That is a good article.
But I think it might go a little deeper then that.
I think the current stable of Hollywood screenwriters can't fathom a character that is driven by "stable self confident goodness".
All heroes must have angst, daddy issues and dark secrets to work. Today's modern and sophisticated audience would never buy into the "one dimensional" good guy with nothing but altruistic motives. That would be......too far fetched. Even in a big budget spectacle, sci if/fantasy epic with unbelievable super powers and tech it's inconceivable that "confident good" can be pulled off convincingly. I think the fault lies at the feet of lazy writers or possibly studio execs who think they know what sells.
Say what you want about the 1978 Superman portrayal by Reeves but when he looks Lois in the eye and answers
"I'm here to fight for truth, justice and the American way" only the most jaded individual would roll their eyes and mutter
"Yeah, right". Which is exactly what Lois does, she laughs and says " You'll be fighting every member of congress".
But Superman doubles down, "Lois, I never lie."
To me those lines delivered in that manner was a bigger special effect than showing Superman flying.
A more recent display of Supermans "self confident goodness" was in Kingdom Come, where he is rightly shown as the guiding light to all other super heroes.
His besting of Capt Marvel and subsequent dialog with him are masterfully written and insightful to comics first and greatest hero.
... of course Superman's Kansas upbringing has become the key in understanding why he is who he is .... With the Snyderverse, they try to get post-modern and creative, with Pa telling Clark to let kids drown, his mother telling him that he doesn't owe anyone ****, etc., with some larger, more abstract argument about him doing good in the long run. But that's the wrong way to go about it because it doesn't resonate with much of anybody, and doesn't facilitate the basic narrative that should be at play here.
But why is it wrong? Sure it's different but why wrong? Sure it makes the narrative harder, for the people who still want Richard Donner's Superman.
What's the deal with Superman? He does the right thing, he's a cool dude, people look up to him, and so on, right?
In this case, from the looks of it, the Kents are ill advising him because the situation is clearly out of their grasp, for one we actually see Pa Kent was right about wanting to keep it a secret, after the ****** doubtful "maybe", now we see Ma Kent saying he doesn't owe ****, right? But, you see, in both cases Clark gives them a look like "huh?".
My point is, is it really that bad that Superman can become the Superman we know by his own choice?...
Beyond nurture, despite having a some bad advice from his parents, which really, they did give him a good upbringing and you can see that in MoS, in scenes like when the bullies push him, hell, later Pa Kent even says "you're gonna have to choose the kind of man you want to be Clark".
Isn't is just as valid to have a Superman who chose, by himself, to save people despite his parents doubt? Despite the people who rally against him? etc etc? A Superman who made mistakes at the beginning and is becoming the Superman we know, I mean this would be a Superman who started flawed and actually reached the ideal he's supposed to embody.
Well said. This is my only gripe with this movie. Batman is smart. That along with his money is his superpower. He is always 4 steps ahead of everybody. Sure, Bruce saw the destruction of Metropolis from the street level and saw Gods destroying the city in their battle. But Batman would have seen also that Zod threatened the entire planet if Kal El didn't turn himself in. Superman did turn himself over to Zod, then saved the entire planet by taking out Zod and the other Kryptonians. Casualties happened because Superman cannot be everywhere at once and cannot fight Zod while saving people. Batman would have studied what happened and saw that Superman saved the planet from annihilation. Batman is a big picture guy and for me, having this be the reason he wants to take Superman out seems weak. I am truly hoping that there is another reason for Batman and Superman to fight. Sure, Batman would always think of a way to take him out and use it IF he thought Superman was going to be a threat. But right now, all he has to go on is a lot of Metropolis got destroyed because Zod tried to destroy it and Superman stopped him. Seems like a weak reason for Batman deciding Superman must be taken out.
I don't think Batman distrust would come so much from Superman saving the planet (Batman's going to figure that out), but from the possibility of Superman turning against it and wanting to rule it.
I think the sequence in the trailer were you see the Superman cops kneeling down and you see Desert Bat is a dream sequence, from Bruce's nightmares, in which Superman has taken over the world and Batman is this underground rebel, like in Red Son.
Hence more than fighting him, Batman is going to test Superman, that's just me though.
It would be poor writing if logical Bruce didn't understand or care that Kal was in fact fighting members of his own race to safeguard Earth.
What does the world and Bruce think those world engines were or is Bruce so myopic all he cares about is his building being destroyed?
Great rebuttals on both subjects Gaspar, but Batman doesn't look like he's just creating a simple ethics test for Superman, he looks like he wants to murder him.
Great rebuttals on both subjects Gaspar, but Batman doesn't look like he's just creating a simple ethics test for Superman, he looks like he wants to murder him.
But why is it wrong? Sure it's different but why wrong? Sure it makes the narrative harder, for the people who still want **** Donner's Superman.
What's the deal with Superman? He does the right thing, he's a cool dude, people look up to him, and so on, right?
In this case, from the looks of it, the Kents are ill advising him because the situation is clearly out of their grasp, for one we actually see Pa Kent was right about wanting to keep it a secret, after the ****** doubtful "maybe", now we see Ma Kent saying he doesn't owe ****, right? But, you see, in both cases Clark gives them a look like "huh?".
My point is, is it really that bad that Superman can become the Superman we know by his own choice?...
Beyond nurture, despite having a some bad advice from his parents, which really, they did give him a good upbringing and you can see that in MoS, in scenes like when the bullies push him, hell, later Pa Kent even says "you're gonna have to choose the kind of man you want to be Clark".
Isn't is just as valid to have a Superman who chose, by himself, to save people despite his parents doubt?
Right, but the way it was written is unrealistic and weightless. You wouldn't develop a moral core without knowing what's right and what's wrong, and you wouldn't know that if your parents were only concerned about your safety, to the point of being suicidal just to show how cruel the world is and how important you are.
I don't think Batman distrust would come so much from Superman saving the planet (Batman's going to figure that out), but from the possibility of Superman turning against it and wanting to rule it.
I think the sequence in the trailer were you see the Superman cops kneeling down and you see Desert Bat is a dream sequence, from Bruce's nightmares, in which Superman has taken over the world and Batman is this underground rebel, like in Red Son.
Hence more than fighting him, Batman is going to test Superman, that's just me though.
Riddick hits the nail on the head. There is choice, but a choice contextualized by his upbringing. If you ignore that then you ignore what makes Superman what he is. Selfish "take care of yourself first" guidance is antithetical to that.
My point is, it's not so much about nurture as it is about nature, you can choose to do the right thing despite outside influences, in this case, the few bad pieces of advice that are given to him by his out of the loop, concerned parents, and about the moral core, Pa Kent asked him if punching that kid would've made him feel any better, also you can see Clark reading Plato in that scene, If I remember correctly, Plato talks about altruism, I'd like to assume he somehow agrees with that.
Sure Classic Superman's upbringing is the back bone of the character, in MoS it is also important, but his own choice is equally or more important.
Having an alternative to that isn't ignoring what Superman is, the important part is reaching that ideal, and the fact that anyone can reach that ideal by choice despite your context, that is what really is important, and that is in fact the whole point of Superman.
Hey you ****ed up, hey you got some bad advice, guess what? You can still do the right thing, you can still achieve that ideal.
If they indeed play it like I hope they do in BvS or in a MoS sequel, and judging by the scenes of him saving a ton of people, I think they will.
Great rebuttals on both subjects Gaspar, but Batman doesn't look like he's just creating a simple ethics test for Superman, he looks like he wants to murder him.
I know that synopsis claims Batman is testing him, but that isn't the vibe I'm getting so far. Batman is asking if he bleeds, he's telling Alfred that he needs to be destroyed. That doesn't sound like a test.
Unless it is some kind of tough guy act and the big reveal is "I was just testing you bro". Then again, maybe it's a bit of both. The description for this new Batman is that he is a world weary, cynical, burn out at the end of his rope. Maybe he's trying to pull a Pa Kent throughout the movie so Superman kills him? Then when he doesn't, Batman plays the "it was just a prank, I was testing you, lol".
I know that synopsis claims Batman is testing him, but that isn't the vibe I'm getting so far. Batman is asking if he bleeds, he's telling Alfred that he needs to be destroyed. That doesn't sound like a test.
Other rumors suggest the "Do you bleed" is from a dream sequence
And the Destroy line is taken out of context for the trailer, much like, what's the oldest lie in america? Devils don't come from beneath, it's just an edit for drama.
I know it happens in the comics and cartoons, but I have a hard time seeing Batman being a team player. Batman is like the total antithesis of Superman, why would they ever team up? I hope Batman is played up as a reluctant teammate, an outsider. I've always had a problem with that archetype teaming up with the likes of Super friends. Just something odd about it.
It works with that cartoon 80s era Batman that is pretty much a happy go lucky captain with all of his cool gadgets, yes, but I just don't see why a brooding, loner character that these movies tend to depict would team up with super-beings.
The US government should probably know after the events of MOS anyway. Doesn't he tell them his age and where he grew up? And you can be damn sure they'd investigate who the superpowered alien had been disguised as all these years.
