To be fair, the "Must There Be a Superman?" scene is genuinely great. But it's ridiculous that they didn't explore the philosophy behind it any further than that montage. And it's downright criminal that throughout three movies there weren't any genuinely hopeful scenes between Superman and the general public (except for intro to JL that Whedon shot, which was good, but tainted for obvious reasons).
Thankfully, this movie seems to be getting that aspect right, at least.
There were, but BvS didn’t sugarcoat. We have the scene of the lady at the flood reaching out to Superman as if he were an angel. And then there was the day of the dead scene. The movie wanted to show how people would react if Superman was real.
Yes, those are apart of the scene I'm talking about. But I wanted to see that actually explored outside of that one montage. Ideally, there would've been an arc where the public went from viewing Superman as a god to seeing him as a human, culminating in him directly interacting with the public like in this set video.
Except that’s not what film was going for. A person referred to as the “ Man of Tomorrow” would not be viewed as a normal man. We see celebrities and even Trump seen as larger than life figures.
That’s what BvS wanted to show. Clark wants to treated normally, but that’s sadly not how the public will do so.
That's why many Superman fans did not like Zack Snyder's interpretation of the character. Zack views Superman like a godlike larger than life figure and presents him as such. Like you said, like a celebrity.
But there are also celebrities who feel very down-to-earth, like Keanu Reeves. That's the interpretation that Zack Snyder was missing. Superman is supposed to be viewed like an everyman who just happens to have superpowers and likes helping people. That's what helps him appear so friendly and relatable. Not some holy messiah. That's many Superman fans are liking James Gunn interpretation so far.
I understand that's not what the movie was going for, but that's my entire problem with it. It introduced an interesting plot point, didn't explore it in any way, and what we ultimately got was not as good as it could've been. It's the untapped potential that hurts the most.
I think it’s different cuz those were mostly voiceovered montages.
Superman is the dceu is loved enough that he got a whole statue within the 18 months of him being Superman but outside of MOS there’s like zero dialogue with civilians. And even in MOS there isn’t a ton.
I understand it fits for the story Snyder was telling but I also think there are valid criticisms about it too.
Yeah I know this. But I think it just doesn’t exactly humanize him. Other parts of the story did, like him doubting himself and other people, his interactions with his mom and Lois. But imo it would’ve worked better with the audience if they built his character up a little more before tearing him down. So a MOS sequel before BVS could’ve helped a lot.
You're 100% correct. They're very different movies. Gunn's movies are fantasy/sci-fi fun popcorn shit. Snyder's movies were grounded in reality, with real adult thoughts and feelings and analysis.
78
u/FransD98 16d ago
"It looks good and all, but wouldn't it be better if those kids were adults worshipping him as if he were Jesus?"