So according to the government officials in Suicide Squad, Superman was considered a national hero that shared the same values as them... in Dawn of Justice however, we see Superman saving an African village from a drone strike, and another scene showing Jon Stewart commenting on how Superman no longer wants to be seen as an American hero.
Am I missing something here? What gave the impression to the Federal government that Supes was on their side?
Other urls found in this thread:
Bump
They haven't really done a good job with consistency or keeping their story straight. As far as I know there's really not even a reason for him to have a military funeral in DoJ. It's just another one of those ideas that works well on paper but wasn't applied well in the film universe due to plot threads being rushed
Thats a good example of a problem that runs deeper than that: things that are only there because they look cool.
youtu.be
OP here. This makes the most sense. Even though I liked DoJ, I still wish they would have made a direct sequel to Man of Steel, instead of trying to rush a cinematic universe... everything feels contrived and messy now.
Yeah, I would liked MoS 2 and a Batman standalone before BvS.
>Am I missing something here?
Yes. Superman was shown as a national hero and global guardian in the beginning of the movie.
The congress feared him and wanted anything they could get on to have some manner of power over him and when Lex started to ruin his image with the schemes giving the congress the perfect excuse the media jumped on the controversy to sell the current narrative. Even then a lot of people still idolized and defended Superman, including a few in the talk-shows and what not. It's only after the capitol bombing that the people are shown as turning on him as well.
So there's no inconsistency. You just payed too much attention to the senators and the media-talk.
They already know he's from America so it's not a surprise that they would want to claim the most powerful person in the world for themselves.
Also I'm not really knowledgeable about this kind of thing but an honorary military funeral for someone who scarified their life for the planet doesn't seem too out there.
>As far as I know there's really not even a reason for him to have a military funeral in DoJ.
The US knows that he lives in the US. That he grew up there and is basically "American".
Seriously, did you black out the entirety of MoS?
God just shut up that's a retarded video from someone that has no idea what he is talking about.
>So according to the government officials in Suicide Squad, Superman was considered a national hero that shared the same values as them...
do you understand that you can be a national hero of several nations and that by values they were talking just that he was a "good guy", not that he was pro-military complex or prozionism
>in Dawn of Justice however, we see Superman saving an African village from a drone strike
And?
>and another scene showing Jon Stewart commenting on how Superman no longer wants to be seen as an American hero
Of course he doesnt, Interventionism is wrong. That's the difference between superman and Captain America in civil war; Superman wants HIS actions to be his and not to drag anyone with him, While steve using the Captain America identity and his terrorist private group backed by america to enforce his will, moral and change the politics of other countries. Saving people without a flag vs Fascist political intervention
>Am I missing something here?
A brain
>What gave the impression to the Federal government that Supes was on their side?
Probably the whole Jumping to save the world for a second time, then without a doubt crashing into the nuke, and then Dying to save the planet.
You are a retard
care to explain what's wrong with the video?
>Superman saves the wrold from problem he himself created
>national hero
I'm sorry people didn't like the movie. But it sucked.
It implies there's only one valid way of storytelling: popcorn hollywood. The idiot also asigns importance to some elements over others, it ignores pretty much everything from classic drama in favor of muh straightlined story. It starts with a False premise: that the narrative has to be the focus of a movie.
The guy is a dumbass, it's like saying Final Crisis is not as good as crap like blackest night. The video is shit, and people that take it seriously are ignorant. BvS has shitty pace and failed at the oniric stuff they went for in action scenes, but videos like that crap were made by people who thinks absolute garbage like civil war are "good".
It did sucked, but the video is shit.
T. Zack "the hack" Snyder
but seriously, what are your specific criticisms about that video. Where is it inaccurate, where is it hyperbolic, and why do you think it fails as a piece of analysis.
As always, plebs can't even bother with reading the thread. This is why no one really cares about the opinipons of idiots that learn from youtube videos.
>It implies there's only one valid way of storytelling: popcorn hollywood.
Structured narratives are from popcorn hollywood?
>it ignores pretty much everything from classic drama
What type of "classic drama" are you actually referring to?
> It starts with a False premise: that the narrative has to be the focus of a movie.
In some avant garde movie, narrative doesn't have to be in the focus. But in a straightforward action film based on comic books that's intending to establish a cinematic universe with many plot threads, it is an important focus. You can't just have random images strung together.
I'm not going to even address the rest of your post since it's mostly just spewing ad hominem like some retarded Sup Forumsirgin or drooling Sup Forums poster that uses the word "kino" seriously.
>You can't just have random images strung together.
I agree, it's a good thing there's nothing random about bvs
Man of Steel wasn't the modern classic mega-hit it was supposed to be. Because of that, every DCEU movie from now until the end of time will be a desperate attempt to make up for the last one.
DC jumped headfirst into the cinematic universe thing, while Marvel were careful and willing to take it apart at the first sign of trouble. They've been careful: even when they've made terrible films, they haven't been nearly bad enough to sink the MCU.
>do you understand that you can be a national hero of several nations and that by values they were talking just that he was a "good guy", not that he was pro-military complex or prozionism
Fair enough.
>And?
And that the United States was responsible for that attack?
>Of course he doesnt, Interventionism is wrong. That's the difference between superman and Captain America in civil war; Superman wants HIS actions to be his and not to drag anyone with him, While steve using the Captain America identity and his terrorist private group backed by america to enforce his will, moral and change the politics of other countries. Saving people without a flag vs Fascist political intervention
I'm not disagreeing with you, I was just curious as to why the government would claim ownership on someone who wants nothing to do with them.
>A brain
No need to throw insults, I didn't say anything mean-spirited in my post.
>Probably the whole Jumping to save the world for a second time, then without a doubt crashing into the nuke, and then Dying to save the planet.
That gives the impression more that he cares about the entire world, not just the United States. It seems to me the government just wants to claim Supes for themselves because he was born on their soil.
>You are a retard
You're a poopy head!
>Man of Steel wasn't the modern classic mega-hit it was supposed to be.
Maybe not for the critics, no, but the regular movie-going audience loved it, I know this for a fact because I saw it the day it came out and everyone was cheering for Cavill's Supes.
It's sad that we base a movie's success based on how much money it makes, instead of how much the film resonates with the individual viewing it.
I wish I agreed with you, but it was divisive at best, and extremely forgettable.
What little good it did, was blown to bits by BvS (which I actually enjoyed).
Lois Lane in MoS had her report about the "mysterious savior" leaked to the American press
Superman in MoS revealed to the military that he had grown up and live in the US
Superman fought in Metropolis to save the planet
The city of Metropolis erected a huge statue in his liking as a homage to his efforts
The people around the world still loved and idolized Superman in the beginning of BvS
Wallace Keefer blamed Superman for his own failings (the guy only lost his legs but ended up pushing his family away due to being an ass-hole)
The congress wanted anything that they could use against Superman because they wanted to control him
Lex fabricated everything to damage Superman for his own personal hangs-ups and gains
The media jumped on the controversy just to sell news
The people around the world remained loving and idolizing Superman despite all the media talk and accusations
The people are shown turning on him only after the capitol bombing
Superman sacrificed himself to save the world twice
That's why he military funeral and was regarded as a hero, specially after Lex's conviction.
Forgot to add that even in the media-talk scenes you had a guy arguing that every time Superman involved in crisis around the world that he was implicating the US with his actions, because he was seen and regarded by everyone as American, and that every act, no matter how noble, was a political act.
They tried to nuke him. That funeral is pretty hypocritical.
Because it was necessary.
Still pretty shitty to try to murder someone "out of necessity", and them give him a funeral like he was one of them.
So did you not see any of the movies or are you slow? Supes "gained" their trust by sacrificing himself to kill doomsday. The execution was poor but it's very obvious that was the plot development for the DC universe they wanted.
>a coherent film is just a popcorn hollywood movie
you can't seriously believe this. this is not an experimental art film, you can't use the "it's too deep" excuse for a movie about batman and superman.
>Maybe not for the critics, no, but the regular movie-going audience loved it, I
Oh fuck off. I've spoken to regular movie audiences who were casual fans of Superman at best who didn't like it either.
This was a really nice argument until you had to bring the console war bullshit in at the end.
GotG and winter soldier are good movies, CW isnt. Also i like Marvel way more than DC. I'm a Busiek's avenger era fanboy.
They didn't try to nuke him they tried to nuke DOOMSDAY, Superman was just there. The secretary didn't even want to do it. Superman knew that, it's not like he tried to get away.
why did Superman leave the remains of the alien ship in metropolis?
Probably as an act of good faith.
>DC jumped headfirst into the cinematic universe thing, while Marvel were careful and willing to take it apart at the first sign of trouble.
Marvel was careful in that they retrenched from the two Hulk bombs (which also occurred in the same time frame that Fox's second FF did worse than the first, which hadn't done that well in the first place, albeit both did far better than Marvel's Hulk).
Iron Man being a very surprising hit gave them breathing room from their creditors. They didn't jump start a connected universe and may never have done a connected universe were it not for the money that IM #1 made.
CA - TFA and Thor came out in the first year. So WB thinking they could do two films a year isn't necessarily rushing.
>Man of Steel wasn't the modern classic mega-hit
The lesson from this shouldn't have been to double down on Snyder. At least not for the entire universe, they could have let him do a stand-alone sequel and that should have been that.
Success is measured by a combination of things. One of the reasons that business and industry coverage of box office talk about Cinemascore is that is the basis for actually measuring 'how much a film resonate[d]' with the folks who did pay to watch it (plus also advance screening audiences). Those scores for MoS were not great and these scores tend to be more forgiving than critics, with films with middling or even low critical (read RT) scores getting A, A- or B+ Cinemascore grades.
WHY this is important is Word of Mouth. If folks aren't going to talk up a movie, their friends won't see it, even worse if they bad mouth a movie. The negative publicity for MoS made people gun shy for BvS once the criticism started.
Three people I went to see MoS in Imax (who all liked the film far better than I did as an actual comic fan and them as just looking for a popcorn action summer film) all refused to watch BvS with me because of the 'negative feedback' they had heard on line, social media, etc.
The secretary didn't want to, yet did. That button didn't fire itself. They didn't TRY to murder him as user here claimed but that was the end result, so more like manslaughter.
Clark DIDN'T try to get away because if he DIDN'T keep DD in place, the nuke would have just been a misfire/waste, that part of your response is a non-issue, it was a sacrifice but given that both survived due to base Kryptonian solar battery genetics, it was all a moot point/waste of plot time.
Plot contrivance/plot device
This.
>I know this for a fact because I saw it the day it came out and everyone was cheering for Cavill's Supes.
With all due respect the day one audience isn't always the best judge of quality. In fact, they're predisposed to liking something and being blind to any and all flaws.
Like, put aside ALL the cape movies for an example. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows came out, and I went to the release, and over half the people in line to the theater were in Hogwarts regalia and pointy witch hats and glasses and press on scars.
Now, do you REALLY think those people, that have been waiting years for this movie, some of whom have likely already given it a 10/10 online, are going to be a fair and unbiased audience?
It's the same thing here. Yes, people might have cheered for Cavill, but that's the portion of the entire potential audience that was going to anyway.
That's why metrics like the second week performance are important. Because a good opening for a franchise adaptation film just means you got enough of the fans, not casual moviegoers or anyone outside of that group. And not eve necessarily all of that group; I didn't see MoS in theaters despite liking Superman and DC because of the word of mouth.
The actual problem with the video is that it's wrong. The best thing in BvS are the moments, no one is really saying that Zach (albeit a hack, they might say) didn't deliver decent to good visuals.
The problem with BvS, as numerous threads and posts here and elsewhere have stated was, pure and simple: lack of narrative focus.
Pacing, dialogue (or lack thereof), decisions made on what to cut and include (whether specious, necessary or unnecessary, or simple plot seeding for future films), etc. and more along these lines all deal with narrative. Which is supposed to be the point of story-telling.
Which is what a film is - another form of story-telling. Avant garde films do have a form of narrative. It may not be traditional and you may find it confusing, but that doesn't mean it's not there.
Random images strung together is just a different way of saying:
dialogue was omitted/dialogue was never written/dialogue wasn't considered necessary/editing was too severe/material was not included/editing was confusing
In other words, as narrative, the film failed. Using 'moments vs. story' is idiotically simplistic. Any visual medium is going to include moments and even the very worse versions of them will include memorable moments.
IF all anything offers IS just those moments (memorable or otherwise) then YES, it is a failure (as narrative and otherwise). But if it's simple moments, memorable or otherwise, and incoherence, poor pacing, etc., then it's just a shitty film because they screwed up the narrative, not because, like every other visual medium out there, it included moments.
Im guessing that Superman was cleared of all charges seeing as they arrested Luthor for blowing up the senate
plus only paranoid loons hated Superman (batman/lex and beta numales). He was mysterious (wasn't much of a public figure like his comic book counter part) but he did go around saving people all the time.
Plus he didn't take over the world and kill everyone even though he easily could.(from the average human's perspective)