The Myth of Batman v Superman

Umberto Eco (Eco, 1972) analyzed the Superman myth in a very important article that makes several assertions about the Superman mythos and comic books in general. In this instance we will inspect and understand this treatise’s connection with Snyder’s Superman depicted in Man of Steel and in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice.

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.4plebs.org/tv/thread/68992181/
archive.4plebs.org/tv/thread/69128743/
youtube.com/watch?v=br_xKDSevV4
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

For pragmatic purposes, here is a brief summary of Eco’s essay:

Summary: The Myth of Superman
>Superman - Arrived on Earth from planet Krypton
>Unlimited strength, speed, and sight
>Can break speed of light and able to time travel
>Battles the forces of Evil
Because of these traits, Superman becomes hard to identify with.

Self-Identification
Possible due to dual-identity of Superman.
>Lives among men as journalist Clark Kent
>He is timid, awkward, and submissive
>In a sense, Clark represents “average readers” (not a critical or Model Reader)

Superman, however, does not share all the same qualities as mythical figures…

Myth’s Construction
>Mythical figures are defined by a previous complex story or labor
>Superman-monthly subscriptions touch on previous subscriptions and not on complex story
>Religious/Mythical figures have predetermined fate - Superman does not

Superman: A Narrative Flaw
>Issue with Superman - 1 weakness: Kryptonite. This limits narrative theme:
>As a result, scriptwriters must create intriguing obstacles due to character’s flatness
>Consumption of Superman: cannnot consume himself since he is a myth (which Eco says are inconsumable BECAUSE they are already consumed by some exemplary action - often upholding some law such as valor or rebirth)
>>Even if he just flies around for an hour of action, he moves closer to death and gets older
>> Remains “both” since he is a mythical creature existing in a normal world (Earth)

“Consequently, the character has made a gesture which is inscribed in his past and which weighs on his future. He has taken a step toward death, he has gotten older, if only an hour; his storehouse of personal experiences has irreversibly enlarged. To act, then, for Superman as for any other character (or each of us), means to ‘consume’ himself.” (Eco 111)

Time in Superman Comics
>Time is broken down due to serialization - what is the time that connects one story to the next?
>If each week’s story took on where last one left off, Superman would be moving closer to death and older (i.e. consuming himself)
>Scriptwriters develop an “oneiric” climate - the connection is hazy on purpose to distract readers from time issue between stories:

“the reader, without realizing it, of course, loses the notion of temporal progression” (Eco 115)

Redundancy
>Reader likes (and expects) redundancy - seen in stock characters and in small habits of even complex characters (Holmes’ recurring tic)
>Roots come from feuilleton - founded in triumph of information and having messages loaded with redundancy and focus of tradition (doesn’t want to upset norms). The character is “required to ‘consume’ himself through to death” (Eco 120)

Civic and Political Consciousness
>Superman is most powerful and represents the conglomerate of all superheroes (he is the forerunner of superheroes and most carefully sketched and sought after)
>Why limit the use of their powers? They usually fight bank robbers and mail-truck robbers (Superman now connotes “fights only for human property” - he chooses not to fight for world peace or take over the government and enforce strict morals to improve humanity
>Furthermore, Superman wastes time and raising money for charity events (see above connotation), when he could be using his energy to create sustainable energy for the entire world
>>Leads Eco to conclusion about Superman’s pervasive theme: good is represented only as charity

It’s clear that some aspects of Eco’s essay require to be updated - seeing as his knowledge of the character’s development stops in the 70’s.
>Superman no longer strays away from political dilemmas and state issues
>His prime villains have changed with the times: the attacks of them solely on private property (possibly correlated to the population’s mindset during the Cold War) warped to attacks that pose global threats
>His once-sacred no-kill rule has been broken several times, opening the door to morality discussions
>More importance has been given to continuity, both in comics and their direct logical extensions: Cinematic Universes
These are just some examples.

Snyder’s intention isn’t to provide the definitive version of Superman. As Eco declares, this is impossible seeing as this would make the figure consume itself. Snyder intends simply to provide the character with another intriguing obstacle: that of a modern, hyperreal, cynical society.

The hyperrealism of Zack Snyder's latest films has come to be one of the most defining traits of them.

The context of these superhero movies is very much a parallel to our real world, working as a mirror to it, where post 9/11 paranoia is still real, race relations are shaky, with tensions at an all time high, and an honest, yet cynical view of the fervent religious fervor that captures a significant sect of our population. While Snyder aims to give us a "what if" situation of how these heroes would be received, exist and live in our own world, he at the same time refuses to stop there. He still adheres to the comic book aesthetic, perhaps more so than any other director. He refuses to apologize for the look of these heroes, forgoing the usual "functional armor" look that many cinema superheroes are chained too. No, these heroes look AND act as if they leaped from the pages of a graphic novel, and the world they leaped into is our own.

By imbuing the DCEU with the most uncompromising comic book influence there is, while not disregarding the mythical traits of these characters, and at the same time grounding the characterization of these heroes within the context of our world, Zack has created one of the most hyperreal cinema concepts perhaps ever executed.

The reaction of the public to these stories validates this thesis. And in a genius meta-infused gesture is depicted in the film itself as the urine jar in the Capitol hearing.

>Piss Christis a 1987 photograph by the American artist and photographer Andres Serrano. It depicts a small plastic crucifix submerged in a glass of the artist's urine.
Lex Luthor's sabotage of Superman's will to serve humanity was highlighted by his seemingly ultra-petty humiliation of Senator Finch. Yet the two unrelated schemes have this artful connection.

>Sister Wendy Beckett, an art critic and Catholic nun, stated in a television interview with Bill Moyers that she regarded the work as not blasphemous but a statement on "what we have done to Christ": that is, the way contemporary society has come to regard Christ and the values he represents.
The entire idea behind the Congressional Hearing was Piss Christ. The idea of the movie in itself is Piss Christ. Snyder is completely aware of all the themes at work here, including that of a "realistic" take on Superman being detrimental to the character, moving him closer to death. Placing Superman in a real world setting -- that of cynics, corruption, and apathy -- is the same as placing Jesus in a jar of piss that is our contemporary society. This doubles down on the prediction that Superman's miracle of resurrection will usher in a new era for this world free from the cynicisim and 'realism' where Superman can live up to his potential.

>Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne,George Pell, sought an injunction from the Supreme Court of Victoriato restrain the National Gallery of Victoria from publicly displaying Piss Christ, which was not granted. Some days later, one patron attempted to remove the work from the gallery wall, and two teenagers later attacked it with a hammer.

Snyder was even genius enough to predict the movie's hatred, from prominent critics and especially from passionate youths desperate for the pure symbol promised to them in their sunday schools and bedtime stories (comics and cartoons).

Justice League, as the final part of the Superman trilogy, will reveal all.

Bravo Snyder.
Thanks OP

Apparently all it takes to impress IMDB kiddos is to recreate famous biblical paintings. Snyder wants you to think he's creating something substantial but he's not. All these pretentious Christ allegories are only there to distract from the filmmakers lack of compelling ideas for their film.

I dont get what is going on here.
are snyder 2deep4u fags trying to use eco's words to justify the hunk of shit that was bvs?

Cavill is cute.

Further readings on Snyderkino

archive.4plebs.org/tv/thread/68992181/

archive.4plebs.org/tv/thread/69128743/

I'll screencap them together later.

>The world sucks so much
>crawling in my skin
>we need to kill everyone or everyone kills everyone because we need to kill everyone, did I mention we need to kill everyone?
>god is evil and we are very afraid of him, we are Christians because of Stockholm-syndrome

>the world is a nice place even if it has flaws
>all problems come from a lack of communication and can be solved
>divine beings are enlightened and encompass both ends of the humans scale with an understanding of how good and bad, order and chaos complete each other (Vision)
>fun

Just like political parties, DC and Marvel merely mirrors the two main schools of human thought.

Good contribution to the cause.

...

>3 hour long thread
>16 posts
This is so sad.

But it has no quips though

are you the same guy who made a thread based on this post?

Yes.

Very interesting stuff, thanks OP. Great film.

nah, I read that post too and found it interesting, when I was thinking out this shit that post came to mind.
Boys share too.

Thanks OP. Still reading.

How can such a humble man have such a brutal eye with which to fearlessly criticize our society?

Because he knows that most of the people who understand what he's doing also agree with him.

Shit sandwich.

Whats really sad is that all the underage MCUkiddies are busy redditposting in their shitty criclejerk threads while theres only hand few of us Kino connoisseurs left on this board to discuss and dissect this finest Kino.

You think that the perception versus reality theme is going to have further application? I think it might figure into both how they portray magic and the New Gods.

What's sad is that DCfags have to be the most denialist fanbase ever.

You've been in denial for 3 years about MoS, and now we have 1.5 years of denial ahead until Justice League comes out, then we will have 2 years of denial over Justice League and countless threads and copypastas saying how it wasn't garbage.

It was shit, get over it and move on, it's pathetic at this point.

None of this is new to capeshit. The deconstruction of the myth and symbolism inherent in the genre began getting touched on back in the 60s and became blatantly the main focus of stories in the late 70s and early 80s.
This has all been done before, said before and written before.
The problem is Snyder really fucking sucks at it. He wasn't breaking new ground, he was standing on the shoulders of better artists and missing the point of what he was even supposed to be looking at.

They're not DCfags, they're just trolls that started to believe their own lies.

A DCfag would say BvS it's not as bad as critics say it is, these autist will say Snyder is the second comming of Trump (whatever that means).

Superman as a legitimate "First Contact" scenario's been done before? If there's a story arc about it, please share, as I've got a nodding acquaintance with about 50 years worth of lore and I can't recall such a story.

Why does it upset you so much, kid? Is it because none of the MCUflicks will never have this much philosophies and metaphors engineered into it or is it simply because you are jealous that your MCUfanbase will always be dumb redditors who cant have more than elementary tier arguments about their movies?

Its not denial btw. Its enlightenment. We KNOW why Man of Steel and Batman v Superman are superior comic book movies and why they failed. Its because of dumb short attention marvel fans like you, it failed and not because the movie was flawed.

I don't care about what you have to say, the world has spoken, and has told Snyder that he's a hack for the 100th time in his career.
And now he has ruined DC's MCU.

I'm in the same camp as you, but I won't go so far as to claim BvS was without flaws. The editing left much to be desired, but I expect the director's cut to fix those problems.

Thank you for sharing your opinion.

There's nothing deep about BvS, and no, symbolism and references to stories written a fuckload ago is not deep.
In fact, it's irrelevant when the plot is still full of stupid garbage.
It's legitimately one of the worst superhero flicks ever made and i'm glad it got panned this time.
The DCEU can still be saved, and I hope WB realizes that.

"the world" is not always right. Its just blind sheeps like you who follow popular opinions to fit in with the society.

reminder for console war minded people to leave the thread

Oh yeah, nobody is right.
Only 10 neckbeards on Sup Forums are right about the deep meaning of this flick about a guy dressing up as a bat and a dude who shoots lasers with his eyes.

...

It starts being obvious from Pa Kent's first scene in MoS. Snyder smacks us in the face with it in Perry's conversation with Lois and again in Zod's broadcast.

Sorry you missed it.

Oh, please: go on.

W-why are you answering your own question user? Are you having a stroke??

>this entire thread

>28%

It's 27% actually.

Nah, that's someone calling me crazy, unless I'm misinterpreting the gif.

...

>poster count barely went up

gee i wonder what is going itt

Apologies, user!

As I would expect from a reddit-tard mcushit who doesnt even know how Reddit tomatoes work.

>second cumming of Trump
Pretty sure she would rather just called her Ivanka.

>the first 8 fucking posts are literally about the detailed philosophies that are present in the movie
>LOL NO THIS MOVIE SUX XD
Kill yourself you ignorant scumbag

...

I see that you are still mad for some reason that a certain kino experts are busy studying this film. Dont worry we will try to do that same for you mickey mouse universe movies.
>neckbeards
I prefer the term Kino Connoisseurs

> deep meaning of this flick about a guy dressing up as a bat and a dude who shoots lasers with his eyes

It literally doesnt matter what the characters wear in the movie when studying the kino as whole but it does when we are doing character study. I would say its the creator's kino brilliance that he could fold all these complex philosophies and knowledge into to movie about a guy who dresses as a bat and a dude who shoots laser beams.
Thank Zack "the kinoreno" Snyder for that.

>Kino Connoisseurs

Larry Niven wrote a better essay on Superman.

Spoken like a true sheep, Disney made a genius move bribing those critics.

The world is not the majority to which you cling, the world is all of us, including the minority. Your argument is based on scores and the opinions of others.

This is why scores should be thrashed. Films are an individual experience that should be shared only to enhance and expand one's thoughts and not define them.

Just read that. Pretty funny stuff.

If your precious film needs to be explained in 8 fucking long-winded posts then, I'm sorry user, your precious film and it's precious philosophies are shit.

The best part is that you don't even need to delve that deep. You just can't sit there like a passive schmuck and expect it to all be monologued to you.

So why was the movie still shit?

So, what's your excuse, then? Your thoughts have clearly not been enhanced or expanded, especially if you have to go back to 1973 for validation. It seems you have abrogated any expansion of thought, and have instead engaged in mere trollish fuckery. Of the most pathetic and transparent kind. The desperation and loneliness you feel are only mitigated by your febrile attempts at mockery. But the quickening you feel is transitory: there is no reality to it, no firmness, no solidity - just yawning emptiness, an abyss of pain you can never escape. Your cries for recognition and acceptance bring you only the derision of others, which you take greedily and wear as a dubious badge of honor. But, hey, at least you tried.

Editing, mainly, and attempting to cram too much story into one film.

>Only 10 neckbeards on Sup Forums are right about the deep meaning of this flick about a guy dressing up as a bat and a dude who shoots lasers with his eyes.
Summed it up pretty good right there.

Join in next Sunday to discover the internal Aristotelian tragic elements in the story.

>Your thoughts have clearly not been enhanced or expanded, especially if you have to go back to 1973 for validation.
Different guy here, but with all due respect, insight is insight regardless of when it was written.

I could write 8 paragraphs of tenuous pseudo analysis on fucking Jack and Jill but it's still a steaming pile of shit at the end of the day

wew, lad - now we're going back to the very invention of tragedy. Why wait, user? Put it out now, let's take a look - nothing to be afraid of! We wait with baited breath, user.

I didn't knock the insight - i knocked the fact that he used such intellectual drivel to substantiate his moronic diatribe. And, what, precisely, was that 1973 insight again????

>I could write 8 paragraphs of tenuous pseudo analysis on fucking Jack and Jill but it's still a steaming pile of shit at the end of the day
I'm dying here

>Moronic diatribe

>I don't care what you have to say, the "world" has spoken.

At least you tried.

I only skimmed it, but the gist of it seems to be that comics heroes are different from what is normally considered myth in that they don't, to paraphrase, "consume themselves," In other words, mythic heroes have a beginning, a middle, and a clear end, while comics characters are intended as perpetual narrative vehicles.

Yeah because they're created to make money

And what were mythic heroes created for?

Explaining and giving meaning to ideas that ancient civilizations did not have the capacity to investigate or fully understand

Agreed. The modern-day heirs of those myths are our fiction, in all its myriad forms, all of which can be used to explore things we don't understand, either about or world, our universe, or about ourselves.

People who provide answers or even just interesting possible answers have never been expected to do so for free.

...

bot?

Relevant

i vaguely remember reading one book from that hack. it was like one thousand pages, with smallish font, half of the book was footnotes, and one third medieval poetry in foreign languages.

horrible experience. since then, i only read posci

Thanks for that.

...

In essence, the story of Dawn of Justice, is perhaps the most important Superman story that there was to tell. Really...it had to be told.

Within the context of the divisive reception of Man of Steel, and the almost religious fervor to which some hold their vision of what "their" Superman is, we can look at the conflict enveloping Superman's character in BvS in a different light.

One of the major themes and story beats of the film involve the struggles that Clark endures as impossible expectations are hoisted upon him.

On one side, we have the ardent supporters and fans, many of whom are shown to express ardent worship, cue Jesus symbolism. In essence they see Superman as this religious figure, putting on the character an incredibly heavy burden, and a sense of unease of how to approach these people. In essence these people are meant to represent the real life "ardent fans" of the Superman character. Those that have to come to worship the symbol, not the man or character. Many of whom idolizing what they perceive as "their" Superman, feeling some sort of unearned ownership over the character. The "fans," unable to accept any sort of diversion from their expectations in essence lay an incredibly heavy burden on the character and creators involved in bringing him to life today. "He can't do this" "He can't look like that" "He wouldn't have done that" etc, etc. Their expectations a burden to the creative possibilities of the Superman character, just as the religious fervor in BvS a burden on Superman himself.

cont in next post ->

On the opposite end we have the opposition to Superman. The people in universe who look at Superman and see only potential for evil, who see the deaths in supposed collateral damage. Unable to see past the character's actual humanity. They are the people who protest his existence, they are Bruce Wayne, they are Lex Luthor. And in our world, these are the small minded folks who attacked Man of Steel, who attacked it by intentionally twisting it's messages, who made up nonsensical claims (man of murder) and outright lied to back up their so called "criticism". Just as Luthor seeks to sully the image of Superman, they seek to sully the film's message, just Bruce Wayne needs to force the world to make sense, they are forced to see what they want to see in the film's narrative.

Just as these elements brought unease to the character of Superman, just as these elements sought to bring him down and destroy him, Superman himself prevailed through all this, through the cynicism, through the unreasonable expectations and did what Superman does, save the world. Through our side, we can witness Zack Snyder, willing, able and ready to deliver a story on how Superman always prevails, always come out on top, even willing to give his life to do so. But in telling one of the most important modern Superman stories of this era, Zack opened himself to the wrath of the belligerent, his character attacked, his intelligence attacked, his beliefs attacked, just as Superman in BvS was. The ardent fans seeking to stifle the creative vision, the opposition seeking to sully and deface the ideals. And yet he stands by his work and is currently hard at work on his next film, the Justice League.

Through Dawn of Justice, we have just witnessed one of the greatest meta narratives seen in today's film world.

wew lad

...

>I could write 8 paragraphs of tenuous pseudo analysis on fucking Jack and Jill but it's still a steaming pile of shit at the end of the day
Y'know I'd actually really love to see that.

If a bad movie like BvS gets this kind of treatment then why not other bad movies too?

>Y'know I'd actually really love to see that.

say no more senpai

youtube.com/watch?v=br_xKDSevV4

because Jack and Jill doesn't have a rival company completely spanking the competition with their movies.

Its really cool that Sup Forums called this Capekino way before all of these brilliant social scientists like Ellis, Armond White and now Eco began to study it. Love hearing about all these nuances I never checked before, thanks OP.

Its insane to imagine but this film could have one of the biggest comebacks in movie history, we might see it on multiple top 10 lists by EOY and even see some Oscar consideration.

Love to see the underdog Snyder be vindicated.

Does Snyder project himself into his own characters? It would be unfair to see him as plucky Barn Owl Soren from Legend of the Guardians, who slowly learns to fly and finally defeats an enclave of evil slaveholding owls. Maybe he’s Babydoll from Sucker Punch, living in the paradise of his own dreams? No, Snyder is Dr Manhattan. He’s the melancholy, blue-skinned deity from Watchmen who holds the fate of humanity in his hands. His audience doesn’t know whether to love him or hate him, can’t decide if he’s God or the Devil. He’s the embodiment of immense power and this power feeds his imagination. It’s his gift. His curse.

Snyder: "I am become the Ubermensch!"

I kind of agree with this part, that Snyder is fully aware of the themes in the movie, the problem is that he couldn't execute any of them properly.

A good example is Luthor spouting leddit tier factoids at the cameras all the time when once he mentions in an off comment the story of Prometheus. Later in the movie he creates a monster using science (knowledge, thus the lighting analog) that he got from the gods (Krypton). Effectively turning him in a Victor Frankenstein figure, a new Prometheus who also created life.

this is never properly referenced in the movie, so specially at the moment you hear the original line you feel kind of insulted at the grotesquely low level it thinks it should impress you.

He's the protagonist from "The Fountainhead."

>kinnoisseurs

Wait and see how that falls in the director's cut. I get a feeling Lex's scenes are redistributed and that will give that theme a far more logical flow.

Supposedly there is apparently a scene of Lex when he was younger

Oh, that would be interesting.