DCEU: Enter the Snyderverse

[RumHam]

I like how he salvages his reputation a bit but then

Quote

I was in L.A. at the time working on Star Wars [The Rise of Skywalker].

 

[JGP]

4 minutes ago, RumHam said:

I like how he salvages his reputation a bit but then

 

I laughed at that part too lol

---

 

Honestly, whole interview read like DMGCTRL.

[Corvinus85]

3 minutes ago, RumHam said:

I like how he salvages his reputation a bit but then

Indeed, I might have felt sorry for him but he had no problems co-writing that mess with JJ Abrams. How much did Kennedy and the Disney execs interfere with TRoS?

[Kalbear]

4 hours ago, JEORDHl said:

Self imposed or no, if you had some mandate to right as many wrongs as possible [even if only the worst wrongs] you'd never have time for anything else. 

It's interesting to think about. In today's world, for instance, Superman would be reviled as much as loved I'd think.

Though honestly, if you could do things like write the kinds of wrongs that Superman can do, wouldn't you have an obligation to do that morally? And if you didn't, wouldn't you be monstrously selfish?

 

2 hours ago, mormont said:

Yes, Superman is a power fantasy - but that doesn't make him an authoritarian fantasy. There's a difference. 

All power fantasies where you are beholden to no one and can do whatever are by their nature authoritarian fantasies. The value statement that Superman could do these things and chooses not to is specifically to allow people to compare themselves to him and wonder - what would they do? 

But also, Superman is an authoritarian fantasy. Clark may want to be just Clark, but if he wanted to he could depower himself virtually at any time he chooses and go about that normal life. He doesn't because he does want to stop those big bad threats and he feels responsible as well for them. But at the same time, he's choosing to NOT stop the other threats that endanger people. Sometimes he says that he is not going to lead everyone but will be there if they fall - but then he chooses how to save those people from 'falling'. 

Ultimately it's Superman's choice, and moral viewpoint that being introverted and not interfering is good is a moral value as well. Inaction is a choice. And inaction in the face of evil is one of the most common authoritarian playbooks out there.

2 hours ago, mormont said:

Of course, some writers don't get that, which I think brings us back to Snyder, a man with a history of missing the point with comics characters: his Watchmen seems to think Rorschach is an authoritarian fantasy figure, instead of a pitiable psychological wreck with questionable personal hygiene.

The beauty of Rorschach is that he's both. The TV show got that right as well - that no matter what you think of him in the comic, people coming after him would absolutely worship him as an authoritarian champion. 

[mormont]

I mean, the hypothesis you're pushing here is that power = authoritarianism. The rest is trying to stand that up, as far as I can see. But I'm not buying it: the argument doesn't hold together.

I will merely repeat - not all power fantasies are authoritarian fantasies. Mostly, they're just fantasies. The fact that writers who've decided to do 'authoritarian Superman' stories usually fail both critically and commercially shows that the character doesn't fit comfortably into that straitjacket, no matter how hard one squeezes.

ETA - as for Rorschach, he is Moore's version of a 'realistic' vigilante character. What Moore was going for was 'what if Batman was real?' with the answer that he'd likely be a monomaniacal, antisocial, bigoted, borderline psychopath with no social skills, career or personal life. The point of the character is to highlight the flaws in the fantasy. But it's unfortunately true that some people just saw the fantasy...

[JGP]

26 minutes ago, Karlbear said:

Though honestly, if you could do things like write the kinds of wrongs that Superman can do, wouldn't you have an obligation to do that morally? And if you didn't, wouldn't you be monstrously selfish?

That's the burning question, right? I mean, something bad is happening somewhere, every second of every day. At what point would Superman be allowed to turn it off and just be Clark? Considering that, I imagined a scenario:

Clark relaxing on the couch with a good book after saving hundreds in a particularly draining fight with the Parasite. In an adjacent room Lois is watching the news while enjoying a shower beer. Clark overhears about a bank robbery in Marseilles. If he thought, that's horrible, before going back to his book because he's earned it, does that make him horrible too? 

Maybe. Maybe not. 

[Kalbear]

14 minutes ago, JEORDHl said:

That's the burning question, right? I mean, something bad is happening somewhere, every second of every day. At what point would Superman be allowed to turn it off and just be Clark? Considering that, I imagined a scenario:

Clark relaxing on the couch with a good book after saving hundreds in a particularly draining fight with the Parasite. In an adjacent room Lois is watching the news while enjoying a shower beer. Clark overhears about a bank robbery in Marseilles. If he thought, that's horrible, before going back to his book because he's earned it, does that make him horrible too? 

Maybe. Maybe not. 

Personally I think it's monstrous that someone with Kryptonian tech and a super intellect and the abilities he has to not create a post-scarcity world that has any need for banks, much less bank robbers. 

[JGP]

7 minutes ago, Karlbear said:

Personally I think it's monstrous that someone with Kryptonian tech and a super intellect and the abilities he has to not create a post-scarcity world that has any need for banks, much less bank robbers. 

Of course it feels that way, because we both [given his powerset] would be the kind of authoritarian Supermen you're talking about. I know damn well if I did, Trump would be a popsicle satellite in close orbit, Putin would be a smudge, et so on. Thing is, Clark doesn't see himself as an arbiter, he's not an interventionist, per se. Guy's just here to help.

You could write Lex Luthor really well, I think. Which is a compliment.

 

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

1 hour ago, Ran said:

Pretty good interview with Terrio. Good to see the piece reiterating that the 2 hour mandate was to maximize screenings in expectation of it bombing no matter what they did...

Where exactly does this appear in the article? Here's a relevant quote (emphasis mine)

Quote

 

So Zack Snyder shot your version of the script. What happened after his family crisis led him to leave the project and Warner Bros. brought in Joss Whedon to rewrite and reshoot?

When the movie was taken away, that felt like it was some directive that had come from people who are neither filmmakers nor film-friendly—the directive to make the movie under two hours, regardless of what the movie needed to do, and to make the colors brighter, and to have funny sitcom jokes in it.

 

 

1 hour ago, Ran said:

ETA: Although when Googling reactions to this, people point out that the whole order of things appear to have been done at Zack Syder's behest, not Warner's.  So the basic fault here that he is critiquing is in Snyder's conception. WB just stupidly agreed to it.

Always trust the google. And Rotten Tomatoes. 

[Kalbear]

10 minutes ago, JEORDHl said:

Of course it feels that way, because we both [given his powerset] would be the kind of authoritarian Supermen you're talking about. I know damn well if I did, Trump would be a popsicle satellite in close orbit, Putin would be a smudge, et so on. Thing is, Clark doesn't see himself as an arbiter, he's not an interventionist, per se. Guy's just here to help.

You could write Lex Luthor really well, I think. Which is a compliment.

Nah, I wouldn't end Luthor or whatever. I would think about how Superman could make it so that the entire world doesn't need things like money, that no one suffers for any basic need (food, shelter, medicine, education) and then ask - why do you need banks? What would something like a bank robber actually mean, and why would anyone do it? If you can get for free medicine that cures cancer, why do you need health insurance?

To me, that would be a way to help without being an interventionist. 

But again, Superman chooses not do to this because it's more important to him not to help anyone in anything more than an emergency situation or to punch big things. So does Batman. (Same is true somewhat of Tony Stark and Reed Richards, in case you are worried that the MCU is somehow immune).

[JGP]

19 minutes ago, Karlbear said:

Nah, I wouldn't end Luthor or whatever. I would think about how Superman could make it so that the entire world doesn't need things like money, that no one suffers for any basic need (food, shelter, medicine, education) and then ask - why do you need banks? What would something like a bank robber actually mean, and why would anyone do it? If you can get for free medicine that cures cancer, why do you need health insurance?

Sure. But, you're extrapolating that Clark could do these kinds of things because of Kryptonian tech when Jor-El, Krypton's preeminent scientist, couldn't save his homeworld. There's clearly technological and sociological limitations. And of course Marvel has the same issues, but if we took everything to their logical conclusions there wouldn't be much to write about, would there.    

[Raja]

It's a shame how these superman movies have turned out ( even though I think parts of Man of steel are decent), given that I think Hans Zimmer composed a really memorable and good superman theme

[Kalbear]

Just now, JEORDHl said:

Sure. But, you're extrapolating that Clark could do these kinds of things because of Kryptonian tech when Jor-El, Krypton's preeminent scientist, couldn't save his homeworld. There's clearly limitations. And of course Marvel has the same issues, but we took everything to their logical conclusions there wouldn't be much to write about, would there.    

I think Superman can do these sorts of things because he's already shown doing these things for himself. Jor-El not being able to save Krypton from blowing up isn't really comparable to being able to reuse Fortress of Solitude tech, much less all the tech Brainiac has been able to showcase. Furthermore, Superman can go to, like, almost any other major planet and get things like Mother Box tech or some of the other places he can go. 

Another reason Watchmen is brilliant is that this is EXACTLY what Dr. Manhattan does, and what is super important to do - at least to start. IF he had more of a care about stopping harm he would have done more of it. 

As to would there be anything to write about - writing about a post-scarcity utopian world that is also under threat from external sources and talking about what people could do if they could do anything? There's a lot to write about if you're creative. It isn't a story about a newspaper writer, true - but Banks didn't have any real problem talking about it.

I personally think that this is something Superman wouldn't ever consider because he is at his core a pure isolationist who only helps out in extreme emergencies or when it tickles him. He is raised by conservative farmers from Kansas, who apparently don't want to get involved or really help more than they absolutely needed. Much like Bruce Wayne - a multibillionaire who decides dealing with systemic inequality is to punch people in the face - Superman is a hero only when it really suits him and doesn't change too much. 

[JGP]

19 minutes ago, Karlbear said:

I personally think that this is something Superman wouldn't ever consider because he is at his core a pure isolationist who only helps out in extreme emergencies or when it tickles him. He is raised by conservative farmers from Kansas, who apparently don't want to get involved or really help more than they absolutely needed. Much like Bruce Wayne - a multibillionaire who decides dealing with systemic inequality is to punch people in the face - Superman is a hero only when it really suits him and doesn't change too much. 

A post-utopian shift Elseworld mini in the above vein could be interesting, maybe. For me, anyway. Not sure how much commercial success there'd be in some disillusioned but otherwise carefree soul seekers looking to Old Man Clark on the Mountain for... stories about the good old days. Like, at that point Kryptonian tech would've built a shield around the earth, amirite.   

 

19 minutes ago, Karlbear said:

As to would there be anything to write about - writing about a post-scarcity utopian world that is also under threat from external sources and talking about what people could do if they could do anything? There's a lot to write about if you're creative. It isn't a story about a newspaper writer, true - but Banks didn't have any real problem talking about it.

I could quibble [Ma and Pa, in particular; materials and production capacity requiring directly ponderous involvement in international relations] but I don't think you're entirely wrong. There are drawbacks to canon, and what the audience wants. Rip on Superman and write it. I'd read it. 

[TrueMetis]

5 hours ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

Terrio

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2021/04/chris-terrio-justice-league-batman-v-superman

Honestly "corporate writer mad that corporation had say in corporate project" isn't the most compelling narrative. Like if you wanted to do an auteur "director has complete control" film, Superman was a bad choice.

Seriously "the studio wanted 30 minutes cut for more screenings" happens all the time few of the executive decisions as described are unusual.

Though admittedly I not super sympathetic to Terrio regardless.

[Ran]

13 hours ago, TrueMetis said:

Honestly "corporate writer mad that corporation had say in corporate project" isn't the most compelling narrative. Like if you wanted to do an auteur "director has complete control" film, Superman was a bad choice.

Seriously "the studio wanted 30 minutes cut for more screenings" happens all the time few of the executive decisions as described are unusual.

Yeah, Drew McWeeny made this point and had a bunch of angry Snyder fanatics jump all over him. But Terrio's position there is just absurd.

You can read between the lines when he talks of JL and you can see that he knows a lot of the faults with it are because it's what Snyder wanted, and he went along to go along. He talks of the Goyer draft as being something done just out in the vacuum, but of course it was being written with Snyder to direct and with Snyder's input, so all that extra grimdark stuff he hated was stuff Snyder liked until Terrio convinced him otherwise.

Snyder should never have been picked by DC to be the guy. Such a corporate snafu on WB's part. 

Re: Superman,

I kind of love how we went from Superman-the-fascist-authoritarian to Superman-the-isolationist-narcissist because he doesn't impose his will on everything. 

The reason superheroes don't change the world radically is because the world needs to be recognizable for the stories to have relevance. As soon as Reed Richards solves global poverty and eradicates all disease, or Superman brainwashes away all evil, there's no more story to be had in what is supposed to be a mirror of our own world. Which is why it's an "Imaginary Story" or "Elseworlds" thing to do, finite and self-contained. To sustain a comics universe, the heroes have to sustain the status quo in which humanity struggles forward while the long arc of history bends towards justice, which means their impacts are either negligible (Superman pulls cat out of tree!) to so enormous (Superman saves the multiverse!) that they are beyond the scope of human understanding and they go on with their daily struggles as if nothing happened.

In a much nicer and much more coherent vein, @Jeordhi, Kurt Busiek's Samaritan in Astro City #1 is a great take on a Superman character being driven to spend almost the entirety of his waking hours saving people constantly. His secret identity as a fact checker exists solely so he can have access to their computer networks to further his heroism and he laments that he has no kind of love life because he can't justify to himself taking the time to build a relationship with someone knowing that people will die whom he might otherwise have saved. (A later issue finally has him going out on a date, with IIRC a bunch of heroes promising they were all going to be on duty to take care of things for a few hours so he wouldn't feel badly about it.)

Astro City is aces.

[sifth]

Zack Snyder's take on Superman really does remind me of Homelander, given we're suppose to believe he's only one bad day from helping Darkseid destroy the world. For some reason Zack Snyder likes Superman when he's dark and scary and when he's possibly killing people.

[Kalbear]

10 hours ago, Ran said:

Re: Superman,

I kind of love how we went from Superman-the-fascist-authoritarian to Superman-the-isolationist-narcissist because he doesn't impose his will on everything. 

The two are the same thing. Both are the same power fantasy, where you can do anything you want to but you know in your heart that you would only do it in the most horrible cases, and otherwise you'd let things go exactly as they are. This is an inherently conservative, reactionary viewpoint with the central premise that it would be a Good Thing to have someone who could do all these powerful things, and also it is a Good Thing that they don't actually do anything to change anything.  If you can't recognize the inherent reactionary viewpoint there or the tie in to the Christian God of giving humans free will and allowing suffering - along with the way that that is clearly authoritarian - I don't know what to tell you. 

10 hours ago, Ran said:

The reason superheroes don't change the world radically is because the world needs to be recognizable for the stories to have relevance. As soon as Reed Richards solves global poverty and eradicates all disease, or Superman brainwashes away all evil, there's no more story to be had in what is supposed to be a mirror of our own world. Which is why it's an "Imaginary Story" or "Elseworlds" thing to do, finite and self-contained. To sustain a comics universe, the heroes have to sustain the status quo in which humanity struggles forward while the long arc of history bends towards justice, which means their impacts are either negligible (Superman pulls cat out of tree!) to so enormous (Superman saves the multiverse!) that they are beyond the scope of human understanding and they go on with their daily struggles as if nothing happened.

Well, yeah, but that just means the worldbuilding isn't particularly interesting and is pretty lazy. Which is kind of what we started with this topic - that the implication of Superman existing is a far more interesting story than what they actually have him do, which is mostly punch things really hard. That's another part of the nature of comic books, at least most mainstream ones - they are often inherently conservative for that very reason. They must not change the status quo. They must not change the world from being recognizable from ours in order to preserve that fantasy. 

 

[Soylent Brown]

Superman has to essentially be insignificant to maintain his comic run? I think we've found the root of his reticence.

[Derfel Cadarn]

What I like about the DCEU is that it’s pretty true to human nature in that humanity only appreciates Superman after he’s dead.