Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

Originally posted by Firefly218
I super disagree with you. Clark's family should ground him in humanity and keep reminding him that he's part of it. In MoS and BvS the only thing they do is encourage Clark's detachment from humanity.

Also AoU had its own flaws but was a way better experience at the movies than BvS for me

I disagree. Clark wants to be a hero because of how the Kents raised him, but the Kents have always considered Clark to be their first priority. Keeping him safe from people that might try to hurt him. They celebrate him when he becomes a hero, but if he's unsure of himself, they're always going to encourage him to follow his own path.

Superman is huge in that he's a hero simply because he wants to be. He's not doing it to avenge someone, or to make someone proud. He does it simply because it's the right thing to do. The Kents always cared more about him than anything else.

BvS is slightly better than AOU for me. Both movies had their problems, neither were spectacular, but we're both still enjoyable IMO.

Originally posted by -Pr-
I disagree. Clark wants to be a hero because of how the Kents raised him, but the Kents have always considered Clark to be their first priority. Keeping him safe from people that might try to hurt him. They celebrate him when he becomes a hero, but if he's unsure of himself, they're always going to encourage him to follow his own path.

Superman is huge in that he's a hero simply because he wants to be. He's not doing it to avenge someone, or to make someone proud. He does it simply because it's the right thing to do. The Kents always cared more about him than anything else.

Originally posted by Robtard
Pretty much, why Jonathan questions whether Clark should have saved all the children on the bus in MOS and allowed himself to die in the tornado, not that he wanted those kids and himself to die, just that Clark's safety with being exposed comes first to him as a father.

Originally posted by Firefly218
But no! That moment was like the parenting in Frozen, internalize what's special about you, keep your uniqueness to yourself and hide from the world. The brilliance of Clark's dad dying of a heart attack in the Reeves version was that even with Clark's godlike power he was powerless to save his own father. In MoS he CHOOSES to not save his father... That's bullshit and Zack Snyder changes history for the worst.

It wasn't done well, but Snyder was still arguing the same point that we've been getting in Superman lore for years now: To the Kents, Clark matters more than anything else. They don't want to take away his humanity; they simply want for him what any parent wants for their child: A happy life.

Originally posted by -Pr-
I disagree. Clark wants to be a hero because of how the Kents raised him, but the Kents have always considered Clark to be their first priority. Keeping him safe from people that might try to hurt him. They celebrate him when he becomes a hero, but if he's unsure of himself, they're always going to encourage him to follow his own path.

Superman is huge in that he's a hero simply because he wants to be. He's not doing it to avenge someone, or to make someone proud. He does it simply because it's the right thing to do. The Kents always cared more about him than anything else.

Originally posted by Firefly218
I'm sure there are many incarnations of superman in the comics or something else I don't know about in which Clark's parents care more about their son than broad questions like morality and humanity, so I disagree with ALL of them. It's like dr Manhattan, there's no way you can have Godlike powers AND be completely divorced from humanity and still care about the good. The Reeves superman was very Everyman and that's what made him compelling, because he was the best humanity had to offer.

Clark is always going to relate to humanity. He was raised by human parents. Even Snyder admits in interviews that this Clark is still exploring what it means to be human. He's just taking a longer time to reach that point that Superman has in the past.

Clark constantly goes against the Kents advice as well. He does save the bus full of children, he does save the oil rig workers, he saves Lois. He reveals himself to the world and gives himself up to protect humanity from Zod. Each time revealing his secret and being forced compromise his own life. Then in this movie he gives up everything for the protection of others. He doesn't owe them anything, but he gives them everything.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Clark constantly goes against the Kents advice as well. He does save the bus full of children, he does save the oil rig workers, he saves Lois. He reveals himself to the world and gives himself up to protect humanity from Zod. Each time revealing his secret and being forced compromise his own life. Then in this movie he gives up everything for the protection of others. He doesn't owe them anything, but he gives them everything.

That last line is Superman in a nutshell.

Originally posted by Firefly218
But no! That moment was like the parenting in Frozen, internalize what's special about you, keep your uniqueness to yourself and hide from the world. The brilliance of Clark's dad dying of a heart attack in the Reeves version was that even with Clark's godlike power he was powerless to save his own father. In MoS he CHOOSES to not save his father... That's bullshit and Zack Snyder changes history for the worst.

You can not like the way it was done; that's fine. I didn't particularly like the tornado scene either, but the point was to illustrate what we're directly talking about, Jonathan and Martha Kent care about Clark's safety above and beyond anything else, ie they're parents in every sense of the word

Originally posted by -Pr-
Clark is always going to relate to humanity. He was raised by human parents. Even Snyder admits in interviews that this Clark is still exploring what it means to be human. He's just taking a longer time to reach that point that Superman has in the past.

As an audience member I couldn't relate to Superman whatsoever either and found him shallow and botched.

Not to continue whining too much but a moment I can pinpoint in MoS that bothered me was when Lois asks Clark what the S stands for and he says "On MY world...". Essentially in his mind, Clark has completely distanced himself from humanity and earth. Given that and his family upbringing I don't understand or relate with his motivations at all.

Originally posted by Firefly218
At some point when he's worshipped as a God, has statues erected of him and nearly limitless power, it just doesn't make sense how he still relates to and cares about humanity. Or why he would sacrifice himself for humanity when hes grown up in a very self-involved atmosphere.

Um, did you miss how he was clearly very uncomfortable by all of that?

Originally posted by Firefly218
Not to continue whining too much but a moment I can pinpoint in MoS that bothered me was when Lois asks Clark what the S stands for and he says "On MY world...". Essentially in his mind, Clark has completely distanced himself from humanity and earth. Given that and his family upbringing I don't understand or relate with his motivations at all.

Lol wtf. He's just a dude. He doesn't distance himself from anyone, the whole finale of Batman vs Superman is

Spoiler:
Batman realising that Clark is a person no different from himself.

Originally posted by Robtard
You can not like the way it was done; that's fine. I didn't particularly like the tornado scene either, but the point was to illustrate what we're directly talking about, Jonathan and Martha Kent care about Clark's safety above and beyond anything else, ie they're parents in every sense of the word

Originally posted by Firefly218
I understand that and respect the fact that some people are okay with it, it's just that I'm not. In order for superman to become such a morally exceptional person, he needs to have had morally exceptional parents who aren't just like any other parents. Truly special parents.

The entire point of the Kents, going all the way back in Superman lore, is that they're exceptionally average, salt of the earth people. They teach him basic moral values, and raise him the best they can. tbut they aren't exceptional at all. It's kind of the point that they're just doing the best they can to raise him to be a good person.

Originally posted by Firefly218
At some point when he's worshipped as a God, has statues erected of him and nearly limitless power, it just doesn't make sense how he still relates to and cares about humanity. Or why he would sacrifice himself for humanity when hes grown up in a very self-involved atmosphere.

As an audience member I couldn't relate to Superman whatsoever either and found him shallow and botched.

Not to continue whining too much but a moment I can pinpoint in MoS that bothered me was when Lois asks Clark what the S stands for and he says "On MY world...". Essentially in his mind, Clark has completely distanced himself from humanity and earth. Given that and his family upbringing I don't understand or relate with his motivations at all.

It might not make sense in the movies, but it does in the comics. Hopefully Snyder follows through with the plans to make Superman more connected to humanity.

Originally posted by -Pr-
t might not make sense in the movies, but it does in the comics. Hopefully Snyder follows through with the plans to make Superman more connected to humanity.

Originally posted by Firefly218
I understand that and respect the fact that some people are okay with it, it's just that I'm not. In order for superman to become such a morally exceptional person, he needs to have had morally exceptional parents who aren't just like any other parents. Truly special parents.

Fair enough.

While Synder did away with the 'perfect upbringing' aspect (personally, I feel that fits better in a live action Superman story), there were scenes in MoS were we see Jonathan instill high morals into Clark, like not crushing the bully that pushed him down, which he could have easily done. But funnily enough, Synder then craps on that with having Clark destroy the would-be-rapist's truck, which was petty in the bigger picture, but I also saw that as Clark struggling to find balance between doing everything right and his natural emotions.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2016/04/08/warner-bros-projected-to-earn-less-from-batman-v-superman-than-it-did-from-man-of-steel

BvS is projected to make less than Man of Steel. Ouch. This isn't a super popular opinion, but I actually enjoyed Man of Steel. The intro was one of the best in any super hero movie, the plot was passable, and the fights were better than BvS (which is kind of sad), so its understandable.

^ Projected to make less profit. It's already outgrossed it in total revenue.

Hopefully this will encourage WB to pull the plug on JL(for now), and concentrate on making solo films.

Hopefully it makes them realise you can't just jump into ensemble films. Well I can carry on dreaming. All they'll probably see is "Hey it made a bit of Profit, let's make a little more with Justice League!"

Originally posted by Darth Thor
^ Projected to make less profit. It's already outgrossed it in total revenue.

Hopefully this will encourage WB to pull the plug on JL(for now), and concentrate on making solo films.

Hopefully it makes them realise you can't just jump into ensemble films. Well I can carry on dreaming. All they'll probably see is "Hey it made a bit of Profit, let's make a little more with Justice League!"

Originally posted by Firefly218
But you CAN jump straight into ensemble movies. Guardians of the Galaxy did it beautifuly. My third favorite movie of all time Serenity did it brilliantly. Just because BvS wasn't good doesn't mean it couldn't have been done. Otherwise I agree on the solo films part.

Serenity had an entire season to build upon and develop the characters. Guardians worked because none of those characters bar maybe Star-Lord would be expected to carry a movie by their lonesome. It's a team that works best when developed together.