I legitimately believe that there's no one at Warners that has the first clue what to do with their tentpole licenses, and it's been that way for years.
- Terminator
- Looney Tunes
- Charlie & the Chocolate Factory
- DC Comics
- TNMT
- I Am Legend
- The Hobbit
- 300
Just their DC brand alone has seen the release of Catwoman, Jonah Hex, Superman Returns, Constantine (both the movie and failed TV show), Green Lantern, and now this Snyder debacle.
If the property wasn't in the hands of a legit auteur or cabal of creative partners (Chris Nolan, Tim Burton, the Harry Potter team), they have time and time again screwed the pooch on these brands.
TMNT has been Viacom-owned since 2012. Unless the misspelled acronym means a different franchise.
It's really Warner cinematic that is off-kilter. Their TV and animation outfits have a good batting average.
+1
Options
Mego Thor"I say thee...NAY!"Registered Userregular
Other than lucking into Chris Nolan, I legitimately believe that there's no one at Warners that has the first clue what to do with their tentpole licenses, and it's been that way for years.
- Terminator
- Looney Tunes
- Charlie & the Chocolate Factory
- DC Comics
- TNMT
- I Am Legend
- The Hobbit
- 300
Just their DC brand alone has seen the release of Catwoman, Jonah Hex, Superman Returns, Constantine (both the movie and failed TV show), Green Lantern, and now this Snyder debacle.
If the property wasn't in the hands of a legit auteur or cabal of creative partners (Chris Nolan, Tim Burton, the Harry Potter team), they have time and time again screwed the pooch on these brands.
I 100% agree that WB has no idea what they're doing with DC comics, but the Constantine TV show was really good. It was a hard sell for network television, though. Would have fared better on a smaller, "edgier" channel.
I'm just sad Batman and Superman didn't have a better reason to punch each other. As it stands, it pretty much boiled down to
Batman's one percent thing, and Luthor kidnapping Supes' mom. And of course the fight could have been stopped long before if Supes just had the chance to spit out one sentence.
It would have been so goddamn easy to do a much better slow burn of Batman and Superman disliking each other's methods, and then Luthor manipulating things behind the scenes to bring things to a head. Like rigging something so it looks like Superman needlessly killed a high-profile person in peril, or that Batman's quest for justice caused a psychopath to get loose and cause havoc. (Might be a good way to squeeze in a minor Batman baddie too.) Give them true motivation behind all that scowling. Hell, also give them the sudden realization that this philanthropist they trusted was the real monster all along. Be a nice excuse to examine, compare and contrast the big two as well.
But noooo, we had to have all those bore-ass politics and Jimmy Olsen shot in the face and that jar of piss that was supposed to be dramatic somehow and Marsha Marsha Marsha and stuff.
cloudeagle on
Switch: 3947-4890-9293
+1
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Other than lucking into Chris Nolan, I legitimately believe that there's no one at Warners that has the first clue what to do with their tentpole licenses, and it's been that way for years.
- Terminator
- Looney Tunes
- Charlie & the Chocolate Factory
- DC Comics
- TNMT
- I Am Legend
- The Hobbit
- 300
Just their DC brand alone has seen the release of Catwoman, Jonah Hex, Superman Returns, Constantine (both the movie and failed TV show), Green Lantern, and now this Snyder debacle.
If the property wasn't in the hands of a legit auteur or cabal of creative partners (Chris Nolan, Tim Burton, the Harry Potter team), they have time and time again screwed the pooch on these brands.
I 100% agree that WB has no idea what they're doing with DC comics, but the Constantine TV show was really good. It was a hard sell for network television, though. Would have fared better on a smaller, "edgier" channel.
I'll agree in that a street-level series about demons probably has no business being on a broadcast channel.
Also the Constantine film wasn't bad at all. The only real complaint is that as an adaptation it strayed very far from the source material, but what they did with the actual film was quite good.
I was just thinking about it this morning in the shower, if I were to make a Batman vs Superman movie, I'd call it "World's Finest" and bring back the kindness that's been sorely missing from the Superman films since Superman Returns.
Jeedan, you're position that the Kents aren't subtley objectivist is gallant and I could perhaps even buy into the idea that this was just catastrophically bad writing, but in the very next movie we have Martha rattling off about how clark doesn't owe anyone anything.
This really is a case of if it quacks like a duck...
I'd wonder what the hell a duck is doing here and then watch the movie about a guy with superpowers who DOESN'T owe anyone anything, but does the right thing and saves people?
He does the right thing out of obligation rather than because he wants to. The movies haven't shown him ever being happy as super-hero. He hates it, or at minimum loathes doing it. The times where we do seem happier about is when people are going to die.
Like fighting Zod, or rescuing Lois from the general.
He fights against their influence, yet it burdens him tremendously like an enormous weight. Nor does he truly argue with his parents about subjects like this or anyone really. Contrast him with Benoist's Supergirl. It's night and day.
Doing the right thing "purely out of obligation, not because you want to" (assuming thats whats going on) is deeply anti-objectivist. Thats the kind of Kantian notion of duty that objectivists are directly opposed to. An objectivist says that helping people is cool only if the person doing the helping enjoys it for their own reasons.
I didn't say Superman was an Objectivist, it's Snyder's influence by Objectivism that effects how this is a poor portrayal of being a super-hero that's the issue. He is better at this than his parents, but that bad influence creeps into even his best qualities and makes him a worse person for it. Obligation is probably the wrong word for why this Superman does it, I don't know why he does it what I do know is from what little we've seen him discuss issues like this (This Superman isn't a talker so I find it harder to get into his head) he views it as a burden. Where the obligation comes in it feels like it's on the writer's behalf, as if someone told them "Oh shit, it's Superman. I need to make him be a super-hero" then cavill's Supes does it because he's ordered to off-screen. "Yeah, yeah - I know. I'm Superman. I can't wait until this is over so I can make out with Lois Lane over corpses."
If they really wanted to show fights between the heroes, I'd go to see a movie version of the story mode in Injustice.
Justice League versus Justice Lords could be pretty good.
I kind of like the idea that he’s taught himself not to look because if he looks it’s just neverending, right? You have to know when, as Superman, when to intervene and when not to. Or not when not to, you can’t be everywhere at once, literally you can’t be everywhere at once, so he has to be really selective in a weird way about where he chooses to interfere.
Yea, it's not like Superman is some sort of heroic super man who exceeds the limits of a normal person.
I kind of like the idea that he’s taught himself not to look because if he looks it’s just neverending, right? You have to know when, as Superman, when to intervene and when not to. Or not when not to, you can’t be everywhere at once, literally you can’t be everywhere at once, so he has to be really selective in a weird way about where he chooses to interfere.
Yea, it's not like Superman is some sort of heroic super man who exceeds the limits of a normal person.
Snyder's idea is interesting. Superman, while super, isn't actually omnipotent. If nothing else, he still needs to eat and sleep. Plus there's the idea that Superman running around fixing everything could make regular people complacent.
Being able to communicate those ideas on screen is a separate issue.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
I kind of like the idea that he’s taught himself not to look because if he looks it’s just neverending, right? You have to know when, as Superman, when to intervene and when not to. Or not when not to, you can’t be everywhere at once, literally you can’t be everywhere at once, so he has to be really selective in a weird way about where he chooses to interfere.
Yea, it's not like Superman is some sort of heroic super man who exceeds the limits of a normal person.
That should be an eternal source of despair to Superman that he cannot do more, not a tactical decision to triage events so that he can spend more time brooding.
I kind of like the idea that he’s taught himself not to look because if he looks it’s just neverending, right? You have to know when, as Superman, when to intervene and when not to. Or not when not to, you can’t be everywhere at once, literally you can’t be everywhere at once, so he has to be really selective in a weird way about where he chooses to interfere.
Yea, it's not like Superman is some sort of heroic super man who exceeds the limits of a normal person.
Snyder's idea is interesting. Superman, while super, isn't actually omnipotent. If nothing else, he still needs to eat and sleep. Plus there's the idea that Superman running around fixing everything could make regular people complacent.
Being able to communicate those ideas on screen is a separate issue.
I feel it's a bit out of genre for Superman. It works well enough for Batman and is completely right for Netflix's Daredevil.
For Snyder's Superman it comes off as disinterest rather than a discussion of the limitation of even extreme physical power.
I kind of like the idea that he’s taught himself not to look because if he looks it’s just neverending, right? You have to know when, as Superman, when to intervene and when not to. Or not when not to, you can’t be everywhere at once, literally you can’t be everywhere at once, so he has to be really selective in a weird way about where he chooses to interfere.
Yea, it's not like Superman is some sort of heroic super man who exceeds the limits of a normal person.
That should be an eternal source of despair to Superman that he cannot do more, not a tactical decision to triage events so that he can spend more time brooding.
That feeling of sadness and despair is actually why Superman forms the Justice League.
It's not a surprise that this nuance is lost on Snyder and why he did what he did.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
I kind of like the idea that he’s taught himself not to look because if he looks it’s just neverending, right? You have to know when, as Superman, when to intervene and when not to. Or not when not to, you can’t be everywhere at once, literally you can’t be everywhere at once, so he has to be really selective in a weird way about where he chooses to interfere.
Yea, it's not like Superman is some sort of heroic super man who exceeds the limits of a normal person.
Snyder's idea is interesting. Superman, while super, isn't actually omnipotent. If nothing else, he still needs to eat and sleep. Plus there's the idea that Superman running around fixing everything could make regular people complacent.
Being able to communicate those ideas on screen is a separate issue.
That's one of the reasons why Lex Luthor hates Superman. He thinks that if people depend on Superman too much they'll lose their own agency.
Also, Superman being so powerful and still not being able to save everyone has been explored many times before. That's the whole point of Jonathan Kent dying in the Donner Superman. Superman feels a great deal of guilt over the fact that even though he has so much power, he wasn't able to save someone who was so close to him.
I kind of like the idea that he’s taught himself not to look because if he looks it’s just neverending, right? You have to know when, as Superman, when to intervene and when not to. Or not when not to, you can’t be everywhere at once, literally you can’t be everywhere at once, so he has to be really selective in a weird way about where he chooses to interfere.
Yea, it's not like Superman is some sort of heroic super man who exceeds the limits of a normal person.
Snyder's idea is interesting. Superman, while super, isn't actually omnipotent. If nothing else, he still needs to eat and sleep. Plus there's the idea that Superman running around fixing everything could make regular people complacent.
Being able to communicate those ideas on screen is a separate issue.
I feel it's a bit out of genre for Superman. It works well enough for Batman and is completely right for Netflix's Daredevil.
For Snyder's Superman it comes off as disinterest rather than a discussion of the limitation of even extreme physical power.
yeah he looked like he was bored or hated doing it
"I can't believe you fucks are making me pull this thing around, where's the helicopter to rescue them?"
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
So Canada's favourite piece of foot apparel has weighed in on DoJ as well as more specifically the director of he film with all the subtlety he can muster: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unRWrdDKfxU
While their are some parts of this I disagree with (I consider watchmen to be fine, but I haven't read the Novel) He really is nailing Most of my feelings regarding Zack.
Jeedan, you're position that the Kents aren't subtley objectivist is gallant and I could perhaps even buy into the idea that this was just catastrophically bad writing, but in the very next movie we have Martha rattling off about how clark doesn't owe anyone anything.
This really is a case of if it quacks like a duck...
I'd wonder what the hell a duck is doing here and then watch the movie about a guy with superpowers who DOESN'T owe anyone anything, but does the right thing and saves people?
He does the right thing out of obligation rather than because he wants to. The movies haven't shown him ever being happy as super-hero. He hates it, or at minimum loathes doing it. The times where we do seem happier about is when people are going to die.
Like fighting Zod, or rescuing Lois from the general.
He fights against their influence, yet it burdens him tremendously like an enormous weight. Nor does he truly argue with his parents about subjects like this or anyone really. Contrast him with Benoist's Supergirl. It's night and day.
Doing the right thing "purely out of obligation, not because you want to" (assuming thats whats going on) is deeply anti-objectivist. Thats the kind of Kantian notion of duty that objectivists are directly opposed to. An objectivist says that helping people is cool only if the person doing the helping enjoys it for their own reasons.
I didn't say Superman was an Objectivist, it's Snyder's influence by Objectivism that effects how this is a poor portrayal of being a super-hero that's the issue. He is better at this than his parents, but that bad influence creeps into even his best qualities and makes him a worse person for it. Obligation is probably the wrong word for why this Superman does it, I don't know why he does it what I do know is from what little we've seen him discuss issues like this (This Superman isn't a talker so I find it harder to get into his head) he views it as a burden. Where the obligation comes in it feels like it's on the writer's behalf, as if someone told them "Oh shit, it's Superman. I need to make him be a super-hero" then cavill's Supes does it because he's ordered to off-screen. "Yeah, yeah - I know. I'm Superman. I can't wait until this is over so I can make out with Lois Lane over corpses."
But again, that's just treating objectivism as meaning 'bad stuff '. It's not supported by the film so it's just speculation about the directors hidden corrupt desires.
I kind of like the idea that he’s taught himself not to look because if he looks it’s just neverending, right? You have to know when, as Superman, when to intervene and when not to. Or not when not to, you can’t be everywhere at once, literally you can’t be everywhere at once, so he has to be really selective in a weird way about where he chooses to interfere.
Yea, it's not like Superman is some sort of heroic super man who exceeds the limits of a normal person.
Snyder's idea is interesting. Superman, while super, isn't actually omnipotent. If nothing else, he still needs to eat and sleep. Plus there's the idea that Superman running around fixing everything could make regular people complacent.
Being able to communicate those ideas on screen is a separate issue.
Then honestly, that's the film they should have made instead. That sort of thing was done well in Spiderman 1 and Spiderman 2 and very, very poorly in Spiderman 3, but nothing is more interesting than getting into the head of a superhero (like the Hulk, and Joe Fix-it! and freaking Doc Samson, where are these movies????). There's not enough of that in superhero movies. Batfleck had it in this, buuuuut he had the benefit of taking on the role of a character that has significantly more media exposure. Care about Superman, he's a nice guy!
My favorite scene was the dining room tension from the first Sam Rami Spiderman film. I got goosebumps. I felt like I knew them, and it was fun.
I kind of like the idea that he’s taught himself not to look because if he looks it’s just neverending, right? You have to know when, as Superman, when to intervene and when not to. Or not when not to, you can’t be everywhere at once, literally you can’t be everywhere at once, so he has to be really selective in a weird way about where he chooses to interfere.
Yea, it's not like Superman is some sort of heroic super man who exceeds the limits of a normal person.
Snyder's idea is interesting. Superman, while super, isn't actually omnipotent. If nothing else, he still needs to eat and sleep. Plus there's the idea that Superman running around fixing everything could make regular people complacent.
Being able to communicate those ideas on screen is a separate issue.
There's also the subtler issue that the "Superman running around fixing everything could make regular people complacent" concern is the most cited rationale for Luthor's hatred of Superman. It's funny that the Snyderverse Superman and the DC Comics Luthor would probably get along fine.
+8
Options
Mego Thor"I say thee...NAY!"Registered Userregular
I kind of like the idea that he’s taught himself not to look because if he looks it’s just neverending, right? You have to know when, as Superman, when to intervene and when not to. Or not when not to, you can’t be everywhere at once, literally you can’t be everywhere at once, so he has to be really selective in a weird way about where he chooses to interfere.
Yea, it's not like Superman is some sort of heroic super man who exceeds the limits of a normal person.
Snyder's idea is interesting. Superman, while super, isn't actually omnipotent. If nothing else, he still needs to eat and sleep. Plus there's the idea that Superman running around fixing everything could make regular people complacent.
Being able to communicate those ideas on screen is a separate issue.
That's one of the reasons why Lex Luthor hates Superman. He thinks that if people depend on Superman too much they'll lose their own agency.
I kind of like the idea that he’s taught himself not to look because if he looks it’s just neverending, right? You have to know when, as Superman, when to intervene and when not to. Or not when not to, you can’t be everywhere at once, literally you can’t be everywhere at once, so he has to be really selective in a weird way about where he chooses to interfere.
Yea, it's not like Superman is some sort of heroic super man who exceeds the limits of a normal person.
Snyder's idea is interesting. Superman, while super, isn't actually omnipotent. If nothing else, he still needs to eat and sleep. Plus there's the idea that Superman running around fixing everything could make regular people complacent.
Being able to communicate those ideas on screen is a separate issue.
I feel it's a bit out of genre for Superman. It works well enough for Batman and is completely right for Netflix's Daredevil.
For Snyder's Superman it comes off as disinterest rather than a discussion of the limitation of even extreme physical power.
I don't get why he would do that when he can do it with Batman in a movie called Batman v. Superman. It is like having both cops be rookie cops who don't play by the rules in a buddy cop movie.
I kind of like the idea that he’s taught himself not to look because if he looks it’s just neverending, right? You have to know when, as Superman, when to intervene and when not to. Or not when not to, you can’t be everywhere at once, literally you can’t be everywhere at once, so he has to be really selective in a weird way about where he chooses to interfere.
Yea, it's not like Superman is some sort of heroic super man who exceeds the limits of a normal person.
Snyder's idea is interesting. Superman, while super, isn't actually omnipotent. If nothing else, he still needs to eat and sleep. Plus there's the idea that Superman running around fixing everything could make regular people complacent.
Being able to communicate those ideas on screen is a separate issue.
That's one of the reasons why Lex Luthor hates Superman. He thinks that if people depend on Superman too much they'll lose their own agency.
That's just how Lex rationalizes it to himself.
Yeah, that is just a cop out excuse. No one is going to get complacent if superman is around to save a 747 from falling out of the sky. The people being saved had nothing to do with their situation, the liner is still getting sued if there was negligence/fault. If it was a super villain that caused it, they had no chance to deal with the issue themselves anyway.
I kind of like the idea that he’s taught himself not to look because if he looks it’s just neverending, right? You have to know when, as Superman, when to intervene and when not to. Or not when not to, you can’t be everywhere at once, literally you can’t be everywhere at once, so he has to be really selective in a weird way about where he chooses to interfere.
Yea, it's not like Superman is some sort of heroic super man who exceeds the limits of a normal person.
Snyder's idea is interesting. Superman, while super, isn't actually omnipotent. If nothing else, he still needs to eat and sleep. Plus there's the idea that Superman running around fixing everything could make regular people complacent.
Being able to communicate those ideas on screen is a separate issue.
That's one of the reasons why Lex Luthor hates Superman. He thinks that if people depend on Superman too much they'll lose their own agency.
That's just how Lex rationalizes it to himself.
Yeah, that is just a cop out excuse. No one is going to get complacent if superman is around to save a 747 from falling out of the sky. The people being saved had nothing to do with their situation, the liner is still getting sued if there was negligence/fault. If it was a super villain that caused it, they had no chance to deal with the issue themselves anyway.
To be fair, Lex's stated problems are more big picture than that. It's more that, no matter how much humanity may achieve, it will always be secondary to what Superman can do. The human race could decide to devote their entire energies to reaching the stars, launching a ship into the ether that represented the pinnacle of human achievement.
And when it arrived, Superman would be standing on the ground to make sure they made it okay. After they landed, he'd wave and be back home for lunch.
I kind of like the idea that he’s taught himself not to look because if he looks it’s just neverending, right? You have to know when, as Superman, when to intervene and when not to. Or not when not to, you can’t be everywhere at once, literally you can’t be everywhere at once, so he has to be really selective in a weird way about where he chooses to interfere.
Yea, it's not like Superman is some sort of heroic super man who exceeds the limits of a normal person.
Snyder's idea is interesting. Superman, while super, isn't actually omnipotent. If nothing else, he still needs to eat and sleep. Plus there's the idea that Superman running around fixing everything could make regular people complacent.
Being able to communicate those ideas on screen is a separate issue.
That's one of the reasons why Lex Luthor hates Superman. He thinks that if people depend on Superman too much they'll lose their own agency.
That's just how Lex rationalizes it to himself.
Yeah, that is just a cop out excuse. No one is going to get complacent if superman is around to save a 747 from falling out of the sky. The people being saved had nothing to do with their situation, the liner is still getting sued if their was negligence/fault. If it was a super villain that caused it, they had no chance to deal with the issue themselves anyway.
Snyder really agrees with Lex Luthor.
“There’s a fun conversation — we filmed it, it’s not in the cut — but there’s a conversation when [Superman] saves the girl from the garment factory, we had a line where a guy goes, but now all the garment factory owners, they’re not concerned with safety because they just figure Superman will show up to save them if the building catches on fire,” the director says. “It’s sort of a catch-22 to being the ex machina, being the hand of God: the hand of God can’t be everywhere the same time. You’re headed for a fall.”
Which doesn't make a ton of sense because Snyder points out why Superman wouldn't necessarily make people complacent. Superman can't be everywhere at once and a lot of those disasters will kill people before Superman knows anything about them.
Posts
Weirdly I found B vs S better written than MoS. Goyer didn't write the screenplay, he was only involved in the outline. It'd have been worse if he was the one writing it, so we got off lucky there. I thought B vs S was both better and worse in various parts than MoS. Embracing the grimderp tone helped it as well, rather than making it dull. And it had more characters that I either liked or were entertaining to watch. The best examples were Batman, Alfred and WW. I liked how they made not! female Jenny Olsen and that female assistant to the US general into minor characters too.
I think my biggest complaint is that this was Warner obviously not wanting to take their time to actually build their DC Universe in the way Marvel (accidentally) did. How many movies did we have before Marvel and Disney felt comfortable making Avengers? How many fucking duds has Warner had? The public does not buy their non-Nolan treatment of these characters and why should they?
It's just frustrating. I honestly left the theater shaking my head. What a trainwreck.
One. They made Iron Man and decided to take a risk on building an overall universe. Hence the Colonel Fury tag at the end.
However, if you think pre-MARVEL Studios matters, the answer is twenty-one. And Blade, Spider-Man, and X-Men count for nine of those. But really, none of those twenty-one films were intended to start a whole connected universe.
If Iron Man had failed, then they don't lose out on much because nothing else had mattered up until then. And if Avengers had failed, then they probably still had the individual movies anyway. But the greatest difference, at the end of the day, was MARVEL decided to build the world first and give Avengers a shot.
DC/WB tried that first with Green Lantern. When that failed, they tried again with MoS. It came out a year after Avengers and when it didn't totally suck green and yellow balls, they dove right in and decided to just rush into Justice League as quickly as possible.
Honestly, I believe Marvel/Disney and to some extent Paramount had the greatest success in the fact that they were able to quickly course correct themselves at any stage of production to suit the direction audiences wanted. This is partly due to having several smaller productions rather than trying to get these massive tentpole films through at the start giving them a foundation to work from.
The best example really is how people disliked Iron Man 2 for putting the nods and winks to the upcoming Avengers over the actual story, so the rest of the films suddenly had scaling back on these references and could act as standalone films.
I had the exact same thought about Green Lantern while it was on TV the other day. Green Lantern nailed the looks of all the characters, but WB crammed way, way too much into it. They should have tentatively planned on it to be a trilogy; with the first movie as a simple origin story with Hal learning to use his ring while fighting Earth-based baddies, and ending with a post-credit stinger where he meets Sinestro (who is still a green lantern). Second movie introduces the Corps, and Sinestro falls while fighting a cosmic menace. Third movie is Parallax war.
If they had gone with something like that, then we'd probably already have a Justice League movie with Ryan Reynolds as GL.
Doing the right thing "purely out of obligation, not because you want to" (assuming thats whats going on) is deeply anti-objectivist. Thats the kind of Kantian notion of duty that objectivists are directly opposed to. An objectivist says that helping people is cool only if the person doing the helping enjoys it for their own reasons.
Yeah but then we wouldn't have deadpool.
Worth it imo.
This is precisely right.
Acting based on obligation isn't in any sense Objectivist. A Kantian acts only for the sake of duty, regardless of feelings. I guess it would be nice to also enjoy doing your duty, but enjoyment is morally irrelevant.
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
I'd sacrifice 'Pool for a DCCU as good as the Marvel movies.
- Terminator
- Looney Tunes
- Charlie & the Chocolate Factory
- DC Comics
- TNMT
- I Am Legend
- The Hobbit
- 300
Just their DC brand alone has seen the release of Catwoman, Jonah Hex, Superman Returns, Constantine (both the movie and failed TV show), Green Lantern, and now this Snyder debacle.
If the property wasn't in the hands of a legit auteur or cabal of creative partners (Chris Nolan, Tim Burton, the Harry Potter team), they have time and time again screwed the pooch on these brands.
If you want an objectivist superhero your best bet would be Iron Man 2, Starks declaration that the government can't take his suit as it would be tantamount to slavery since there is no division between his intellectual property and his person is about straight up Randian as you can get for a superhero short of being Mr A.
Which would explain why they backed off that for MoS and BvS.
TMNT has been Viacom-owned since 2012. Unless the misspelled acronym means a different franchise.
It's really Warner cinematic that is off-kilter. Their TV and animation outfits have a good batting average.
I 100% agree that WB has no idea what they're doing with DC comics, but the Constantine TV show was really good. It was a hard sell for network television, though. Would have fared better on a smaller, "edgier" channel.
It would have been so goddamn easy to do a much better slow burn of Batman and Superman disliking each other's methods, and then Luthor manipulating things behind the scenes to bring things to a head. Like rigging something so it looks like Superman needlessly killed a high-profile person in peril, or that Batman's quest for justice caused a psychopath to get loose and cause havoc. (Might be a good way to squeeze in a minor Batman baddie too.) Give them true motivation behind all that scowling. Hell, also give them the sudden realization that this philanthropist they trusted was the real monster all along. Be a nice excuse to examine, compare and contrast the big two as well.
But noooo, we had to have all those bore-ass politics and Jimmy Olsen shot in the face and that jar of piss that was supposed to be dramatic somehow and Marsha Marsha Marsha and stuff.
I'll agree in that a street-level series about demons probably has no business being on a broadcast channel.
AMC that business, mang
Team Fortress 2 Backpack: Someone you love
I didn't say Superman was an Objectivist, it's Snyder's influence by Objectivism that effects how this is a poor portrayal of being a super-hero that's the issue. He is better at this than his parents, but that bad influence creeps into even his best qualities and makes him a worse person for it. Obligation is probably the wrong word for why this Superman does it, I don't know why he does it what I do know is from what little we've seen him discuss issues like this (This Superman isn't a talker so I find it harder to get into his head) he views it as a burden. Where the obligation comes in it feels like it's on the writer's behalf, as if someone told them "Oh shit, it's Superman. I need to make him be a super-hero" then cavill's Supes does it because he's ordered to off-screen. "Yeah, yeah - I know. I'm Superman. I can't wait until this is over so I can make out with Lois Lane over corpses."
Justice League versus Justice Lords could be pretty good.
Yea, it's not like Superman is some sort of heroic super man who exceeds the limits of a normal person.
Snyder's idea is interesting. Superman, while super, isn't actually omnipotent. If nothing else, he still needs to eat and sleep. Plus there's the idea that Superman running around fixing everything could make regular people complacent.
Being able to communicate those ideas on screen is a separate issue.
That should be an eternal source of despair to Superman that he cannot do more, not a tactical decision to triage events so that he can spend more time brooding.
I feel it's a bit out of genre for Superman. It works well enough for Batman and is completely right for Netflix's Daredevil.
For Snyder's Superman it comes off as disinterest rather than a discussion of the limitation of even extreme physical power.
That feeling of sadness and despair is actually why Superman forms the Justice League.
It's not a surprise that this nuance is lost on Snyder and why he did what he did.
That's one of the reasons why Lex Luthor hates Superman. He thinks that if people depend on Superman too much they'll lose their own agency.
Also, Superman being so powerful and still not being able to save everyone has been explored many times before. That's the whole point of Jonathan Kent dying in the Donner Superman. Superman feels a great deal of guilt over the fact that even though he has so much power, he wasn't able to save someone who was so close to him.
yeah he looked like he was bored or hated doing it
"I can't believe you fucks are making me pull this thing around, where's the helicopter to rescue them?"
While their are some parts of this I disagree with (I consider watchmen to be fine, but I haven't read the Novel) He really is nailing Most of my feelings regarding Zack.
But again, that's just treating objectivism as meaning 'bad stuff '. It's not supported by the film so it's just speculation about the directors hidden corrupt desires.
Then honestly, that's the film they should have made instead. That sort of thing was done well in Spiderman 1 and Spiderman 2 and very, very poorly in Spiderman 3, but nothing is more interesting than getting into the head of a superhero (like the Hulk, and Joe Fix-it! and freaking Doc Samson, where are these movies????). There's not enough of that in superhero movies. Batfleck had it in this, buuuuut he had the benefit of taking on the role of a character that has significantly more media exposure. Care about Superman, he's a nice guy!
My favorite scene was the dining room tension from the first Sam Rami Spiderman film. I got goosebumps. I felt like I knew them, and it was fun.
Team Fortress 2 Backpack: Someone you love
There's also the subtler issue that the "Superman running around fixing everything could make regular people complacent" concern is the most cited rationale for Luthor's hatred of Superman. It's funny that the Snyderverse Superman and the DC Comics Luthor would probably get along fine.
That's just how Lex rationalizes it to himself.
I don't get why he would do that when he can do it with Batman in a movie called Batman v. Superman. It is like having both cops be rookie cops who don't play by the rules in a buddy cop movie.
Yeah, that is just a cop out excuse. No one is going to get complacent if superman is around to save a 747 from falling out of the sky. The people being saved had nothing to do with their situation, the liner is still getting sued if there was negligence/fault. If it was a super villain that caused it, they had no chance to deal with the issue themselves anyway.
To be fair, Lex's stated problems are more big picture than that. It's more that, no matter how much humanity may achieve, it will always be secondary to what Superman can do. The human race could decide to devote their entire energies to reaching the stars, launching a ship into the ether that represented the pinnacle of human achievement.
And when it arrived, Superman would be standing on the ground to make sure they made it okay. After they landed, he'd wave and be back home for lunch.
All of which does genuinely tick Lex off.
Fun!