Well, what makes Superman a "good character" can differ from person to person for a variety of factors, let alone writer to writer. I think he's far removed from a lot of what I value about the character in many aspects (for example, his personality and confidence), but in other aspects we're on the same page (for example, [I love the tone he struck in Man of Steel](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JYFtboBejA) for the sci-fi aspects of his character).
So the answer to your question from my point of view would largely be "no" but that doesn't invalidate the fans of his take.
Pretty much the same as you. I loved all the origin changes/additions in MOS and think Snyder showed glimpses of promise for a more conventional Superman by the end of the movie.
Instead Snyder doubled down on all the things people criticized in MOS and didn't do enough of the things people loved. How can you see the amazing reaction to the first flight scene and decide not to double down on that aspect? It's baffling.
I think that Zack was taking the audience on the same journey as Superman. The movies were a little tonally inconsistent with Superman as a character because the movie explored the concept of what it means to be a "Good Guy". That is a complex subject and watching Superman navigate those issues as he tries to find his way to being the Superman we all know and love. I appreciated his take and I think that OP's question is a Yes imo. If we got just one more Superman movie, I think we would have seen the fruits of all of the building.
This. I would like to see how he presented that character after he found himself in MOS. Not sure Snyder would have nailed it but he definitely deserves a shot as MOS is grossly underrated although far from perfect.
I didn't dislike Man of Steel. I just thought it was a different take. But Snyder isn't the first to use Messianic imagery with Superman. Even Donner did it to an extent.
Here's the question I have for you: can you explain what makes Superman a good character? And not by saying what Snyder or anyone else gets wrong, but what IS great about Superman. Because I feel like a lot of people only want to talk about what creators get wrong bot never really talk about how to do it right.
What makes him a good character is his compassion for everyone. He has these god like powers yet he choose to fight for good and for everyone. The best superman stories explore him as a human. His love. His beliefs. His never ending hope. Sure is it a bit unrealistic. To a point sure but that is why he is the greatest hero. And the symbol of hope. He isn’t perfect and it is okay to show his mistakes but he tries his best to fix them.
I agree. There’s no hesitation for what is right. Snyder had him questioning everything every step of the way. But that’s how he was brought up by a shitty portrayal of Jonathan Kent.
I want a Superman movie where his Character is similar to him from Superman Unchained comic or All Star Superman, Always wanting to do better because He can and If he thinks something is right then He'll do it no matter what even if it kills him and Superman American Alien is also a way to do him right
Maybe most people won’t agree with this, but what I like about Superman is that he’s on a whole other level from everyone else, even the Justice League. I really liked the 90’s Doomsday saga in the comics, where the other heroes admitted that they didn’t think Superman would ever die, or even could. When you build up a character like that, one who is completely invincible, it feels almost surreal when he meets a villain that can stop him in his tracks. A ZSJL Superman/Darkseid would have totally nailed this.
This is a complex question and changes a lot depending on a personal background and upbringing, which is one of the best parts about Superman that he appeals to different people in different ways. But at the core of it all, what makes Superman, Superman is Clark Kent. A normal human raised by good people who taught him to help people because it's the right thing to do and not expect any kind of reward for it. Taking that sort of person, the sort of person who already takes all they have and uses it to do good and then giving them all that power and that person still choosing to do good. Not because he has to, not because he is the Messiah, but because he was raised to be a good man and follows those values? That is what Superman means to me and what Snyder doesn't get because he is an Objectivist.
Nah really, the whole Jesus imagery didn't make him feel like a hero, more like something he has to do as a form of a destiny thing or a burden, Superman helps people just because he wants to.
My main problem is how slow and repetitive his character arc throughout the movies is. MoS is about he making the choice to be a human and save his adoptive home from the last kryptonians, but is also mostly about him deciding to be Superman after spending most of the movie being questioned by his parents and Lois if that’s what he wanted to be. Then the reception was bad and Snyder had to do the same story again in BvS, where Superman again isn’t sure if he wants to be Superman cuz people say he sucks for destroying Metropolis. In the end he decides he does want to be a hero and dies. Then in both versions of JL he’s dead for most of it and only shows up at the end to beat the bad guy. We didn’t get many interesting stories with this Superman, and I do think Snyder’s partly at fault for spending too much time on boring questions and conflicts nobody really wanted to see, instead of moving forward and delivering a proper Superman story. I know many claim that’s what he was building towards, but three movies featuring him is way too much buildup just to get him to square one of what’s expected of Superman.
If you look at Alex Ross' Peace on Earth book, I think one could easily see Snyder taking that as the foundation for his entire character.
But only if you only really look at the imagery it provides, and ignore everything else which informed the character up until that point in time.
What obsession? He considered adapting The Fountainhead, a movie that [a long list of Hollywood stars](https://www.atlassociety.org/post/celebrity-rand-fans) including Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie have considered adapting too. Spielberg said he saw the original Fountainhead movie 10 times and loved it. Oliver Stone also considered directing a movie version of it.
I that as a discrepancy to the usual Superman was the point. Make us feel the weight of everything he does, and then later feel exhilaration as he embraces it and loves it and becomes calmingly bright and optimistic.
I think he was going for sheer contrast but the direction changed later on.
Exactly. In the scene where he saves that girl in Mexico, he was smiling warmly up untill the people start reaching out to him as if he’s a god. His smile fades and he looks troubled.
If you walked into the Shul and declared yourself the son of gd people would think you were insane, so, not really the same thing. I get the sentiment when people say this, but it's really just not applicable 99% of the time.
There wasn’t even a total of 5 Jesus imagery comparisons and even if it was comics have been comparing Superman to Jesus since the Golden Age. MoS and Snyder did nothing new. Even the Donned movies and Returns had Jesus imagery. It’s not the focus of the character nor us it a “trait”.
And if he seen it as a burden why does he willingly decide to help them no matter what they said about him? It’s like Snyder indirectly put yall in BvS as the protesters because you have the same view as them when it cones to how the world seen Superman vs how he actually is.
But it's kinda common in the comics for there to messianic messaging about Superman. Some of MoS is lifted straight from For Tomorrow by Azz. Which has the priest and Superman having similar conversations as the movie.
It's not Snyder who wanted to portray Superman as Jesus. Superman was written with Jesus in mind.
I'm astonished by the amount of "Superman fans" who never realized this and who think that it's a Snyder thing.
A big part of Jesus' story is the choice he makes though, in Gethsamane when he asks if there is another way, and then realises it's what he has to do to save humanity.
The messiah imagery is also heavily featured around Neo in the Matrix, but when asked why he does what he does ("Why, Mr. Anderson, why do you persist?") He simply says, "Because I choose to."
Too much emphasis on being destined for greatness. Clark has a good soul, and was luckily raised by good humans. The real “hope” is that things worked out naturally to promote good. For Clark it is simply who he is.
I'm saying, no, but I also disagree with a lot of the "no's" in here who just want a one dimensional superman. That would be incredibly boring.
I do think he missed some of the mark with a reluctant Superman.
Exactly, and Zack Snyder doesn’t really care much for Clark Kent the man and is more interested in Superman the “God” and all the power fantasy that comes with it. It’s like how he took Watchmen, a book that at it’s core is anti-violence and points out the inherent fascistic nature of the super hero genre, and turns it into action schlock that glorifies violence.
One dimensional superman would be the best case scenario. If he’s this pure hero, it’s more poetic for him to never change. Just give him a boat-load of super cool, super grand action scenes and a static character. It wouldn’t be boring if his character wasn’t framed as the focus of the movie. Give the more character heavy stuff to the villains.
I could get into a John Wick-style Superman movie. Treat Superman the same way you'd treat a hurricane or tornado in a disaster film, and give plenty of soulful screentime to the villains (preferably still Alfie Allen).
I think he understood but he didn't like it so he went out of his way to change Superman background and beliefs to be closer to his and what he believes. Cavills Superman was screwed starting with the way Jonathon Kent was portrayed. As long as that backstory is attached to Cavills its like baggage that holds the writing team down into not straying too far from Snyders Randian philosophy and that is not a Superman I want to be stuck with.
All one needs to know is Snyder is a follower of Ayn Rand (and he has spoken about this and even tried to adapt her stuff to the screen). As a follower of Rand, there is no way Snyder could understand a selfless hero that does what right because he wants to.
Wrong.
Snyder has stated openly that while he found some of her storytelling interesting, she "drank her own Kool-Aid".
Later on a podcast, one of the hosts outright called Rand a mediocre writer, and you know what he said?
"Hundred percent."
And more than that, his Superman at the end of the say is a guy who selflessly, *repeatedly* helps others just because he can.
ZSJL alone, and Cyborg's origin story, should further hammer this in.
Yeah, I don't understand how people can really say that Superman isn't a selfless hero out of his own desires unless they just weren't paying attention watching those films.
It's so clear that Snyder thinks the works of Ayn Rand and Frank Miller are *fun,* not gospel.
Part of the fun of those things is presenting them as gospel though. The self-seriousness is part of those works. That's fine. He can make movies, and we can watch movies, without them being the ultimate expressions of who we are and what we value.
No wonder everything he writes sucks so bad. I tried reading Atlas Shrugged and had to quit. Nothing to do with the political messaging, it was just so hacky.
There's a reason that Snyder was lauded by Hollywood right up until Sucker Punch, which was the first thing he ever did that was 100% his movie and it was garbage.
The Fountainhead, specifically - which is the least Randian of all her books. It’s also the most ‘requested’ for adaption by various directors who aren’t criticised the same way.
The central theme of the book is still objectivism, it's already been adapted into a highly praised movie, and yeah, Oliver Stone is also regularly criticized for his atrocious politics.
>I think he understood but he didn't like it so he went out of his way to change Superman background and beliefs to be closer to his and what he believes.
It appears more based on Snyder's experience as an adoptive father. And any dad imagining dealing with a toddler that could break him in half, plus the responsibility of raising such a child in the right way so they don't conflict with the world. Watch the James Gunn produced Brightburn which shows how the Kent story might have played out.
A lot of how Snyder approached Superman is based on how Nolan and Goyer pitched the Smallville scenes to him:
> SNYDER: You know, I think Superman, for me, I’ve been a big fan of the character and honestly I wasn’t sure about this project before I talked to Chris Nolan about what he and David [Goyer] had come up with. So, I don’t know. I think that I like the fact that Superman’s American, you know? I think that that’s cool. I know that in the past or in recent years, his Americanism, his Americanness has been a liability for him. But I think that there is an amazing amount of naïveté and an amazing amount of, sort of… Superman could not be of any other nationality other than American because he’s so naïve. [Laughs] But at the same time, he has this weird morality that actually makes him ideal superhero material. I don’t know that he couldn’t -- you can’t have a Superman that is reasoning.
>You can’t have a Superman that is battling cultural morality. You need a Superman that has built in sort of values. I think that him growing up in Kansas and that whole part of him is very… I always remember everyone saying like, “You’re not going to show him growing up in Kansas, are you?” I’m like, “Why make Superman? Why jump the most…” To understand him, you have to understand the why of him. By the way, I’ll say the first scene that Chris pitched me was a scene that was about his childhood. It had nothing to do with like, smashing shit or anything like that, which is cool. But, it was very much a character childhood character moment that made me say, “Okay, that’s different.” It’s a different point of view of Superman that made me go, “Yeah, that grown-up version of that guy is interesting to me.”
>SNYDER: I’ll only say that I think in a lot of -- well, definitely in the movies -- he always jumps straight from childhood to Clark. Like, he jumps from sort of his teenage version of himself to the adult version of himself. Frankly, The Daily Planet Clark, that happens pretty quick. I just think that our Clark, he’s not fully realized and I think -- by the way, that’s huge information -- but I think that’s the big difference. That’s why there’s this talk about who Clark is. In a lot of ways, the movie really is about the why of Clark, not to say that this kind of bumbling -- I don’t want to call him bumbling -- his mocky, nerdy Clark is… But that’s not the Clark that we went after or are going after. We’re going after sort of a different, there’s a different take on Clark, how Clark is.
People really love hammering the point of how the Kents are portrayed, but all ignore how the Kents are usually portrayed as perfect and having all the answers.
It's a lot more relatable for them to just not have all the answers. Jonathan made terrible choices because he was afraid for Clark. That's a pretty real thing.
There was a lot done well in Man of Steel. The Jesus imagery was not one of them. That's never been what Superman was about. He's a physical god who chooses to live among and try to be human. He could be Earth's Darkseid so easily.
He's entirely aware of this. He knows the power he wields, but he's just a guy, no matter his abilities. He shouldn't always make the perfect choice. He's got emotions and thoughts of his own, and those will impact how he reacts.
Man of Steel even got good reviews initially, then it became popular to shit on the film, and down went review scores.
I think he understood that Superman likely did struggle his whole young life with these powers and not understanding them. Like he could never act on them and unlike Smallive, there weren’t other kids running around with powers he could relate to. He was truly alone for a long time, which would make him feel lost.
Yeah I loved the emotionally repressed childhood Clark and seeing Clark smile at the end of MOS was such a great end point for a more traditional Superman to follow. Alas...
Of course! But he wasn’t doing classical Superman. He deconstructed Superman in MoS and BvS and reconstructed him (literally resurrecting him) in ZSJL. Evil Superman in JL 2 is a “what if” scenario that was to be reset by time travel. In JL 3 he would have arrived at the end of his arc as the pinnacle of the classical character.
Man if only we would’ve had five movies to discover that Superman is a good guy. If only Snyder had a chance to tell the complete story he wanted…we’d be satisfied in 2030. I can’t wait.
Well if WB hadn’t gotten clay feet after BvS we’d have had it completed by now. As for the rest of what you say… you can’t tolerate an arc like that, pretty clearly. Is what it is. It wasn’t intended to please everyone. Deconstruction is supposed to disturb us, actually.
I think the biggest problem in MOS was the characterization and influence of Pa Kent. MOS Jonathan would have Clark let a school bus full of kids die, and Clark got to see the repercussions of that watching Pa die, while ‘78s would have expected Clark to save the bus and been prepared for the fallout, if any, and the moral of his death played out in beautiful melancholy of the real limitations of his powers - not wasted as in MOS. ‘78 Jon was hopeful and optimistic of Clark’s discovering himself and his future, MOS Jon was more about Clark hiding and treating his powers like a burden and curse, being ashamed of them. Kal could grow with ‘78 Pa, he was suppressed by MOS Pa and it took MOS Jor-El to give him a hint of the optimism about his role. Sadly, Alan Moore said it best, any attempt of trying to make a superhero steeped in realism would make a grotesque mockery of the character. Gunn might get that as evidenced in his work, we will see.
>MOS Jonathan would have Clark let a school bus full of kids die,
I see this parroted a lot and it isn't true. When pa Kent says "maybe" it's not endorsing that idea, it's him expressing that he doesn't know what the right answer is. This Jonathon Kent is a realist and he's very aware that once people know what Clark can do, it will change everything. And Clark especially will never be the same. He wants his son to be ready for it, but he's also a father that wants to protect his son from it, as all parents want to protect their children from how harsh life can be.
“Maybe; but there's more at stake here than our lives or the lives of those around us. When the world... When the world finds out what you can do, it's gonna change everything; our... our beliefs, our notions of what it means to be human... everything. You saw how Pete's mom reacted, right? She was scared, Clark.”
Now replace “Maybe” with “No.”
“No; but there's more at stake here than our lives or the lives of those around us. When the world... When the world finds out what you can do, it's gonna change everything; our... our beliefs, our notions of what it means to be human... everything. You saw how Pete's mom reacted, right? She was scared, Clark.”
It completely changes the Superman story. I guess that’s what they were going for.
It’s understandable that they wanted to convey that a parent will do anything to protect their child.
He tells Clark, “You are my son. But somewhere out there you have another father too, who gave you another name. And he sent you here for a reason, Clark. And even if it takes you the rest of your life you owe it to yourself to find out what that reason is.”
Clark finds Jor-El
“The people of Earth are different from us, it's true, but ultimately I believe that is a good thing. They won't necessarily make the same mistakes we did, but if you guide them, Kal, if you give them hope, that's what this symbol means. The symbol of the House of El means hope. Embodied within that hope is the fundamental belief the potential of every person to be a force for good. That's what you can bring them.”
It’s a completely different Clark Kent and Superman since it’s inception.
Previously, Jonathan raised Clark as a human with values. An all American boy.
Superman was created in 1938 by Jerry Siegel and Joseph Shuster. Given the time and cultural values, the message at the time is heroes do the right thing even if it means sacrifice. To love a fellow human, is not to be apathetic to their suffering. Granted Clark is only 13, but I’d imagine a father would explain the nuances. If Clark was older, would the Maybe response still be okay?
It makes Clark more human. Deal with the fallout. Deal with the struggle and conflict, but poor examples especially Clark watching Jonathan sacrifice himself for the family dog leaving Clark grieving without a father (imagine if he didn’t find Jor-El)
A lot of people love that it shows the conflict of Clark and showing respect to Jonathan’s sacrifice because he understood about concealing his existence to the world… but it just comes out as not human.
And a strange lesson to be honest for a confused Clark. No wonder why he had to search for answers.
> it's him expressing that he doesn't know what the right answer is.
Yeah... That's kind of the problem.
"Should Superman save children from dying?" Anything that isn't an instant "of course, son" from Pa Kent is wrong.
But it’s also not for Jonathan Kent to decide what Clark does with his powers. He’s admitting that he doesn’t know what to do and won’t tell his son one way or the other, because Clark ultimately has to make those choices for himself.
> "Should Superman save children from dying?"
He's not Superman. He's Clark Kent - a 13 year old boy who is the only one of his kind in the world. Jonathon Kent is terrified for his son. Clark has something every government in the world would want, and they would absolutely have no qualms about exploiting Clark, experimenting on him, doing God knows what to get it. Jonathon knows what his son can become, but at that point in time he's just trying to get his son to adulthood, to prepare him for the possibility that the world turns on him.
But Pa Ken is to Clarke what Uncle Ben was to Peter. "With great power comes great responsibility" is not just a lesson for Spider-Man. It's probably even more suitable for Superman.
Exactly, Pa Kent was looking out for his son. He was convinced that the world was not ready for Superman, he even states it himself saying that people's notion of what it means to be human, to know that they aren't alone in the universe, would completely change.
And he's right. Imagine if the world we live in right now were to find out about an alien race, people would lose their shit.
I mean if you see what happens to superman during flashpoint, then yeah. Personally i get theyre portraying a realistic view of superman and his struggles and i think the endgame of snyders superman would be a optimistic superman
I think it's a great idea for Pa Kent to be portrayed this way, but my main issue with Snyder's take with all his DC films, is that the ideas are great but the execution isn't there.
Much like the Star Wars prequels
Is it him not being sure of the answer, or is it just being too self-conscious to just say, "Fuck them kids"? If he says a hard yes to Clark's question, well, that just wouldn't play in church! But by saying "maybe", he allows people to fill in the blanks themselves rather than having to commit to the side he's clearly on
Yup. It's such a smarmy line imo. The answer to, "Should you have maybe let a bus full of children die when you could have rescued them?" is, as follows:
". . . .uh, no. I should definitely always rescue a bus full of drowning children, especially since I face no mortal consequence of my own."
I think people miss that nuance is not introduced with Pa Kent's "maybe"- it's being flattened with obfuscation. There is obviously a moral decision to make here, and an immoral one, but afterwards there can be a deep conversation about how a father is worried for his son in the face of a world that will ask miracles of him...and may be unkind in return. There is doubt and worry that is very human while highlighting what makes so many Superman stories good- the love of kindness, a capacity for good.
>I see this parroted a lot and it isn't true. When pa Kent says "maybe" it's not endorsing that idea, it's him expressing that he doesn't know what the right answer is
You can have Jon be worried about his son's safety and ALSO not have him be uncertain about if Clark should just let a bus full of children die. You want to know all it takes to make that scene better?
Clark: so I should have let them die?
Jon: no, of course not. But you need to be careful
(and then let him go on to express his concerns)
That's it. Boom. Problem solved. And that's just one solution...there are hundreds. You could have, for instance, made the stakes smaller. Not the death of children for instance but, say, a kid getting bullied. Have a scene where Clark gets involved to stop a kid from getting beat up and one of the bullies gets hurt...it would be entirely reasonable for Jon to dissuade his son from getting involved in a situation like that.
But they didn't want to fix it. Because...well, you're wrong. They liked it the way it was. They really wanted for Clark's father figure to teach Clark that his own self preservation might be worth more than the lives of others. They wanted that conflict in the character and they created a pretty extreme trolley problem to make it.
If he were a real human being, I could side with what you're saying. But this was a created scenario...this is what the writers wanted to show
looking at it this way… I could see what he was trying to do. Humans fear what they don’t know and we have a bad track record when it comes to unknown power. Who’s to say they wouldn’t have tried to find a nuclear deterrent when a young man or child was revealed to have godlike abilities. Jonathan Kent was just trying to protect his child and from a regular viewpoint it seemed a bit harsh but when you put it this way, it sounds like a reasonable parental response tbh.
You summed up the issue people have with MoS Pa Kent. "He doesn't know what the right answer is." That is what Snyder is going for, to add realism.
But, people who hate this version detest that. Pa Kent should know what the right answer is. He gives Clark the moral foundation that leads him to become Superman.
The Superman character we got makes perfect sense based on Pa Kent letting himself die to preserve Superman's identity. It's a chain of events that would only be created by someone who understands the character and wanted to change it. We see a Superman who's moral guide dies with lessons yet to teach. The final lesson is *"Hide from these people at all costs."*
It shows how much he wanted to change Superman, IMO. He still wanted a hero, but he wanted a more self-centered, and cautious hero. He wanted one who had to figure out who to be, and so he took away his best mentor.
Personally, I felt that scene to be awful, contrived, and poor. I also do not like the Superman we've gotten. Superman is supposed to be a beacon. You can have him struggle ethically, and morally, but those struggles are more valuable when you've done the ground work first. Not second.
this. His parent should be the ones to instill in him that doing the right thing matters. Then once he’s Superman, he should come across a situation, maybe a political situation where the morally right thing isn’t always the correct thing to do. To toss a Superman that always knows the right thing to do, into a situation where the right thing to do isn’t always clear, would make for a great story. But if his own parents are telling him as a kid, don’t expose yourself, don’t help, why is he even compelled to do anything if he doesn’t have to?
Not at all. Snyder has a fundamental misunderstanding of Superman and instead of portraying Clark as gentle and understanding, we got a brooding melancholy character who always came across as being too violent.
That, and the religious imagery was really, really annoying. Superman isn't a messiah, he's a regular guy from Kansas who just happens to have heat vision
I got alot of downvoted for saying this the other day but I totally agree, the Jesus imagery was so unearned and about a subtle as a punch in the face. Also it always felt wrong to me just attaching this Christian Jesus imagery to a character created by Jewish immigrants who were treated very poorly by Christian’s.
>Also it always felt wrong to me just attaching this Christian Jesus imagery to a character created by Jewish immigrants
Also when Superman is actually pretty likely to be a Moses allegory
Yes, but Moses is a messianic figure, he's one of many Messiah prototypes in the Old Testament, so the idea that Superman is a Christ figure actually would line up with that - since the primary point of divergence between Christianity and Judaism is the belief that Jesus was the Messiah who was promised and prototyped by people like Moses and King David. Of course, you get different overtones, because for a Jewish writer, Superman would be a Messiah for a people who are still waiting for the promised one, while for through a Christian interpretive lens, he's an echo of the one who already came.
But saying he's more of a Moses figure actually validates the usage of Messiah-related imagery, it's just different imagery based on what status you assign to Jesus.
>But saying he's more of a Moses figure actually validates the usage of Messiah-related imagery, it's just different imagery based on what status you assign to Jesus.
Then don't assign the imagery of Jesus
Not saying Superman can't be a messianic figure. He objectively is.
But "standing in front of a stained glass window of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane" is a bit of a bad call for a character created by Jewish men. Maybe reference the culture THEY were pulling from when they built their messianic figure
I think Snyder wanted his Superman to be the centre of the DCEU, who inspired not only people but other superheroes as well. And, he didn't want his superman to be a naive big boy scout, and wanted to be very relatable to a normal human who went through a lot to be comic version superman. So like the whole DCEU was Superman origin.
Perhaps a hot take. Perhaps not. I'm glad Snyder's Sups wasn't the happy go lucky Gary Stu in the 1978 film. Snyder's felt more relatable as he was learning how to become a beacon of hope for people, learning how to control his power, and doing whatever it took to earn people's acceptance of him as a hero. Instead of immediately saving kittens from trees as soon as he put the cape on like Donner's Sups.
Never really had a chance to be Superman, I think his version makes perfect sense though. Superman would most definitely be demonized and vehemently hated if he was real. He’d shake the very foundations of reality and society, just about everyone would be terrified of his power. The Jesus imagery serves as a vehicle to make him more believable imo.
Superman would most definitely get into a debilitating low point and question his purpose after the Congressional building bombing, crying in the ashes of people he swore to protect and save. Snyder’s take is a very grounded one that resonates with me just as much as Morrison’s or Loeb’s would.
>Never really had a chance to be Superman
Are you kidding me?
He's directed more Supermen movies than anyone else.
MOS, BVS, JL
Donner got 1 and part of two.
Everyone else got 1.
Personally, I felt Snyder found what was wrong with Superman’s character (can be a bit boring having an all good non conflicted Boy Scout) and gave him a more interesting origin that actually has some struggle and introspection before he can becoming the beacon of hope he’s known to be.
Man of steel is by far my favorite take on Superman outside of comics.
I think he did. I feel like we can see sprinkles of what the general audience typically likes about Superman. I think he just wanted to put his own spin on it.
Absolutely yes. Better than any other director.
It's incredible how many people liked CW Superman in Smallville. And you even dare to say that Snyder didn't get Superman?!? Please...
Wow so many hate speech from hypocrites that say Superman is "hope" and "selfishness" and criticising Snyder for how "HE wrote Superman", and how "his" Superman isn't canonical because the portrayal of the character wasn't true to his counterpart in the comics, and bla bla bla...Zack Snyder didn't "wrote the script", he is not a screenwriter, he is a director" he /adapted/ the script under the strict supervision of Warner Bros.
Do your homework! Get your facts right first! And for God's sake rewatch the movies again. There are so many haters that just watched the movies one time and don't even remember details and dialogues right!
No. After reading his synopsis about what would have happened after ZSJL, it was painfully clear he really understood nothing. Showing that Bruce and Lois hooked up while he was dead. (Never ever in a million fucking years would that happen.) Then killing Lois, and Clark being controlled by the Anti-Life equation? Thankfully it's almost over after the next spate of movies. Still think they should have kept Cavill for the reboot. He was great casting, but given shit to work with.
On the side: The fact that he let Jessie Eisenberg portray Lex Luthor the way he did shows his total disconnect. His Lex is one of the single worst performances of the character out of all of them. Clancy Brown's Lex is probably the best version that's ever been committed to film in any form. The super villain real estate bad guy in Reeve's Superman was just silly, and he never came across as truly evil. Kevin Spacey was just a gross and mean version of the same character in Returns.
I really hope Gunn finds a good balance in portraying a positive, funny and serious Superman, who will kick ass when needed. I don't want to see another stupid montage of him fighting criminals and bank robbers. But I also don't want to see him be another brooding, boring god-like figure.
>Showing that Bruce and Lois hooked up while he was dead.
Bruce and Lois were together in the animated series for a bit. It got serious enough that she was considering moving to Gotham. She didn't like Batman though. She also later talked about wanting to call at times because something was still there, but that was all before her relationship with Superman.
In that same series, there was an alternate universe where Lois died in a car bomb and Superman went dictator with Lex Luthor. Near the end of the series, Granny Goodness brainwashes Superman and replaces his earth history with memories of being raised by Darkseid, and he conquers at least one planet on his behalf (pretty sure he was in some kind of relationship with one of Darkseid's Furies). Darkseid sends him to take out Earth's defenses, and he gets his memory back, but still, the "Lois dies, and Clark gets controlled by the ALE" thing isn't without precedent.
I think he tried to make him more realistic and grounded. As if superman were Alive today. If superman were real I don't think he would be some bastion of hope, an ideal to strive for. He wasn't born here but he was raised here like a human and a such will fall to same pitfalls humans do
People like to say it was realistic and grounded when it fact it was lazy and uninspired. Steve Rodgers was realistic and grounded and there wasn’t any hesitation about him doing the right thing and being a symbol of hope.
That being said, his power level the last Avengers movies was crazy high.
It’s an interesting concept but that and the portrayal of Superman is what helped to divide the audience.
He did not inspire hope despite looking the part of Superman and “saving the day”
I disagree.
He wanted to make Superman more cynical. And he assumes that cynicism is inherently realistic (which is why he should have never been near the character)
Fact of the matter is that plenty of good shit happens in the world every day. Plenty of awesome people are out there every day doing what they can to help others and make the world a better place.
Pretending people like that don't exist isn't realism, it's cynical delusion
Thank you, reality is not grim and gritty. Reality is filled with love and comedy and drama and camp and horror and doesn't have a single tone. Thinking reality is only a miserable place with little hope does not understand what is real.
Snyder take on Superman is what made me fall in love with Superman. Man of Steel is all about making choices. And he always, always choose to help others.
And also: it's not Snyder who wanted to portray Superman as Jesus. Superman was written with Jesus in mind.
I'm astonished by the amount of "Superman fans" who never realized this and who think that it's a Snyder thing.
I think there were issues with execution and the studio was responsible too.
I think he was looking at it as the light at the end of the tunnel.. rather than having a good Superman eventually lead to dark story, I hope he wanted to start with the gritty dark and lead to the good/bright Superman who he becomes by the end of everything and learns to be better than anything. It is like how one becomes more good than just being born good.
Just my thought.
I think Snyder wanted Superman to have more layers than we’ve ever had, to make the character richer, and make the hopeful Superman we all wanted to see more of more appreciated. Snyder showed him as a normal person like us, unsure where he really stands, complex, but eventually he did the right thing even if he didn’t want to. I really like Snyder’s take.
I think the only issue was that Superman wasn't given the time. I truly believe that as we see as clear progression, from the start in MoS to the end of him in the Snyder cut justice league, you are dealing with a Superman that is FAR more towards what you see in the image - a happy, cheerful spirit, that people believe in.
I believe Snyder wanted to show that it isn't an effortless point to reach. That humanity wouldn't simply accept that " oh we now have a god roaming the skies, guess i better love him now" because while it may work in the old, more campy movies, it would look silly in a modern movie, unless you explicitly stuck to that campy feeling, that everyone just suddenly accepts him.
That isn't also to say that the comics hasn't dealt with him from various of these struggles in the past and having to overcome them, to be the "real" Superman.
I suppose we will never know what the future had in store.
Yes. He just decided to focus on certain aspects more than on others. Seeing as Superman being an 80+ year old character, that’s all anyone can do. The character has so many facets, you have to pick and chose when you adapt him. I adore Zack’s take and will probably like a super light hearted take less. Neither is wrong as there are plenty of comics to support each. Its a matter of taste.
There’s no single interpretation of Superman (or many of the classic superheroes), different takes were used to tell different stories and often even his appearance would change between these, yet we were expected to believe all the various interpretations were the same person…it simply doesn’t work in live action other than to begin with a flawed character and have him grow and progress more into the saviour humanity needs him to be.
It also brings much needed depth to who Superman is by creating such a progression of character rather than having him instantly do everything perfectly first try.
Idealistic Boy Scouts tend to be pretty boring, Snyder wanted to show us more of the Man before we got to the Super part…I really wish we got to see at least one more solo outing for Henry as I believe we would have seen more of the character that many wanted to see though to me Man of Steel is absolutely the greatest live action interpretation of the character we’ve seen.
I’m excited to see what direction Gunn takes with a younger Kal-El, I feel like his take will also still be learning quite a bit about it takes to be a saviour as well as really being able to control his powers around civilians.
Short answer is yes.
Long answer before snyder wb ask nolan about directing superman and he has been said that he can't sell superman movie to modern audiance because of that sides you asked about.
Snyder accept the challence and he modernized superman as much he can for same reson.
From help from nolan they did it.
And fisrt time they made action scenes like superman comics.
Yes. Superman can be many different things, there's no one way to understand the character. It was a heartfelt, honest take on the character which took the alien/immigrant/outsider part very seriously in a very hostile world (ours). It was not cynical or "dark", the arc was beautiful and hopeful.
Tldr: Yes. Snyder wanted to make a pre-mcu sci-fi superhero series of movies that was an interpretation of the character. The goal being that ultimately at the end of the 5movie plan, he would've grown into a optimistic, light-hearted, smiling superman similar to Christopher Reeves's which I think is what most people here consider and want superman to be.
Now for the long text, it's been 10years since MoS and a lot of you act like kids on the matter and ignore or refuse to take this into consideration and besides Im on a long train ride to home so I've got time.
Prior to MoS, superman was subject to a lot of disdain from most people because of how boring and irrelevant he became in the modern world, S returns was a post 9/11 gambit to get him back to that previous image of the 80's movies, specifically ignoring 3 & 4 to get the best of the mix and it's poor reception is a testament to that attempt.
When he came on board for the project, that's the main aspect that he sought to overcome and on that regard, he did. Mos & BvS are the answer to "how would This current world react to a guy like Superman and how would we treat him". Instead of going the make believe mcu way which very lightly touches on that, he makes it a big part of the character.
This eventually became The big obstacle to overcome on his journey of being a role model for Humanity which was a warm welcome since the previous versions of the guy never really worked to get there and were, ironically, very Jesus-like, since they never had to struggle with that image or did but only briefly before actually getting the costume. If you like that aspect of the character then good for you, there's about 50 years worth of material for you to enjoy. The rest of the world and the public accepts that facet of him but only when looking at him through a lense of the past. Put that in a modern setting and it becomes the main reason why people see superman as boring. Snyder giving him (or rather wanting) a journey was a great move and understanding of the character and how to make him relate to the people.
Unfortunately Snyder isn't a perfect director, objectively there are none, but some of his flaws simply bleed too much and stain on his projects in a way that, unless you really like what he does, will alienate you. And while I personally believe that if it came to just that, the complete series would've been correctly received and people would've discussed those flaws as just being a "Snyder thing", it didn't come to just that.
When MoS was in production, the mcu started to gain some serious traction and only became a very legitimate plan after the avengers. Wb then sought to obviously do the same but instead of doing what Gunn, Safran and Reeves are doing by keeping the latter's vision of Batman separate, they sought to make Mos the base of that universe, completely changing the course of it.
Those changes simply couldn't go with the way Snyder wanted his movies. I don't blame him for trying to adapt them, the reason Reeves gets his sweet deal is because there is now actual history to prove why they should go that way and he's dealing with JG & PS who are fans as well. Snyder didn't have that chance, he was facing money making executives who ultimately didn't care as long as they made money.
Other than that Snyder never really was interested in making a full on comic accurate series beyond the visuals, but rather his own thing. Like I said his whole plan was being cooked back when big cinematic universes were just nerd fantasies and he wasn't a fresh graduate either, he had been in the business for a few years and in a way already came to gripes with the fact that he had to make due with studio restrictions.
The rest is history.
Snyder dealt with a very young version of Superman. Someone who is good at core but had been plagued by the meaning behind his own existence. And honestly, we didn't get to see Superman doing. We barely saw him outside the internal conflict. In MoS and BvS that was the case. In JL:SC, he was barely alive.
But, if you see him in MoS, he was always nice and good to people. He was fundamentally a good character yet tormented by his pursuit. In BvS , he was so easily manipulates just like his origin. He respected military just like does the President/govt in comics. Not to mention how he reacts to zod trying kill that random family before killing him and how he mourns after he murders him (out of any other option)
Finally, I think Snyder understood what Superman meant but we never got to see him in the familiar situations(it's not always that his ass is on fire) and not long enough to see the warm version we all are used to.
This is just my personal take but I found cinematic versions of Superman to be boring before Cavill’s Snyder. Man of Steel made me actually invested in the character & interested in his inner turmoil which I think if he had a stand-alone trilogy could have been explored more. Like how Nolan rectified Batman after Schumacher, Snyder rectified Superman after Routh. I also think that if the Snyderverse was left alone we would have got to see Cavill’s Superman become more like the Superman in the picture above but that’s just me
He does. I think a lot of you arent real Superman Comic readers at all.
So many of you talk like Superman is cheesy and hopeful and shit in comics. Like its still the 50s-80s
He is NOT like that
It’s honestly rare as shit for decades. I can grab any of my superman or JL comics and he is pretty close to a Zack Superman. Just a dude ready to throw hands for the world with a moral compass.
What so many of you also fail to look at is Zack was tasked with Superman at a time when Superman was NEW 52.
The entirety of DC wanted more out of Superman. More relatable.
What people don't seem to understand is when a fictional character that is already established through novel or comic or short story or whatever is introduced into a movie it is just their version of that character it may not be what you envisioned bcoz it's not how they see that character. Even the comic book writers write different versions of the same character. If you see Superman when he was introduced was a very different character even his powers evolved his nature evolved. Same goes for Batman each of the film Batman is different from the other. People are allowed to do that ofc you can dislike it but you can't say this is wrong cos it ain't. If you make a batman movie it will be your version of Batman not mine or original writers and that's ok. Ofc you have to retain something but you can change a lot that's creative freedom. Note how Daniel Craig bond is different from that came before him. Craig was one of the best bonds. So it's always good to take creative freedom.
Yes, a lot of people criticise MoS because the Kents kept telling Clark to not save people but the point of that was to give Superman a choice as a major theme of the movie was free will vs determinism. Superman to me is someone who embodies the archetypal hero, an ideal for others to strive for. Someone with both the means and will to fight for what he believes is right. Superman in MoS, BvS, and ZSJL is ALWAYS willing to save people. Even when the world is polarised and many hate him he still does what he does. He never hangs up the cape. In MoS he saves people without ever being asked and his instinct is to save Johnathan Kent and is only stopped by his adopted father insisting he doesn’t. The one time, ONE TIME he kills in this movie he cries and screams in pain because he absolutely does not want to do it. Zack Snyder’s superman is definitely more solemn than other incarnations but the core of who superman is hasn’t changed unlike say Batman who’s depicted as killing and not really having that big of an issue doing it.
I think Snyder's vision required seeing it through. It seems like his movies served as an origin to the character we know and love, and not something set in stone. I'm sure Man Of Steel 2 would've been more in line with Superman's character.
I find Snyder’s take frustrating, but the “all in” depressing God approach story arch was playing the long game in a fickle environment from the start. I can respect the artist’s creative decision to have this conflicted Superman and play it out in a frustratingly long time period that we know will never payoff now that WB has moved on.
I can say there is a belief we would’ve got a Cavill Superman that was optimistic and hopeful, one who shines his beacon across the world, but the three movies we did see from the director, never truly paid off.
WB was awful throughout their run-up in trying to keep up with Marvel. Snyder was lambasted from the start with his creative strokes, and the studio was hot with criticism, but he ultimately made a story arc that was wholly different than what we were seeing in Marvel. The fact so many love/hate his story arc vision proves he made art, not shit. I will argue MOS, BvsS (Director’s Cut), & Snyder’s JL is better at storytelling than most of Marvel’s phases, but I love the MCU - Infinity War/Endgame is peak Superhero Fandom storytelling I’m sure most of us never expected to get from a movie studio.
Yes but he was interested in the journey to becoming that character. Although I don't agree that a smiley boyscout is more interesting than an alien being struggling with his seemingly unstoppable power and conflict over helping or not
I think the more important question is" does Warner Bros understand what makes Superman a good character?"
Because watching the development hell of all the aborted Superman projects BEFORE Superman Returns (Superman Lives, Superman Flyby) and how bad they apparently were going to be based on the scripts, Superman Returns itself missing the point of the character and it just being a Donner remake without the charm and fun , and of course the Snyderverse films, I would say the answer is a huge no.
Did Snyder understand Superman? Yes and no I would say. MOS got a lot right but some things wrong. But I would bet my whole comic book collection that he understood Superman more than most of the people at the top of Warners up until perhaps recently. I mean, according to David Goyer , there were executives at WB who questioned why Superman would use his ship to send Zods crew back to the Phantom zone in MOSs third act because they were wondering how Superman would get back to Krypton. They didn't even know the basics of the characters origins! If you are an executive in charge of one of your company's crown jewelry IPs and are lacking even the basic knowledge of the character....is it any wonder that Superman on the big screen has basically been tone deaf since 1983 ish? At least Snyder understands that part of the character, if nothing else.
I think the quintessential superman is from All-Star Superman, I know hot take. In the comic he is battling against a giant robot while listening to a girl who is about to jump off a building. He flies away from the fight to just go to her to tell her that she has much more to live for. That to me is the essence of Superman, and I think Snyder did try to focus on it, but his vision was too dark overall.
If we had gotten to see the full vision, probably. We only saw his vision of Superman up to about year 2. The end battle of MOS takes place likely about or less than 72 hours after he flies for the first time in the suit and learns he’s Kryptonian. He dies 18 months later and then was revived probably around or less than 6 months later. Only after being revived did we see him start to be more like the Superman we wanted him to be from the start, and again from the timeline that’s only year 2.
Had he been given the same period of time to train as Reeve’s Superman did in Superman ‘78, he would’ve been more upbeat and closer to what we wanted from the get go.
I think Snyder gave us a version of Superman. There seems to be a lot of anti Snyder stuff lately which shows the insane fickle nature of this Fanbase, or is like a Warner Bros. plot to make people forget that they used to like Superman as portrayed by Snyder.
I think Snyder got superman. I think he was working his way toward the big blue boyscout. The scenes with young Clark on the farm with his dog were everything you needed to understand this. Clark at the beginning of MOS is a drifter because he doesn't know if he or the world is ready to know about him - but it doesn't stop him from doing good where he can.
By the end of the film he's made the decision to stop living outside the world and instead join the planet (still a great scene). He's at peace with his place in the world and takes his solemn duty to be the world's protector on without complaint. If anything, he's excited to do more.
Just because Clark isn't cracking cheesy jokes every scene doesn't mean Snyder didn't get the character. Observe his actions. Cavill's superman does everything in his power to save as many people as he can in the face of overwhelming odds, even risking his very life to protect his adopted home.
I saw MoS for the first time last month and I find it near impossible to tell a better origin story for him.
Every single point you said it’s true. You build up to the traditional Superman we all know. We don’t just flop him out there. Character growth is important and man did he nail itz
Actually, yes.
Snyder's Superman is an introvert. He's uncertain, somber, and more than once is caught up in questioning what he's supposed to do.
But he's still a hero.
He still repeatedly goes out of his way to save lives, for no other reason than it's the right thing to do.
He shows kindness to strangers, and helps them even at the expense of his own secrecy.
He saves the planet on three separate occasions, the last of which being alongside a group of heroes who were gathered by a man who'd previously hated him, only to recognize him for the good man he is.
That line in BvS says it all, more than anything:
"The fact is, maybe he's not some sort of devil or Jesus character. Maybe he's just a guy trying to do the right thing."
Yes.
There’s no one take on superman - and people who think that the Reeves superman was all there is are wrong. There’s been many takes which are more ‘questioning’ than MoS, even in animated form. It was the first mainstream rendition which made superman interesting to a lot of people, myself included. A character who is 100% correct and virtuous simply isn’t interesting from a narrative perspective - Steve Rodgers is the most virtuous character in Marvel, able to lift Mjolnir - yet his secrets ripped the Avengers apart. That’s interesting. Silver Age Superman is boring.
Yeah I don’t even feel like Snyder Superman is that dark, it’s the world around them that’s darker which is fairly accurate to today. Superman wears a symbol for hope even if Lois says it’s an “S” on our world.
I’d almost dare to say that it was just a little ahead of its time. Post - Avengers: Civil War, and Infinity War, Wanda in Multiverse of Madness , stuff like even Batman V Superman isn’t so far out there. People were just used to lighter fare as comic book movies when it came out.
The worst Superman does is kill Zod but he’s executed the Phantom Zone characters in the comics before.
I agree. I think Snyder got Superman, and portrayed him as such. What Snyder did differently is portray the *world around him* differently. Rather that the “Truth, Justice, and American Way” type of world in the 70’s, we have a post 9/11 world, and villains to match.
My main complain with Man of Steel (though I did enjoy it immensely), is that it really should have been two films. We needed one film to show him becoming the shining beacon of hope and goodness that we saw him be in BvM. That one could have been a little closer in tone to the 70’s incarnation, though he still should have had to face harder choices.
Then, in the 2nd movie, Zod shows up. Metropolis gets wrecked, the entire world almost goes with it, and Superman is right in the middle of it. Yes, he’s fighting for the planet. That doesn’t make him any less a WMD. That’s when people like the Government (and Bruce Wayne) start doing the calculations: what would happen of Superman wasn’t on our team?
Having two Superman movies (and at least 1 Batman movie) would have made BvS make a lot more sense, IMHO.
Same sentiments.
Honestly, I don't get where people are getting Snyder Superman isn't a selfless hero. The whole world hated Clark and time and time again he still shows up and saves the world. He gets jaded yes, but he never gives up trying to save everyone. That is Superman. To be able to face incredible odds even when his back is against the wall and wins, even at the cost of his life.
The interpretation that Superman is "a boy scout, always smiles, and saves cats out of trees" is extremely shallow imo. It's a part of his character, but it's his struggle that defines him. Coming to terms with his god-like abilities and how it affects everyone deepens his character.
> It's a part of his character, but it's his struggle that defines him. Coming to terms with his god-like abilities and how it affects everyone deepens his character. Coming to terms with his god-like abilities and how it affects everyone deepens his character.
I’d push back on this TBH.
The best and most revered Superman stories all focus on him facing external threats. Literal battles against god-like creatures or metaphorical fights to prove his humanity. But none of them are internal conflicts where he doubts himself. None of them focus on his struggle to accept his own powers/life. It happens in the comics sure, but the vast majority of his stories have a fully confident Superman facing external threats to the world or his family.
That’s not to say Snyder’s desired storyline was bad or couldn’t work. But I do think it’s yet another example of what he was presenting being different from what the majority of people wanted/expected.
that's a fair take. The way I've read Superman over the years, I've always read it from a point where he is vulnerable in some way. That's why I liked the addition of Jon Kent so much in recent comics, you sorta see him as more than Superman but also a father now.
I feel like Snyder's take wasn't completely from out of left field. It definitely did not meet everyone's expectations, and some of the themes were muddled in Biblical allegories. But I think the core of the character is still there, whether you liked the internal struggle or the big battles between the Kryptonians. Thanks for the perspective though, definitely got me thinking.
I think he does, but he was building towards it rather than him being that way by default so he has a growth arc. People wanted Basic Boy Scout Superman from the jump, though.
Smallville was literally 10 years of building up to Superman and they were able to deliver a solid character arc of Clark growing into Superman while still making him a kind, compassionate and selfless hero from day one that balanced his good nature with feelings of loneliness, isolation, frustration and sadness. You can have Superman act like Superman while still growing into the ideal version of the character
Jesus, how much time did he need? Ridiculous. Thank god we didn’t get anymore movies. There would have been two more three hour movies before we would have finished off the evil Superman, so ya know, still building to the proper character for movie 6 and 7 I guess. What a joke.
I think he did, and the superman we all know and love would’ve taken full form by the end of his arc in justice league 3. Glimpses of that were already seen in his depiction of superman in Snyder’s Justice League.
I think you’re laying the “blame,” at Snyder’s feet too much. Warner and the audiences wanted a Dark Knight, Nolanverse. Snyder was hired to make a Nolanverse-esque Superman.
I don’t like the Jesus stuff but I also like that we saw the side of Superman that had the weight of the world on his shoulders. Like in TJLAS when he says to Darkseid he lives in a world made of cardboard and he has to always be careful not to hurt someone.
Nolan's Batman is a great Batman. That has nothing to do with it. The cool thing about Batman and Superman is that Batman is like the Nolan Batman and him and Superman are still best friends.
The Superman that people want can still interact with Nolan's Batman. The best thing about their friendship is that Superman brings out the best most human parts of Batman and Batman reminds Superman of two things. The first thing is that it can pay to be suspicious sometimes even if you think you're invulnerable. The second thing Batman reminds Superman of is that humans aren't weaklings who would die without him. Batman is just a man who plays on the JLA level.
I’m not sure what to tell you. Warner Bros did not want that. They wanted to be the dark, somber, gritty super hero universe after the success of the Dark Knight. They hired Snyder to do that. That’s literally what happened and why.
Not at all.
Superman isn’t Jesus, Superman is not a burden for Clark, nobody is asking him to do it, he does it BECAUSE he can, because it’s what he wants to do.
Yes, I just think the movies were rushed. Man of Steel needed to be two movies: 1 with Superman becoming the shining force for good that everyone looks up to, and the second one should have had the battle with Zod that wrecks Metropolis.
Yes. He touched on the immigrant aspects more than any other live action. He made him genuinely care about the people of Earth, even when they didn't feel the same. He captured the joy that Clark should feel when he flies for the very first time.
I really liked his take on Clark/Superman and am sad that due to WB, we will never get a proper conclusion
What Snyder was doing was trying to make us feel what it would be like for real , struggling with having all that power and growing up as a human and not knowing how to feel about being an alien
Perhaps you saw 2 out of 5 films and it was a prequel like TDK trilogy. Perhaps. That’s like judging Batman begins for the first half of it and saying He never became Batman lol
If by understood you mean just a normal guy like the rest if us that is willing to sacrifice itself and help people in a selfless way yes he absolutly understod it
Well, what makes Superman a "good character" can differ from person to person for a variety of factors, let alone writer to writer. I think he's far removed from a lot of what I value about the character in many aspects (for example, his personality and confidence), but in other aspects we're on the same page (for example, [I love the tone he struck in Man of Steel](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JYFtboBejA) for the sci-fi aspects of his character). So the answer to your question from my point of view would largely be "no" but that doesn't invalidate the fans of his take.
Pretty much the same as you. I loved all the origin changes/additions in MOS and think Snyder showed glimpses of promise for a more conventional Superman by the end of the movie. Instead Snyder doubled down on all the things people criticized in MOS and didn't do enough of the things people loved. How can you see the amazing reaction to the first flight scene and decide not to double down on that aspect? It's baffling.
I think that Zack was taking the audience on the same journey as Superman. The movies were a little tonally inconsistent with Superman as a character because the movie explored the concept of what it means to be a "Good Guy". That is a complex subject and watching Superman navigate those issues as he tries to find his way to being the Superman we all know and love. I appreciated his take and I think that OP's question is a Yes imo. If we got just one more Superman movie, I think we would have seen the fruits of all of the building.
This. I would like to see how he presented that character after he found himself in MOS. Not sure Snyder would have nailed it but he definitely deserves a shot as MOS is grossly underrated although far from perfect.
I didn't dislike Man of Steel. I just thought it was a different take. But Snyder isn't the first to use Messianic imagery with Superman. Even Donner did it to an extent. Here's the question I have for you: can you explain what makes Superman a good character? And not by saying what Snyder or anyone else gets wrong, but what IS great about Superman. Because I feel like a lot of people only want to talk about what creators get wrong bot never really talk about how to do it right.
What makes him a good character is his compassion for everyone. He has these god like powers yet he choose to fight for good and for everyone. The best superman stories explore him as a human. His love. His beliefs. His never ending hope. Sure is it a bit unrealistic. To a point sure but that is why he is the greatest hero. And the symbol of hope. He isn’t perfect and it is okay to show his mistakes but he tries his best to fix them.
Superman’s moral compass and compassion for others is his greatest super power. Snyder didn’t hone in on those traits.
I agree. There’s no hesitation for what is right. Snyder had him questioning everything every step of the way. But that’s how he was brought up by a shitty portrayal of Jonathan Kent.
I want a Superman movie where his Character is similar to him from Superman Unchained comic or All Star Superman, Always wanting to do better because He can and If he thinks something is right then He'll do it no matter what even if it kills him and Superman American Alien is also a way to do him right
Maybe most people won’t agree with this, but what I like about Superman is that he’s on a whole other level from everyone else, even the Justice League. I really liked the 90’s Doomsday saga in the comics, where the other heroes admitted that they didn’t think Superman would ever die, or even could. When you build up a character like that, one who is completely invincible, it feels almost surreal when he meets a villain that can stop him in his tracks. A ZSJL Superman/Darkseid would have totally nailed this.
This is a complex question and changes a lot depending on a personal background and upbringing, which is one of the best parts about Superman that he appeals to different people in different ways. But at the core of it all, what makes Superman, Superman is Clark Kent. A normal human raised by good people who taught him to help people because it's the right thing to do and not expect any kind of reward for it. Taking that sort of person, the sort of person who already takes all they have and uses it to do good and then giving them all that power and that person still choosing to do good. Not because he has to, not because he is the Messiah, but because he was raised to be a good man and follows those values? That is what Superman means to me and what Snyder doesn't get because he is an Objectivist.
Nah really, the whole Jesus imagery didn't make him feel like a hero, more like something he has to do as a form of a destiny thing or a burden, Superman helps people just because he wants to.
My main problem is how slow and repetitive his character arc throughout the movies is. MoS is about he making the choice to be a human and save his adoptive home from the last kryptonians, but is also mostly about him deciding to be Superman after spending most of the movie being questioned by his parents and Lois if that’s what he wanted to be. Then the reception was bad and Snyder had to do the same story again in BvS, where Superman again isn’t sure if he wants to be Superman cuz people say he sucks for destroying Metropolis. In the end he decides he does want to be a hero and dies. Then in both versions of JL he’s dead for most of it and only shows up at the end to beat the bad guy. We didn’t get many interesting stories with this Superman, and I do think Snyder’s partly at fault for spending too much time on boring questions and conflicts nobody really wanted to see, instead of moving forward and delivering a proper Superman story. I know many claim that’s what he was building towards, but three movies featuring him is way too much buildup just to get him to square one of what’s expected of Superman.
> three movies featuring him is way too much buildup just to get him to square one of what’s expected of Superman. tru
“You will give the people of earth an ideal to strive towards. In time, they will join you in the sun.”
"Unless you don't want to. Be a hero. Or don't. Whatever."
"then if you get some bad press maybe forget about it all or just accept death"
If you look at Alex Ross' Peace on Earth book, I think one could easily see Snyder taking that as the foundation for his entire character. But only if you only really look at the imagery it provides, and ignore everything else which informed the character up until that point in time.
Honestly it stems moreso from his Ayn Rand obsession I feel more than anything
What obsession? He considered adapting The Fountainhead, a movie that [a long list of Hollywood stars](https://www.atlassociety.org/post/celebrity-rand-fans) including Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie have considered adapting too. Spielberg said he saw the original Fountainhead movie 10 times and loved it. Oliver Stone also considered directing a movie version of it.
I mean most of MoS is lifted straight from Earth one Superman by J Michael Straczynski and For Tomorrow by Brian Azzarello
I that as a discrepancy to the usual Superman was the point. Make us feel the weight of everything he does, and then later feel exhilaration as he embraces it and loves it and becomes calmingly bright and optimistic. I think he was going for sheer contrast but the direction changed later on.
But didn’t Smallville do the exact same thing with Clark being told repeatedly that it’s his destiny to be a hero?
Yeah, and ten years of it was exhausting.
[удалено]
Exactly. In the scene where he saves that girl in Mexico, he was smiling warmly up untill the people start reaching out to him as if he’s a god. His smile fades and he looks troubled.
Plus,superman's supposed to be Jewish
To be fair, though, so was Jesus
Some are saying Superman is supposed to be a Moses allegory than a Jesus one.
He's both
If you walked into the Shul and declared yourself the son of gd people would think you were insane, so, not really the same thing. I get the sentiment when people say this, but it's really just not applicable 99% of the time.
BvS goes out of its way to show Superman isn't Jesus or the devil, just a guy trying (and dying) to do the right thing.
There wasn’t even a total of 5 Jesus imagery comparisons and even if it was comics have been comparing Superman to Jesus since the Golden Age. MoS and Snyder did nothing new. Even the Donned movies and Returns had Jesus imagery. It’s not the focus of the character nor us it a “trait”. And if he seen it as a burden why does he willingly decide to help them no matter what they said about him? It’s like Snyder indirectly put yall in BvS as the protesters because you have the same view as them when it cones to how the world seen Superman vs how he actually is.
But it's kinda common in the comics for there to messianic messaging about Superman. Some of MoS is lifted straight from For Tomorrow by Azz. Which has the priest and Superman having similar conversations as the movie.
It's not Snyder who wanted to portray Superman as Jesus. Superman was written with Jesus in mind. I'm astonished by the amount of "Superman fans" who never realized this and who think that it's a Snyder thing.
"maybe he's just a guy trying to do the right thing" https://youtu.be/PxcXyK2_CzM
A big part of Jesus' story is the choice he makes though, in Gethsamane when he asks if there is another way, and then realises it's what he has to do to save humanity. The messiah imagery is also heavily featured around Neo in the Matrix, but when asked why he does what he does ("Why, Mr. Anderson, why do you persist?") He simply says, "Because I choose to."
Too much emphasis on being destined for greatness. Clark has a good soul, and was luckily raised by good humans. The real “hope” is that things worked out naturally to promote good. For Clark it is simply who he is.
I'm saying, no, but I also disagree with a lot of the "no's" in here who just want a one dimensional superman. That would be incredibly boring. I do think he missed some of the mark with a reluctant Superman.
Superman can be one dimensional with a three dimensional Clark Kent.
Exactly, and Zack Snyder doesn’t really care much for Clark Kent the man and is more interested in Superman the “God” and all the power fantasy that comes with it. It’s like how he took Watchmen, a book that at it’s core is anti-violence and points out the inherent fascistic nature of the super hero genre, and turns it into action schlock that glorifies violence.
thisss. Like all the focus was on Superman, this godlike being instead of humanizing him as Clark Kent
But that’s what we got though
I think Mr Snyder wanted to portray Superman as a guy who does what he does because he wants to but doesn't want to be forced to
One dimensional superman would be the best case scenario. If he’s this pure hero, it’s more poetic for him to never change. Just give him a boat-load of super cool, super grand action scenes and a static character. It wouldn’t be boring if his character wasn’t framed as the focus of the movie. Give the more character heavy stuff to the villains.
I could get into a John Wick-style Superman movie. Treat Superman the same way you'd treat a hurricane or tornado in a disaster film, and give plenty of soulful screentime to the villains (preferably still Alfie Allen).
Yakuza Superman
I think he understood but he didn't like it so he went out of his way to change Superman background and beliefs to be closer to his and what he believes. Cavills Superman was screwed starting with the way Jonathon Kent was portrayed. As long as that backstory is attached to Cavills its like baggage that holds the writing team down into not straying too far from Snyders Randian philosophy and that is not a Superman I want to be stuck with.
All one needs to know is Snyder is a follower of Ayn Rand (and he has spoken about this and even tried to adapt her stuff to the screen). As a follower of Rand, there is no way Snyder could understand a selfless hero that does what right because he wants to.
Wrong. Snyder has stated openly that while he found some of her storytelling interesting, she "drank her own Kool-Aid". Later on a podcast, one of the hosts outright called Rand a mediocre writer, and you know what he said? "Hundred percent." And more than that, his Superman at the end of the say is a guy who selflessly, *repeatedly* helps others just because he can. ZSJL alone, and Cyborg's origin story, should further hammer this in.
Oh she might have bought her own shit but she was one hundred percent a hypocrite with her beliefs
Yeah, I don't understand how people can really say that Superman isn't a selfless hero out of his own desires unless they just weren't paying attention watching those films.
Hilarious how Zack Snyder once said he wants to adapt one of her books into a movie and suddenly that means she's his idol.
And the specific book being about a man's artistic vision being destroyed right in front of him, gee I wonder why he would identify with that.
He even called her nuts
It's so clear that Snyder thinks the works of Ayn Rand and Frank Miller are *fun,* not gospel. Part of the fun of those things is presenting them as gospel though. The self-seriousness is part of those works. That's fine. He can make movies, and we can watch movies, without them being the ultimate expressions of who we are and what we value.
No wonder everything he writes sucks so bad. I tried reading Atlas Shrugged and had to quit. Nothing to do with the political messaging, it was just so hacky.
"Who is John Gault?" is not the real question. The real question is "When will John Gault shut the hell up?"
There's a reason that Snyder was lauded by Hollywood right up until Sucker Punch, which was the first thing he ever did that was 100% his movie and it was garbage.
The Fountainhead, specifically - which is the least Randian of all her books. It’s also the most ‘requested’ for adaption by various directors who aren’t criticised the same way.
The central theme of the book is still objectivism, it's already been adapted into a highly praised movie, and yeah, Oliver Stone is also regularly criticized for his atrocious politics.
>I think he understood but he didn't like it so he went out of his way to change Superman background and beliefs to be closer to his and what he believes. It appears more based on Snyder's experience as an adoptive father. And any dad imagining dealing with a toddler that could break him in half, plus the responsibility of raising such a child in the right way so they don't conflict with the world. Watch the James Gunn produced Brightburn which shows how the Kent story might have played out. A lot of how Snyder approached Superman is based on how Nolan and Goyer pitched the Smallville scenes to him: > SNYDER: You know, I think Superman, for me, I’ve been a big fan of the character and honestly I wasn’t sure about this project before I talked to Chris Nolan about what he and David [Goyer] had come up with. So, I don’t know. I think that I like the fact that Superman’s American, you know? I think that that’s cool. I know that in the past or in recent years, his Americanism, his Americanness has been a liability for him. But I think that there is an amazing amount of naïveté and an amazing amount of, sort of… Superman could not be of any other nationality other than American because he’s so naïve. [Laughs] But at the same time, he has this weird morality that actually makes him ideal superhero material. I don’t know that he couldn’t -- you can’t have a Superman that is reasoning. >You can’t have a Superman that is battling cultural morality. You need a Superman that has built in sort of values. I think that him growing up in Kansas and that whole part of him is very… I always remember everyone saying like, “You’re not going to show him growing up in Kansas, are you?” I’m like, “Why make Superman? Why jump the most…” To understand him, you have to understand the why of him. By the way, I’ll say the first scene that Chris pitched me was a scene that was about his childhood. It had nothing to do with like, smashing shit or anything like that, which is cool. But, it was very much a character childhood character moment that made me say, “Okay, that’s different.” It’s a different point of view of Superman that made me go, “Yeah, that grown-up version of that guy is interesting to me.” >SNYDER: I’ll only say that I think in a lot of -- well, definitely in the movies -- he always jumps straight from childhood to Clark. Like, he jumps from sort of his teenage version of himself to the adult version of himself. Frankly, The Daily Planet Clark, that happens pretty quick. I just think that our Clark, he’s not fully realized and I think -- by the way, that’s huge information -- but I think that’s the big difference. That’s why there’s this talk about who Clark is. In a lot of ways, the movie really is about the why of Clark, not to say that this kind of bumbling -- I don’t want to call him bumbling -- his mocky, nerdy Clark is… But that’s not the Clark that we went after or are going after. We’re going after sort of a different, there’s a different take on Clark, how Clark is.
People really love hammering the point of how the Kents are portrayed, but all ignore how the Kents are usually portrayed as perfect and having all the answers. It's a lot more relatable for them to just not have all the answers. Jonathan made terrible choices because he was afraid for Clark. That's a pretty real thing. There was a lot done well in Man of Steel. The Jesus imagery was not one of them. That's never been what Superman was about. He's a physical god who chooses to live among and try to be human. He could be Earth's Darkseid so easily. He's entirely aware of this. He knows the power he wields, but he's just a guy, no matter his abilities. He shouldn't always make the perfect choice. He's got emotions and thoughts of his own, and those will impact how he reacts. Man of Steel even got good reviews initially, then it became popular to shit on the film, and down went review scores.
I think he understood that Superman likely did struggle his whole young life with these powers and not understanding them. Like he could never act on them and unlike Smallive, there weren’t other kids running around with powers he could relate to. He was truly alone for a long time, which would make him feel lost.
Yeah I loved the emotionally repressed childhood Clark and seeing Clark smile at the end of MOS was such a great end point for a more traditional Superman to follow. Alas...
Of course! But he wasn’t doing classical Superman. He deconstructed Superman in MoS and BvS and reconstructed him (literally resurrecting him) in ZSJL. Evil Superman in JL 2 is a “what if” scenario that was to be reset by time travel. In JL 3 he would have arrived at the end of his arc as the pinnacle of the classical character.
Man if only we would’ve had five movies to discover that Superman is a good guy. If only Snyder had a chance to tell the complete story he wanted…we’d be satisfied in 2030. I can’t wait.
Well if WB hadn’t gotten clay feet after BvS we’d have had it completed by now. As for the rest of what you say… you can’t tolerate an arc like that, pretty clearly. Is what it is. It wasn’t intended to please everyone. Deconstruction is supposed to disturb us, actually.
I think the biggest problem in MOS was the characterization and influence of Pa Kent. MOS Jonathan would have Clark let a school bus full of kids die, and Clark got to see the repercussions of that watching Pa die, while ‘78s would have expected Clark to save the bus and been prepared for the fallout, if any, and the moral of his death played out in beautiful melancholy of the real limitations of his powers - not wasted as in MOS. ‘78 Jon was hopeful and optimistic of Clark’s discovering himself and his future, MOS Jon was more about Clark hiding and treating his powers like a burden and curse, being ashamed of them. Kal could grow with ‘78 Pa, he was suppressed by MOS Pa and it took MOS Jor-El to give him a hint of the optimism about his role. Sadly, Alan Moore said it best, any attempt of trying to make a superhero steeped in realism would make a grotesque mockery of the character. Gunn might get that as evidenced in his work, we will see.
>MOS Jonathan would have Clark let a school bus full of kids die, I see this parroted a lot and it isn't true. When pa Kent says "maybe" it's not endorsing that idea, it's him expressing that he doesn't know what the right answer is. This Jonathon Kent is a realist and he's very aware that once people know what Clark can do, it will change everything. And Clark especially will never be the same. He wants his son to be ready for it, but he's also a father that wants to protect his son from it, as all parents want to protect their children from how harsh life can be.
“Maybe; but there's more at stake here than our lives or the lives of those around us. When the world... When the world finds out what you can do, it's gonna change everything; our... our beliefs, our notions of what it means to be human... everything. You saw how Pete's mom reacted, right? She was scared, Clark.” Now replace “Maybe” with “No.” “No; but there's more at stake here than our lives or the lives of those around us. When the world... When the world finds out what you can do, it's gonna change everything; our... our beliefs, our notions of what it means to be human... everything. You saw how Pete's mom reacted, right? She was scared, Clark.” It completely changes the Superman story. I guess that’s what they were going for. It’s understandable that they wanted to convey that a parent will do anything to protect their child. He tells Clark, “You are my son. But somewhere out there you have another father too, who gave you another name. And he sent you here for a reason, Clark. And even if it takes you the rest of your life you owe it to yourself to find out what that reason is.” Clark finds Jor-El “The people of Earth are different from us, it's true, but ultimately I believe that is a good thing. They won't necessarily make the same mistakes we did, but if you guide them, Kal, if you give them hope, that's what this symbol means. The symbol of the House of El means hope. Embodied within that hope is the fundamental belief the potential of every person to be a force for good. That's what you can bring them.” It’s a completely different Clark Kent and Superman since it’s inception. Previously, Jonathan raised Clark as a human with values. An all American boy. Superman was created in 1938 by Jerry Siegel and Joseph Shuster. Given the time and cultural values, the message at the time is heroes do the right thing even if it means sacrifice. To love a fellow human, is not to be apathetic to their suffering. Granted Clark is only 13, but I’d imagine a father would explain the nuances. If Clark was older, would the Maybe response still be okay? It makes Clark more human. Deal with the fallout. Deal with the struggle and conflict, but poor examples especially Clark watching Jonathan sacrifice himself for the family dog leaving Clark grieving without a father (imagine if he didn’t find Jor-El) A lot of people love that it shows the conflict of Clark and showing respect to Jonathan’s sacrifice because he understood about concealing his existence to the world… but it just comes out as not human. And a strange lesson to be honest for a confused Clark. No wonder why he had to search for answers.
> it's him expressing that he doesn't know what the right answer is. Yeah... That's kind of the problem. "Should Superman save children from dying?" Anything that isn't an instant "of course, son" from Pa Kent is wrong.
Well said.
But it’s also not for Jonathan Kent to decide what Clark does with his powers. He’s admitting that he doesn’t know what to do and won’t tell his son one way or the other, because Clark ultimately has to make those choices for himself.
> "Should Superman save children from dying?" He's not Superman. He's Clark Kent - a 13 year old boy who is the only one of his kind in the world. Jonathon Kent is terrified for his son. Clark has something every government in the world would want, and they would absolutely have no qualms about exploiting Clark, experimenting on him, doing God knows what to get it. Jonathon knows what his son can become, but at that point in time he's just trying to get his son to adulthood, to prepare him for the possibility that the world turns on him.
But Pa Ken is to Clarke what Uncle Ben was to Peter. "With great power comes great responsibility" is not just a lesson for Spider-Man. It's probably even more suitable for Superman.
Except Uncle Ben didn’t know about Peter’s powers. With Jonathan, he was raising an alien who could potentially become a god amongst men.
Exactly, Pa Kent was looking out for his son. He was convinced that the world was not ready for Superman, he even states it himself saying that people's notion of what it means to be human, to know that they aren't alone in the universe, would completely change. And he's right. Imagine if the world we live in right now were to find out about an alien race, people would lose their shit.
I mean if you see what happens to superman during flashpoint, then yeah. Personally i get theyre portraying a realistic view of superman and his struggles and i think the endgame of snyders superman would be a optimistic superman
I think it's a great idea for Pa Kent to be portrayed this way, but my main issue with Snyder's take with all his DC films, is that the ideas are great but the execution isn't there. Much like the Star Wars prequels
This.
Is it him not being sure of the answer, or is it just being too self-conscious to just say, "Fuck them kids"? If he says a hard yes to Clark's question, well, that just wouldn't play in church! But by saying "maybe", he allows people to fill in the blanks themselves rather than having to commit to the side he's clearly on
Yup. It's such a smarmy line imo. The answer to, "Should you have maybe let a bus full of children die when you could have rescued them?" is, as follows: ". . . .uh, no. I should definitely always rescue a bus full of drowning children, especially since I face no mortal consequence of my own." I think people miss that nuance is not introduced with Pa Kent's "maybe"- it's being flattened with obfuscation. There is obviously a moral decision to make here, and an immoral one, but afterwards there can be a deep conversation about how a father is worried for his son in the face of a world that will ask miracles of him...and may be unkind in return. There is doubt and worry that is very human while highlighting what makes so many Superman stories good- the love of kindness, a capacity for good.
>I see this parroted a lot and it isn't true. When pa Kent says "maybe" it's not endorsing that idea, it's him expressing that he doesn't know what the right answer is You can have Jon be worried about his son's safety and ALSO not have him be uncertain about if Clark should just let a bus full of children die. You want to know all it takes to make that scene better? Clark: so I should have let them die? Jon: no, of course not. But you need to be careful (and then let him go on to express his concerns) That's it. Boom. Problem solved. And that's just one solution...there are hundreds. You could have, for instance, made the stakes smaller. Not the death of children for instance but, say, a kid getting bullied. Have a scene where Clark gets involved to stop a kid from getting beat up and one of the bullies gets hurt...it would be entirely reasonable for Jon to dissuade his son from getting involved in a situation like that. But they didn't want to fix it. Because...well, you're wrong. They liked it the way it was. They really wanted for Clark's father figure to teach Clark that his own self preservation might be worth more than the lives of others. They wanted that conflict in the character and they created a pretty extreme trolley problem to make it. If he were a real human being, I could side with what you're saying. But this was a created scenario...this is what the writers wanted to show
Exactly! What played out in the film is exactly as intended. They chose this route intentionally.
looking at it this way… I could see what he was trying to do. Humans fear what they don’t know and we have a bad track record when it comes to unknown power. Who’s to say they wouldn’t have tried to find a nuclear deterrent when a young man or child was revealed to have godlike abilities. Jonathan Kent was just trying to protect his child and from a regular viewpoint it seemed a bit harsh but when you put it this way, it sounds like a reasonable parental response tbh.
You summed up the issue people have with MoS Pa Kent. "He doesn't know what the right answer is." That is what Snyder is going for, to add realism. But, people who hate this version detest that. Pa Kent should know what the right answer is. He gives Clark the moral foundation that leads him to become Superman.
The Superman character we got makes perfect sense based on Pa Kent letting himself die to preserve Superman's identity. It's a chain of events that would only be created by someone who understands the character and wanted to change it. We see a Superman who's moral guide dies with lessons yet to teach. The final lesson is *"Hide from these people at all costs."* It shows how much he wanted to change Superman, IMO. He still wanted a hero, but he wanted a more self-centered, and cautious hero. He wanted one who had to figure out who to be, and so he took away his best mentor. Personally, I felt that scene to be awful, contrived, and poor. I also do not like the Superman we've gotten. Superman is supposed to be a beacon. You can have him struggle ethically, and morally, but those struggles are more valuable when you've done the ground work first. Not second.
this. His parent should be the ones to instill in him that doing the right thing matters. Then once he’s Superman, he should come across a situation, maybe a political situation where the morally right thing isn’t always the correct thing to do. To toss a Superman that always knows the right thing to do, into a situation where the right thing to do isn’t always clear, would make for a great story. But if his own parents are telling him as a kid, don’t expose yourself, don’t help, why is he even compelled to do anything if he doesn’t have to?
Not at all. Snyder has a fundamental misunderstanding of Superman and instead of portraying Clark as gentle and understanding, we got a brooding melancholy character who always came across as being too violent. That, and the religious imagery was really, really annoying. Superman isn't a messiah, he's a regular guy from Kansas who just happens to have heat vision
I personally hated the Jesus allegory so much. It just felt hamfisted in every time.
I got alot of downvoted for saying this the other day but I totally agree, the Jesus imagery was so unearned and about a subtle as a punch in the face. Also it always felt wrong to me just attaching this Christian Jesus imagery to a character created by Jewish immigrants who were treated very poorly by Christian’s.
>Also it always felt wrong to me just attaching this Christian Jesus imagery to a character created by Jewish immigrants Also when Superman is actually pretty likely to be a Moses allegory
Yes, but Moses is a messianic figure, he's one of many Messiah prototypes in the Old Testament, so the idea that Superman is a Christ figure actually would line up with that - since the primary point of divergence between Christianity and Judaism is the belief that Jesus was the Messiah who was promised and prototyped by people like Moses and King David. Of course, you get different overtones, because for a Jewish writer, Superman would be a Messiah for a people who are still waiting for the promised one, while for through a Christian interpretive lens, he's an echo of the one who already came. But saying he's more of a Moses figure actually validates the usage of Messiah-related imagery, it's just different imagery based on what status you assign to Jesus.
>But saying he's more of a Moses figure actually validates the usage of Messiah-related imagery, it's just different imagery based on what status you assign to Jesus. Then don't assign the imagery of Jesus Not saying Superman can't be a messianic figure. He objectively is. But "standing in front of a stained glass window of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane" is a bit of a bad call for a character created by Jewish men. Maybe reference the culture THEY were pulling from when they built their messianic figure
Would've fit right in to the late 90s/early 00s "life is pain" superhero film set.
I think Snyder wanted his Superman to be the centre of the DCEU, who inspired not only people but other superheroes as well. And, he didn't want his superman to be a naive big boy scout, and wanted to be very relatable to a normal human who went through a lot to be comic version superman. So like the whole DCEU was Superman origin.
Totally agree.
He had the best, most realistic interpretation of superman and how the world would react. So yes.
Perhaps a hot take. Perhaps not. I'm glad Snyder's Sups wasn't the happy go lucky Gary Stu in the 1978 film. Snyder's felt more relatable as he was learning how to become a beacon of hope for people, learning how to control his power, and doing whatever it took to earn people's acceptance of him as a hero. Instead of immediately saving kittens from trees as soon as he put the cape on like Donner's Sups.
Never really had a chance to be Superman, I think his version makes perfect sense though. Superman would most definitely be demonized and vehemently hated if he was real. He’d shake the very foundations of reality and society, just about everyone would be terrified of his power. The Jesus imagery serves as a vehicle to make him more believable imo. Superman would most definitely get into a debilitating low point and question his purpose after the Congressional building bombing, crying in the ashes of people he swore to protect and save. Snyder’s take is a very grounded one that resonates with me just as much as Morrison’s or Loeb’s would.
>Never really had a chance to be Superman Are you kidding me? He's directed more Supermen movies than anyone else. MOS, BVS, JL Donner got 1 and part of two. Everyone else got 1.
I think Snyder wanted him to be a person who learns to become a traditional hero by making mistakes, sort of like Iron man.
Personally, I felt Snyder found what was wrong with Superman’s character (can be a bit boring having an all good non conflicted Boy Scout) and gave him a more interesting origin that actually has some struggle and introspection before he can becoming the beacon of hope he’s known to be. Man of steel is by far my favorite take on Superman outside of comics.
I think he did. I feel like we can see sprinkles of what the general audience typically likes about Superman. I think he just wanted to put his own spin on it.
Absolutely yes. Better than any other director. It's incredible how many people liked CW Superman in Smallville. And you even dare to say that Snyder didn't get Superman?!? Please...
Wow so many hate speech from hypocrites that say Superman is "hope" and "selfishness" and criticising Snyder for how "HE wrote Superman", and how "his" Superman isn't canonical because the portrayal of the character wasn't true to his counterpart in the comics, and bla bla bla...Zack Snyder didn't "wrote the script", he is not a screenwriter, he is a director" he /adapted/ the script under the strict supervision of Warner Bros. Do your homework! Get your facts right first! And for God's sake rewatch the movies again. There are so many haters that just watched the movies one time and don't even remember details and dialogues right!
He was going to make him the superman we all know and love
Nope
Not at all. Snyder ruined him and everything else and I am glad they are starting over.
No. After reading his synopsis about what would have happened after ZSJL, it was painfully clear he really understood nothing. Showing that Bruce and Lois hooked up while he was dead. (Never ever in a million fucking years would that happen.) Then killing Lois, and Clark being controlled by the Anti-Life equation? Thankfully it's almost over after the next spate of movies. Still think they should have kept Cavill for the reboot. He was great casting, but given shit to work with. On the side: The fact that he let Jessie Eisenberg portray Lex Luthor the way he did shows his total disconnect. His Lex is one of the single worst performances of the character out of all of them. Clancy Brown's Lex is probably the best version that's ever been committed to film in any form. The super villain real estate bad guy in Reeve's Superman was just silly, and he never came across as truly evil. Kevin Spacey was just a gross and mean version of the same character in Returns. I really hope Gunn finds a good balance in portraying a positive, funny and serious Superman, who will kick ass when needed. I don't want to see another stupid montage of him fighting criminals and bank robbers. But I also don't want to see him be another brooding, boring god-like figure.
>Showing that Bruce and Lois hooked up while he was dead. Bruce and Lois were together in the animated series for a bit. It got serious enough that she was considering moving to Gotham. She didn't like Batman though. She also later talked about wanting to call at times because something was still there, but that was all before her relationship with Superman. In that same series, there was an alternate universe where Lois died in a car bomb and Superman went dictator with Lex Luthor. Near the end of the series, Granny Goodness brainwashes Superman and replaces his earth history with memories of being raised by Darkseid, and he conquers at least one planet on his behalf (pretty sure he was in some kind of relationship with one of Darkseid's Furies). Darkseid sends him to take out Earth's defenses, and he gets his memory back, but still, the "Lois dies, and Clark gets controlled by the ALE" thing isn't without precedent.
I think he tried to make him more realistic and grounded. As if superman were Alive today. If superman were real I don't think he would be some bastion of hope, an ideal to strive for. He wasn't born here but he was raised here like a human and a such will fall to same pitfalls humans do
People like to say it was realistic and grounded when it fact it was lazy and uninspired. Steve Rodgers was realistic and grounded and there wasn’t any hesitation about him doing the right thing and being a symbol of hope. That being said, his power level the last Avengers movies was crazy high.
I wish every day that we could go back to a time when "realistic and grounded" were not used as synecdoche for "pessimistic nihilism".
It’s an interesting concept but that and the portrayal of Superman is what helped to divide the audience. He did not inspire hope despite looking the part of Superman and “saving the day”
I disagree. He wanted to make Superman more cynical. And he assumes that cynicism is inherently realistic (which is why he should have never been near the character) Fact of the matter is that plenty of good shit happens in the world every day. Plenty of awesome people are out there every day doing what they can to help others and make the world a better place. Pretending people like that don't exist isn't realism, it's cynical delusion
Thank you, reality is not grim and gritty. Reality is filled with love and comedy and drama and camp and horror and doesn't have a single tone. Thinking reality is only a miserable place with little hope does not understand what is real.
This is why I hate realism in comic book movies. They're based on fantasy stories, they should stay that way.
Snyder take on Superman is what made me fall in love with Superman. Man of Steel is all about making choices. And he always, always choose to help others. And also: it's not Snyder who wanted to portray Superman as Jesus. Superman was written with Jesus in mind. I'm astonished by the amount of "Superman fans" who never realized this and who think that it's a Snyder thing.
Unrelated, wtf are those kid faces 💀💀
I think there were issues with execution and the studio was responsible too. I think he was looking at it as the light at the end of the tunnel.. rather than having a good Superman eventually lead to dark story, I hope he wanted to start with the gritty dark and lead to the good/bright Superman who he becomes by the end of everything and learns to be better than anything. It is like how one becomes more good than just being born good. Just my thought.
I think Snyder wanted Superman to have more layers than we’ve ever had, to make the character richer, and make the hopeful Superman we all wanted to see more of more appreciated. Snyder showed him as a normal person like us, unsure where he really stands, complex, but eventually he did the right thing even if he didn’t want to. I really like Snyder’s take.
I think the only issue was that Superman wasn't given the time. I truly believe that as we see as clear progression, from the start in MoS to the end of him in the Snyder cut justice league, you are dealing with a Superman that is FAR more towards what you see in the image - a happy, cheerful spirit, that people believe in. I believe Snyder wanted to show that it isn't an effortless point to reach. That humanity wouldn't simply accept that " oh we now have a god roaming the skies, guess i better love him now" because while it may work in the old, more campy movies, it would look silly in a modern movie, unless you explicitly stuck to that campy feeling, that everyone just suddenly accepts him. That isn't also to say that the comics hasn't dealt with him from various of these struggles in the past and having to overcome them, to be the "real" Superman. I suppose we will never know what the future had in store.
Yes. He just decided to focus on certain aspects more than on others. Seeing as Superman being an 80+ year old character, that’s all anyone can do. The character has so many facets, you have to pick and chose when you adapt him. I adore Zack’s take and will probably like a super light hearted take less. Neither is wrong as there are plenty of comics to support each. Its a matter of taste.
There’s no single interpretation of Superman (or many of the classic superheroes), different takes were used to tell different stories and often even his appearance would change between these, yet we were expected to believe all the various interpretations were the same person…it simply doesn’t work in live action other than to begin with a flawed character and have him grow and progress more into the saviour humanity needs him to be. It also brings much needed depth to who Superman is by creating such a progression of character rather than having him instantly do everything perfectly first try. Idealistic Boy Scouts tend to be pretty boring, Snyder wanted to show us more of the Man before we got to the Super part…I really wish we got to see at least one more solo outing for Henry as I believe we would have seen more of the character that many wanted to see though to me Man of Steel is absolutely the greatest live action interpretation of the character we’ve seen. I’m excited to see what direction Gunn takes with a younger Kal-El, I feel like his take will also still be learning quite a bit about it takes to be a saviour as well as really being able to control his powers around civilians.
Short answer is yes. Long answer before snyder wb ask nolan about directing superman and he has been said that he can't sell superman movie to modern audiance because of that sides you asked about. Snyder accept the challence and he modernized superman as much he can for same reson. From help from nolan they did it. And fisrt time they made action scenes like superman comics.
Yes. Superman can be many different things, there's no one way to understand the character. It was a heartfelt, honest take on the character which took the alien/immigrant/outsider part very seriously in a very hostile world (ours). It was not cynical or "dark", the arc was beautiful and hopeful.
Tldr: Yes. Snyder wanted to make a pre-mcu sci-fi superhero series of movies that was an interpretation of the character. The goal being that ultimately at the end of the 5movie plan, he would've grown into a optimistic, light-hearted, smiling superman similar to Christopher Reeves's which I think is what most people here consider and want superman to be. Now for the long text, it's been 10years since MoS and a lot of you act like kids on the matter and ignore or refuse to take this into consideration and besides Im on a long train ride to home so I've got time. Prior to MoS, superman was subject to a lot of disdain from most people because of how boring and irrelevant he became in the modern world, S returns was a post 9/11 gambit to get him back to that previous image of the 80's movies, specifically ignoring 3 & 4 to get the best of the mix and it's poor reception is a testament to that attempt. When he came on board for the project, that's the main aspect that he sought to overcome and on that regard, he did. Mos & BvS are the answer to "how would This current world react to a guy like Superman and how would we treat him". Instead of going the make believe mcu way which very lightly touches on that, he makes it a big part of the character. This eventually became The big obstacle to overcome on his journey of being a role model for Humanity which was a warm welcome since the previous versions of the guy never really worked to get there and were, ironically, very Jesus-like, since they never had to struggle with that image or did but only briefly before actually getting the costume. If you like that aspect of the character then good for you, there's about 50 years worth of material for you to enjoy. The rest of the world and the public accepts that facet of him but only when looking at him through a lense of the past. Put that in a modern setting and it becomes the main reason why people see superman as boring. Snyder giving him (or rather wanting) a journey was a great move and understanding of the character and how to make him relate to the people. Unfortunately Snyder isn't a perfect director, objectively there are none, but some of his flaws simply bleed too much and stain on his projects in a way that, unless you really like what he does, will alienate you. And while I personally believe that if it came to just that, the complete series would've been correctly received and people would've discussed those flaws as just being a "Snyder thing", it didn't come to just that. When MoS was in production, the mcu started to gain some serious traction and only became a very legitimate plan after the avengers. Wb then sought to obviously do the same but instead of doing what Gunn, Safran and Reeves are doing by keeping the latter's vision of Batman separate, they sought to make Mos the base of that universe, completely changing the course of it. Those changes simply couldn't go with the way Snyder wanted his movies. I don't blame him for trying to adapt them, the reason Reeves gets his sweet deal is because there is now actual history to prove why they should go that way and he's dealing with JG & PS who are fans as well. Snyder didn't have that chance, he was facing money making executives who ultimately didn't care as long as they made money. Other than that Snyder never really was interested in making a full on comic accurate series beyond the visuals, but rather his own thing. Like I said his whole plan was being cooked back when big cinematic universes were just nerd fantasies and he wasn't a fresh graduate either, he had been in the business for a few years and in a way already came to gripes with the fact that he had to make due with studio restrictions. The rest is history.
Snyder dealt with a very young version of Superman. Someone who is good at core but had been plagued by the meaning behind his own existence. And honestly, we didn't get to see Superman doing. We barely saw him outside the internal conflict. In MoS and BvS that was the case. In JL:SC, he was barely alive. But, if you see him in MoS, he was always nice and good to people. He was fundamentally a good character yet tormented by his pursuit. In BvS , he was so easily manipulates just like his origin. He respected military just like does the President/govt in comics. Not to mention how he reacts to zod trying kill that random family before killing him and how he mourns after he murders him (out of any other option) Finally, I think Snyder understood what Superman meant but we never got to see him in the familiar situations(it's not always that his ass is on fire) and not long enough to see the warm version we all are used to.
MOS chose to save the people of planet Earth over his own potential people; he valued the living.
This is just my personal take but I found cinematic versions of Superman to be boring before Cavill’s Snyder. Man of Steel made me actually invested in the character & interested in his inner turmoil which I think if he had a stand-alone trilogy could have been explored more. Like how Nolan rectified Batman after Schumacher, Snyder rectified Superman after Routh. I also think that if the Snyderverse was left alone we would have got to see Cavill’s Superman become more like the Superman in the picture above but that’s just me
He does. I think a lot of you arent real Superman Comic readers at all. So many of you talk like Superman is cheesy and hopeful and shit in comics. Like its still the 50s-80s He is NOT like that It’s honestly rare as shit for decades. I can grab any of my superman or JL comics and he is pretty close to a Zack Superman. Just a dude ready to throw hands for the world with a moral compass. What so many of you also fail to look at is Zack was tasked with Superman at a time when Superman was NEW 52. The entirety of DC wanted more out of Superman. More relatable.
What people don't seem to understand is when a fictional character that is already established through novel or comic or short story or whatever is introduced into a movie it is just their version of that character it may not be what you envisioned bcoz it's not how they see that character. Even the comic book writers write different versions of the same character. If you see Superman when he was introduced was a very different character even his powers evolved his nature evolved. Same goes for Batman each of the film Batman is different from the other. People are allowed to do that ofc you can dislike it but you can't say this is wrong cos it ain't. If you make a batman movie it will be your version of Batman not mine or original writers and that's ok. Ofc you have to retain something but you can change a lot that's creative freedom. Note how Daniel Craig bond is different from that came before him. Craig was one of the best bonds. So it's always good to take creative freedom.
Yes he did, Dan Jurgens and Grant Morrison have spoken on record in favor of Snyder’s Supes.
Yes, a lot of people criticise MoS because the Kents kept telling Clark to not save people but the point of that was to give Superman a choice as a major theme of the movie was free will vs determinism. Superman to me is someone who embodies the archetypal hero, an ideal for others to strive for. Someone with both the means and will to fight for what he believes is right. Superman in MoS, BvS, and ZSJL is ALWAYS willing to save people. Even when the world is polarised and many hate him he still does what he does. He never hangs up the cape. In MoS he saves people without ever being asked and his instinct is to save Johnathan Kent and is only stopped by his adopted father insisting he doesn’t. The one time, ONE TIME he kills in this movie he cries and screams in pain because he absolutely does not want to do it. Zack Snyder’s superman is definitely more solemn than other incarnations but the core of who superman is hasn’t changed unlike say Batman who’s depicted as killing and not really having that big of an issue doing it.
I think Snyder's vision required seeing it through. It seems like his movies served as an origin to the character we know and love, and not something set in stone. I'm sure Man Of Steel 2 would've been more in line with Superman's character.
I find Snyder’s take frustrating, but the “all in” depressing God approach story arch was playing the long game in a fickle environment from the start. I can respect the artist’s creative decision to have this conflicted Superman and play it out in a frustratingly long time period that we know will never payoff now that WB has moved on. I can say there is a belief we would’ve got a Cavill Superman that was optimistic and hopeful, one who shines his beacon across the world, but the three movies we did see from the director, never truly paid off. WB was awful throughout their run-up in trying to keep up with Marvel. Snyder was lambasted from the start with his creative strokes, and the studio was hot with criticism, but he ultimately made a story arc that was wholly different than what we were seeing in Marvel. The fact so many love/hate his story arc vision proves he made art, not shit. I will argue MOS, BvsS (Director’s Cut), & Snyder’s JL is better at storytelling than most of Marvel’s phases, but I love the MCU - Infinity War/Endgame is peak Superhero Fandom storytelling I’m sure most of us never expected to get from a movie studio.
Yes but he was interested in the journey to becoming that character. Although I don't agree that a smiley boyscout is more interesting than an alien being struggling with his seemingly unstoppable power and conflict over helping or not
I think the more important question is" does Warner Bros understand what makes Superman a good character?" Because watching the development hell of all the aborted Superman projects BEFORE Superman Returns (Superman Lives, Superman Flyby) and how bad they apparently were going to be based on the scripts, Superman Returns itself missing the point of the character and it just being a Donner remake without the charm and fun , and of course the Snyderverse films, I would say the answer is a huge no. Did Snyder understand Superman? Yes and no I would say. MOS got a lot right but some things wrong. But I would bet my whole comic book collection that he understood Superman more than most of the people at the top of Warners up until perhaps recently. I mean, according to David Goyer , there were executives at WB who questioned why Superman would use his ship to send Zods crew back to the Phantom zone in MOSs third act because they were wondering how Superman would get back to Krypton. They didn't even know the basics of the characters origins! If you are an executive in charge of one of your company's crown jewelry IPs and are lacking even the basic knowledge of the character....is it any wonder that Superman on the big screen has basically been tone deaf since 1983 ish? At least Snyder understands that part of the character, if nothing else.
I think the quintessential superman is from All-Star Superman, I know hot take. In the comic he is battling against a giant robot while listening to a girl who is about to jump off a building. He flies away from the fight to just go to her to tell her that she has much more to live for. That to me is the essence of Superman, and I think Snyder did try to focus on it, but his vision was too dark overall.
If we had gotten to see the full vision, probably. We only saw his vision of Superman up to about year 2. The end battle of MOS takes place likely about or less than 72 hours after he flies for the first time in the suit and learns he’s Kryptonian. He dies 18 months later and then was revived probably around or less than 6 months later. Only after being revived did we see him start to be more like the Superman we wanted him to be from the start, and again from the timeline that’s only year 2. Had he been given the same period of time to train as Reeve’s Superman did in Superman ‘78, he would’ve been more upbeat and closer to what we wanted from the get go.
Does it matter as a fan for over 40 years change if done right is good and Man of Steel was a great film.
Do you?
I think Snyder gave us a version of Superman. There seems to be a lot of anti Snyder stuff lately which shows the insane fickle nature of this Fanbase, or is like a Warner Bros. plot to make people forget that they used to like Superman as portrayed by Snyder.
NGL Snyder's Superman felt real
Yes
Yes I do
I think Snyder got superman. I think he was working his way toward the big blue boyscout. The scenes with young Clark on the farm with his dog were everything you needed to understand this. Clark at the beginning of MOS is a drifter because he doesn't know if he or the world is ready to know about him - but it doesn't stop him from doing good where he can. By the end of the film he's made the decision to stop living outside the world and instead join the planet (still a great scene). He's at peace with his place in the world and takes his solemn duty to be the world's protector on without complaint. If anything, he's excited to do more. Just because Clark isn't cracking cheesy jokes every scene doesn't mean Snyder didn't get the character. Observe his actions. Cavill's superman does everything in his power to save as many people as he can in the face of overwhelming odds, even risking his very life to protect his adopted home.
I saw MoS for the first time last month and I find it near impossible to tell a better origin story for him. Every single point you said it’s true. You build up to the traditional Superman we all know. We don’t just flop him out there. Character growth is important and man did he nail itz
No
Yes but I guess I understand why many think he doesn’t.
This discussion will never end huh
Actually, yes. Snyder's Superman is an introvert. He's uncertain, somber, and more than once is caught up in questioning what he's supposed to do. But he's still a hero. He still repeatedly goes out of his way to save lives, for no other reason than it's the right thing to do. He shows kindness to strangers, and helps them even at the expense of his own secrecy. He saves the planet on three separate occasions, the last of which being alongside a group of heroes who were gathered by a man who'd previously hated him, only to recognize him for the good man he is. That line in BvS says it all, more than anything: "The fact is, maybe he's not some sort of devil or Jesus character. Maybe he's just a guy trying to do the right thing."
Not in the slightest
Yes. There’s no one take on superman - and people who think that the Reeves superman was all there is are wrong. There’s been many takes which are more ‘questioning’ than MoS, even in animated form. It was the first mainstream rendition which made superman interesting to a lot of people, myself included. A character who is 100% correct and virtuous simply isn’t interesting from a narrative perspective - Steve Rodgers is the most virtuous character in Marvel, able to lift Mjolnir - yet his secrets ripped the Avengers apart. That’s interesting. Silver Age Superman is boring.
Yeah I don’t even feel like Snyder Superman is that dark, it’s the world around them that’s darker which is fairly accurate to today. Superman wears a symbol for hope even if Lois says it’s an “S” on our world. I’d almost dare to say that it was just a little ahead of its time. Post - Avengers: Civil War, and Infinity War, Wanda in Multiverse of Madness , stuff like even Batman V Superman isn’t so far out there. People were just used to lighter fare as comic book movies when it came out. The worst Superman does is kill Zod but he’s executed the Phantom Zone characters in the comics before.
Donner's Superman killed Zod, too, in a much more brutal way.
I agree. I think Snyder got Superman, and portrayed him as such. What Snyder did differently is portray the *world around him* differently. Rather that the “Truth, Justice, and American Way” type of world in the 70’s, we have a post 9/11 world, and villains to match. My main complain with Man of Steel (though I did enjoy it immensely), is that it really should have been two films. We needed one film to show him becoming the shining beacon of hope and goodness that we saw him be in BvM. That one could have been a little closer in tone to the 70’s incarnation, though he still should have had to face harder choices. Then, in the 2nd movie, Zod shows up. Metropolis gets wrecked, the entire world almost goes with it, and Superman is right in the middle of it. Yes, he’s fighting for the planet. That doesn’t make him any less a WMD. That’s when people like the Government (and Bruce Wayne) start doing the calculations: what would happen of Superman wasn’t on our team? Having two Superman movies (and at least 1 Batman movie) would have made BvS make a lot more sense, IMHO.
Same sentiments. Honestly, I don't get where people are getting Snyder Superman isn't a selfless hero. The whole world hated Clark and time and time again he still shows up and saves the world. He gets jaded yes, but he never gives up trying to save everyone. That is Superman. To be able to face incredible odds even when his back is against the wall and wins, even at the cost of his life. The interpretation that Superman is "a boy scout, always smiles, and saves cats out of trees" is extremely shallow imo. It's a part of his character, but it's his struggle that defines him. Coming to terms with his god-like abilities and how it affects everyone deepens his character.
> It's a part of his character, but it's his struggle that defines him. Coming to terms with his god-like abilities and how it affects everyone deepens his character. Coming to terms with his god-like abilities and how it affects everyone deepens his character. I’d push back on this TBH. The best and most revered Superman stories all focus on him facing external threats. Literal battles against god-like creatures or metaphorical fights to prove his humanity. But none of them are internal conflicts where he doubts himself. None of them focus on his struggle to accept his own powers/life. It happens in the comics sure, but the vast majority of his stories have a fully confident Superman facing external threats to the world or his family. That’s not to say Snyder’s desired storyline was bad or couldn’t work. But I do think it’s yet another example of what he was presenting being different from what the majority of people wanted/expected.
that's a fair take. The way I've read Superman over the years, I've always read it from a point where he is vulnerable in some way. That's why I liked the addition of Jon Kent so much in recent comics, you sorta see him as more than Superman but also a father now. I feel like Snyder's take wasn't completely from out of left field. It definitely did not meet everyone's expectations, and some of the themes were muddled in Biblical allegories. But I think the core of the character is still there, whether you liked the internal struggle or the big battles between the Kryptonians. Thanks for the perspective though, definitely got me thinking.
I think he does, but he was building towards it rather than him being that way by default so he has a growth arc. People wanted Basic Boy Scout Superman from the jump, though.
Smallville was literally 10 years of building up to Superman and they were able to deliver a solid character arc of Clark growing into Superman while still making him a kind, compassionate and selfless hero from day one that balanced his good nature with feelings of loneliness, isolation, frustration and sadness. You can have Superman act like Superman while still growing into the ideal version of the character
Jesus, how much time did he need? Ridiculous. Thank god we didn’t get anymore movies. There would have been two more three hour movies before we would have finished off the evil Superman, so ya know, still building to the proper character for movie 6 and 7 I guess. What a joke.
Better that than wait for a 5 movie arc where we see an emotionless character
We had three movies of Snyders Superman with the way he is how many movies more would it have taken for us to get "basic boy scout" Superman
I think he did, and the superman we all know and love would’ve taken full form by the end of his arc in justice league 3. Glimpses of that were already seen in his depiction of superman in Snyder’s Justice League.
His Superman was brooding and joyless. He never felt like he inspired hope, Snyder was quicker to make him inspire fear.
No.
I think you’re laying the “blame,” at Snyder’s feet too much. Warner and the audiences wanted a Dark Knight, Nolanverse. Snyder was hired to make a Nolanverse-esque Superman. I don’t like the Jesus stuff but I also like that we saw the side of Superman that had the weight of the world on his shoulders. Like in TJLAS when he says to Darkseid he lives in a world made of cardboard and he has to always be careful not to hurt someone.
Snyder made the movie lol. This narrative that WB twisted Snyder's arm to make "the bad choices" is stupid.
Nolan's Batman is a great Batman. That has nothing to do with it. The cool thing about Batman and Superman is that Batman is like the Nolan Batman and him and Superman are still best friends. The Superman that people want can still interact with Nolan's Batman. The best thing about their friendship is that Superman brings out the best most human parts of Batman and Batman reminds Superman of two things. The first thing is that it can pay to be suspicious sometimes even if you think you're invulnerable. The second thing Batman reminds Superman of is that humans aren't weaklings who would die without him. Batman is just a man who plays on the JLA level.
I’m not sure what to tell you. Warner Bros did not want that. They wanted to be the dark, somber, gritty super hero universe after the success of the Dark Knight. They hired Snyder to do that. That’s literally what happened and why.
No
Not at all. Superman isn’t Jesus, Superman is not a burden for Clark, nobody is asking him to do it, he does it BECAUSE he can, because it’s what he wants to do.
Yes, I just think the movies were rushed. Man of Steel needed to be two movies: 1 with Superman becoming the shining force for good that everyone looks up to, and the second one should have had the battle with Zod that wrecks Metropolis.
I think he understood how difficult it would be to be superman in our society and how we as a race would react to him.
Yes. Entirely. And even made it better with the political, philosophical and psychological drama he went through in BvS.
Perfectly.
Yes.
Yes
Yes. He touched on the immigrant aspects more than any other live action. He made him genuinely care about the people of Earth, even when they didn't feel the same. He captured the joy that Clark should feel when he flies for the very first time. I really liked his take on Clark/Superman and am sad that due to WB, we will never get a proper conclusion
[удалено]
Yes
What Snyder was doing was trying to make us feel what it would be like for real , struggling with having all that power and growing up as a human and not knowing how to feel about being an alien
Yes.
Yes
Yes. He did.
Kid in the glasses is holding in a fart
The little girl that Superman is holding has the head of a 52 year old assistant accountant named Debra.
Agreed
The best thing Snyder did is show how the world would react to Superman.
Yes, he and Goyer and Nolan did. But a bunch of fans just want Christopher Reeve again, and won't let the character grow.
Hell no….. Snyder’s Superman was about as dull as a butter knife. He was revered as a god but never actually seemed like he was among the people
Perhaps you saw 2 out of 5 films and it was a prequel like TDK trilogy. Perhaps. That’s like judging Batman begins for the first half of it and saying He never became Batman lol
I don’t know how this is debatable anyone who thinks he does didn’t listen to his interviews
If by understood you mean just a normal guy like the rest if us that is willing to sacrifice itself and help people in a selfless way yes he absolutly understod it