Posted on 05/24/2015 12:15:04 PM PDT by EveningStar
Since the official teaser trailer for Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice debuted online in April, fans and critics alike have been discussing the kind of Superman Zack Snyder is going to depict in his Man of Steel sequel. The controversy stems from Snyder's decision to cast Superman as a brooding, Dark Knight-like character, who cares more about beating up bad guys than saving people. The casting split has proved divisive among Superman fans: Some love the new incarnation, citing him as an edgier, more realistic version of the character.
But Snyder's is a different Superman than the one fans grew up with, and many have no problem expressing their outrage over it ...
But what many fans don't realize is that Superman hasn't always been the Big, Blue Boy Scout they've come to know and love. In fact, in the very early stages of the character's development, he wasn't a hero at all, but a villain. And even after Superman became an enforcer of good in his earlier years, his brand of justice was as gray, morally speaking, as the color palette Snyder's films embrace. In other words, the newest incarnation of Superman isn't so much a betrayal of the character's origins as it is a perhaps unwitting return to them ...
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
ping
This movie will be a bomb. . . Fail. People want their heroes. . . Not feet of clay. It’s another nail in the coffin of our society from the Liberals.
As far as I am concerned, there is only one superman. Played by George Reeves in black and white, in the afternoons after school. And the mole men were the coolest ever.
In fact, in the very early stages of the character’s development, he wasn’t a hero at all, but a villain …The titular character in The Reign of the Superman is a completely different character from Kal-El.
True, the golden age stories showed a Superman who was a little rough on the bad guys. But as years went on, and his backstory was expanded, that fell away.
And it made sense. A person raised from infancy by a decent, hardworking Kansas farm couple would not in all likelihood turn out to be a brute. He would be a guy with normal values who would use his gifts to serve others and to protect his adopted country. Yeah, he’s Kryptonian, but he’d assimilated.
But that’s not very Hollywood, is it.
I'd say they're way behind the curve on this. Batman's been brooding for at least thirty years (longer if you ignore the Adam West years), Spiderman for fifty. It would have been more interesting to stick with what they had and try to do something new with it, rather than follow the rest of the herd.
nothing is sacred.. O jeez louissse
Hear, hear!
I’m in total agreement with you.
Hollywood can’t even leave our MEMORIES alone.
I have never seen a “Batman” movie; will not.
I like my Superheros as I remember them from comic books.
We are truly living in Bizzaro World.
Nope. George Reeves or Christopher Reeve. When it comes to Superman, all other arguments are invalid! :)
Especially the Electrolux vacuum cleaner.
“Superman’s forever-long fight with Zod and his violent death at the hands of the Man of Steel, along with the destruction of Metropolis, and Superman’s utter lack of effort to try to save people.”
Did this idiot even watch the movie?! Superman reluctantly killed Zod TO SAVE PEOPLE ZOD WAS GOING TO KILL.
/Slate sucks
Sorry, I meant:
/the Atlantic sucks
Based on FR's movie-prediction track record that statement probably means the movie will be a huge success. Even Avatar, before its release, was predicted to be a huge failure on FR before going ahead to gross over a billion (talking about 10 figures, I predict a billion as well for this movie once everything is added together. Consider that Man of Steel grossed a global tally of $668 million on 14 weeks).
Predictions aside, I'm not too sure that people want their heroes as they used to be. People have lost something over the last decade or so, and many of the 'modern heroes' couldn't pass muster twenty years ago. The inverse is also true, with many of the pure white-hat heroes of yesteryear not making it today. Think about the first Superman movie starting Christopher Reeves. A truly wonderful and superlative movie, with some scenes that are simply wonderful (eg where Superman takes Lois up into the clouds, and Louis has her monologue/soliloquy where she wonders if he can 'read her mind'). Wonderful wonderful movie, but if it was released today it would bomb. Not enough violence, not enough gore, not enough action.
The Superman vs Batman could be filled with 2 hours of Teletubbies dancing, and the mere fact that the title states 'Superman versus Batman' would guarantee that it would be a commercial success. Even if we ignore modern heroes with feet of clay versus yesteryear's golden gods, that movie is guaranteed success. But if we take the money out of the equation, I am still of the opinion that society has sufficiently changed that the modern hero is, at best, the anti-hero of yesterday.
Who knows, maybe in another decade or two it will have shifted from yesterday's anti-hero to yesterday's villain. Maybe you'll see a movie with General Zod as the protagonist!
But this movie will make money hand over fist, simply by its title card alone, even if it was simply a two hour montage of Mayweather 'fighting' Pacquiao and Romney 'fighting' Hollyfield.
I think we've reached a point in which Hollywood is too cynical to make a squeaky-clean patriotic hero like Superman. When the first Christopher Reeve movie was made, they could have taken a cynical approach in the post-Vietnam late 70s. Instead, they embraced Superman's squareness. Some could view it as a little campy, others as a true representation of a hero. Either way, everybody liked it. When Reeve's Superman says he is here "to fight for truth, justice and the American Way", it may have been meant as a laugh line, but theater audiences when I saw it always broke out in cheers.
This new Snyder film will suck, as did his previous one. The Batman movies have likewise gotten too dark. I prefer the freewheeling style of Marvel's cinematic comics universe to the dark dystopian DC movies. Comic book heroes are supposed to be uplifting, a form of escapism; not a reminder of how broken our world is.
LOL! Now that you mention it, I do remember!
>>The titular character in The Reign of the Superman is a completely different character from Kal-El.
That’s because the only thing they share is the author and the name. This guy is a telepath from Earth.
The whole juxtaposition of Superman and Batman is that Superman is a rule follower with extraordinary abilities, while Batman is a guy out for justice with world-class normal abilities he had to earn. Batman being the justice guy and having experienced the darker side is worried that someone with Sup’s abilities could go astray. Superman being the rule follower looks askance at Batman’s stepping into a lot of gray areas. It’s nearly always been that way and it’s why the team-ups were great. It’s the dichotomy that makes it work. They both admit they’re way isn’t the only way, but they both try to make the other better by seeing their side. AND YES the character mentioned in the article had little to do with the Kal-el superman we know.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.