what is this, the third attempt at the F4 in the past decade? I don't know what it is about this specific IP that so many studios want to try and make work. I never recall the F4 ever really being...
what is this, the third attempt at the F4 in the past decade? I don't know what it is about this specific IP that so many studios want to try and make work. I never recall the F4 ever really being in the echelons of Spiderman or X-men or even Thor
If you'd like to understand why people like the F4 (as i didn't either) here is a wonderful (if extremely in depth) video from B-Mask: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1OwoZZyhSo That said, one of...
Exemplary
If you'd like to understand why people like the F4 (as i didn't either) here is a wonderful (if extremely in depth) video from B-Mask: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1OwoZZyhSo
That said, one of the main reasons they keep trying is that it's normally pretty popular so it should sell, AND some of the best Marvel big bads are all from F4. Doctor Doom would be perfect as the next thanos, and Kang was probably the best part of the previous attempts.
The problem, is that F4 DOES NOT NEED AN ORIGIN MOVIE. Their origin is dumb and barely relevant to most of their characters (unlike spiderman or batman) and already well known (just like spiderman and batman). It's a huge waste of a film, not remotely compelling, and a waste of the kind of stories they're good for.
On top of that, they keep wasting Doom. Given he's at or near the top of everyone's favorite bad guys with some great plot lines, them going off script and shoving him in the "mustache twirling guy who's defeated by the power of friendship" is such a waste. This also is the problem taking a generic action script and mad libbing in the F4 characters, so this might be the first time they don't do that.
If this was marvel before this arc, I'd be excited, but sadly they seem to be doing the same "find/replace" nonsense now, so I'd say 50/50 they get this close to right.
IMO the FF would lend itself better to a procedural type of TV series with 2-4 episode story arcs than a feature film. I wouldn't even get into Doom until a third season of that. I also wouldn't...
IMO the FF would lend itself better to a procedural type of TV series with 2-4 episode story arcs than a feature film. I wouldn't even get into Doom until a third season of that.
I also wouldn't bother with going into the origin story until you get to a story arc focused on Reed and Ben's friendship. And then, since you already have an investment and affection for these characters, you can really work on showing Reed's underlying guilt over disfiguring his friend and how much of a motivation that is for him. I think it should feel more like Supernatural tonally.
Honestly true of so many superhero movies in general. Everyone knows about Peter Parker, we don't need every Spiderman franchise to start with him getting bitten by a radioactive spider and...
The problem, is that F4 DOES NOT NEED AN ORIGIN MOVIE.
Honestly true of so many superhero movies in general. Everyone knows about Peter Parker, we don't need every Spiderman franchise to start with him getting bitten by a radioactive spider and struggling to adjust to his new superpowers. We don't need to see Bruce Wayne getting orphaned or Superman found in a rocket. Most origin stories can be worked into a conversation rather than shown on screen, heck could just have a flashback to the defining moment. It's just tedious to ALWAYS start from the beginning when it's a story that's already been recounted multiple times.
Thanks for that. I of course can't claim to be an expert on 60 years of comics from a 2 hour video, but it definitely nailed in me the differencce of the character in the comics that gave the...
Thanks for that. I of course can't claim to be an expert on 60 years of comics from a 2 hour video, but it definitely nailed in me the differencce of the character in the comics that gave the group acclaim and the characters I experienced in tv shows and the 2005 movie growing up (and I don't even hate those). I was never in love with the F4, but I can see the sheer difference in characterization now. Especially Doom. I definitely wouldn't have really compared Doom to the likes of Thanos nor Galactus before watching that video. The shows made him so hammy and typical villian of the week.
The problem, is that F4 DOES NOT NEED AN ORIGIN MOVIE. Their origin is dumb and barely relevant to most of their characters
Yeah, that's always a tough issue. Movies need impeccable pacing to fit years of content into 90-180 minutes of content, and origins tend to be the slowest, least action-y part of that. You don't want to wait until the end or even a sequel to suddenly see that Susan is more than just "invisible and force fieds" (another mistake of the shows. Though I can understand a kids cartoon not wanting to be quite as brutal),
But I also get that every movie can be someone's first. It'd be nice to balance that inevitable origin with flashbacks instead of another zero to hero story. That format tends to work better in TV than on the big screen.
Every time I see the "Superman is a boring character" sentiment I always just dislike Zach Snyder a bit more Superman might be a bit outdated, but he has some compelling stories and themes.
Thanks for sharing that. I think it gets clunky fairly quickly, but you're right that there's something very compelling about Superman having to choose not to save someone. There's definitely more...
Thanks for sharing that. I think it gets clunky fairly quickly, but you're right that there's something very compelling about Superman having to choose not to save someone. There's definitely more meat there than those of us who have just seen the movies would assume.
Even if you look at it very literally, of Superman being a literal alien learning how to love and save humanity, and becoming an embodiment of the American Dream (as outdated as that can be...
Even if you look at it very literally, of Superman being a literal alien learning how to love and save humanity, and becoming an embodiment of the American Dream (as outdated as that can be nowadays), I think the Snyder Movies really did miss the point of Superman by a lot.
Snyder misses the point of a lot of stuff. He's not a storyteller; he's a cinematographer promoted past his area of expertise. I'm no super-historian when it comes to comics, but I think most...
Snyder misses the point of a lot of stuff. He's not a storyteller; he's a cinematographer promoted past his area of expertise.
I'm no super-historian when it comes to comics, but I think most comic fans would tend to agree DC tended to lean on the "legendary godlike" angle of "superhero" considerably more than Marvel. And I say this even at the same time as I'd like to mention that comic you linked above is amazing. A real story condensed into, what was it, seven pages?
But superheroes are boring, and dumb, and droll, and dry, when all you see is the plot aspect of their powers. When Superman was invented, back in the 30s, he was invented to be super. And most of the powers/abilities we now associate with Superman weren't there at his creation.
They kept upping the ante, trying to top themselves. The jingle was "able to leap tall buildings with a single bound" because that's what he did. He didn't fly. Not initially. They grew his powers because last week he jumped a building, what's left? Hurdling the Atlantic? Fuck it, now he just flies.
Marvel made their name leaning into the human aspect of heroes. Spider-man is iconic because he's just a kid, with all the kid problems, and all the problems of being not-rich and not-connected. Tony Stark is a billionaire, yes, but he battles an addictive and somewhat narcissistic personality.
Marvel didn't always resist the urge to fall into the tired trope of "one-upping" what came before, but it didn't happen as often because their characters weren't impeccable gods. A lot of the Marvel heroes' stories revolved around their human aspects. Around character rather than plot power.
If the sole point of a Spider-man book is the Spidey fight, well it gets pretty fucking dull pretty fucking quick. How long does that hold the audience's attention? A year? Maybe? But if Spidey is grappling with moral questions, with character questions, that's interesting. That's things we all think about. We all run out of money, or have to pick between conflicting goals, or weren't strong/fast/smart enough to save our girlfriend (family/friend/etc) when the Green Goblin (or our boss/neighbor/random motorist/etc) dropped her.
Superman is an amazing character in the hands of modern storytellers (though I think the alien thing ruins it if you lean on it; just think of him as a man trying hard to be good, IMO). Snyder isn't a storyteller, so of course he doesn't understand this. He doesn't even get that there's a question to be answered. He thinks like tropey wanna-bes think; always struggling to find the one-up because they can't perceive anything else.
Lots of people don't even know kryptonite wasn't invented by the comics. The radio show invented it. Why? To one-up stuff. If Superman is invulnerable, infinitely strong, super fast, and all that ... how can we make any drama? Well, considering that they just wanted to focus on plot, they can't. Any pure physical plot is of course solved by Superman; the character is designed to blow apart any plot.
So they invented kryptonite. And now, conveniently, all the criminals have it. Suddenly they could do the tropey tired lame stuff of "will he reach the button in time, can he defeat the goons, is he fast enough ... tune in next time to find out."
Kryptonite misses the point of a good Superman story. Anyone who thinks you need a kryptonite to have a good Superman story is missing the point. The Superman movie (yes, the Superman movie, with Reeve), used kryptonite pretty well. Sure Luthor employed it as an excuse to monologue, but then Miss Teschmacher takes advantage of it to extract from Superman a promise to save her mother first.
That was a good use of kryptonite. A moral dilemma. "Trapping" Superman in a position where he has to deal with the dilemma.
The modern, "gritty" take lots of modern storytellers focus on would just have Superman lie. Have any hero lie. "Yeah, sure, I'll save your mom. Psyche, I have my own ideas of what's more important, but thanks for getting rid of the kryptonite for me."
That story you linked was great. Of course Superman can keep her from falling to her death.
Or can he? Sure he can save her now. What happens when she gets out of whatever hospital or clinic or asylum the city locks her up in? What if saving her isn't about the plot of "can Superman catch her in time?"
I can hear some of the zero-sum plot-centric complaints now. How many people could Superman have saved, but didn't, while he hung there waiting for her to process her pain and grief and sense of loss and despair? But she needed that time, and he gave it to her.
Good Superman stories focus on him as a man. He's the Big Blue Boy Scout for a reason, and those stories will always be more interesting than "oh look, we CGI-animated Superman catching a falling airplane." I loved that scene in the Singer Superman where he catches the plane. It's a very cool scene, arguably the best scene in the movie. But it's just plot powers.
Superman saving one despondent woman on a ledge is a lot cooler though. Superman's Superman because he cares. He's like Jesus in tights. Superman cares that much about humanity. More than any of us can understand. Yes, more than that too. And that. More than anything. Superman will always go down swinging, fighting the good fight.
Even if the fight is to hang there in the air waiting while one person struggles to find a spark of hope to keep living with.
I think it's a cycle. And we definitely cycled out of the "larger than life heroes taking on galaxy/universal threats" around the turn of the century. It may honestly be time to cycle back to it...
Good Superman stories focus on him as a man. He's the Big Blue Boy Scout for a reason, and those stories will always be more interesting than "oh look, we CGI-animated Superman catching a falling airplane."
I think it's a cycle. And we definitely cycled out of the "larger than life heroes taking on galaxy/universal threats" around the turn of the century. It may honestly be time to cycle back to it 25 years later, but to be frank: the cinema just hasn't done a good job of it. Superman v. Batman is pretty much how
you take the worst of both worlds with regards to that. Where's our Darkseids? Our Zods? Our Doomdays (and yeah, he was in BvS and wasted, lol)? If you wanna make a grand epic, don't just stick with the typical Lex Luthor origin story.
Infinity War was a great mix of both elements, but I'd hope the lesson to take away there isn't to use 10 movies to setup a grand payoff.
I’m curious about what you mean about BvS being the “worst of both worlds”. Can you expand on that? I think BvS is the worst of the Snyder DC films (Aquaman and the like were trash) but I feel...
I’m curious about what you mean about BvS being the “worst of both worlds”. Can you expand on that?
I think BvS is the worst of the Snyder DC films (Aquaman and the like were trash) but I feel like that’s because of studio meddling and the need to “catch up” to Marvel and not anything explicitly that Snyder did. On its face, the criticisms are valid but I think it might be unfair to levy those against Snyder since it’s such a departure from what he had actually planned for the characters. Most people won’t have that context when viewing the movies but that doesn’t make those criticisms fair or accurate.
Note that I don't really have any particularly strong hatred towards Snyder's portrayal of DC here. Nor am I saying that one world is worse than another. But the most obvious theme of a superman...
I’m curious about what you mean about BvS being the “worst of both worlds”. Can you expand on that?
Note that I don't really have any particularly strong hatred towards Snyder's portrayal of DC here. Nor am I saying that one world is worse than another.
But the most obvious theme of a superman story that isn't trying to be an "epic clash" is Kyrptonite. Kryptonite is used when Superman is unable to be fought on parity but the writer needs lower staked conflicts to work with. Which inherently means they aren't going for an epic clash. As they'd explain later in BvS, Zod in Man of Steel was heavily affected by Kryptonite so he couldn't fight on parity with Superman until the very end, and even by then we see how easily Superman can defeat Zod when pushed. Zod in the DCeU was never meant to be this equal archnemesis to Superman in that way.
And of course, in BvS Kryptonite is a core tool used by otherwise mortal beings as Superman is antagonized for most of the film. Which honestly sounds fine when you realize Batman is the one crafting such tools, that's how he overcomes most adversaries above his mortality. But it was almost inevtiable that the fight would be cut short (and of course set way too late in the film) to make it fall short of that "epic clash" people expect from the titular title. It becomes another bout of misunderstandings and distractions from the true villians.
So these two movies weren't epic clashes. But where they good humanization of Superman? Well, that topic has been talked about for years, so I don't have anything particularly new to add. It's an arguably realistic portrayal of how we'd treat Superman if he came to our modern city, it's also a portrayal that goes against many of the themes Superman stands for. The most optimistic interpretation of this is that the two films portray a Superman afraid of his own powers, but pushed to take action when no one else can rise to the occasion (which feels like a different hero entirely, but I don't know off hand which DC hero to point to).
That’s an opinion, though, and not an objective statement of fact. I love his cinematographic style mostly because each frame feels like it could be pulled straight from a comic book. That might...
That’s an opinion, though, and not an objective statement of fact. I love his cinematographic style mostly because each frame feels like it could be pulled straight from a comic book. That might not be great for all movies (and it hurts the pacing to have so. many. slo-mo. shots) but I think it’s perfect for comic book movies. Into The Spider-Verse took the same approach and I think it worked even better in that movie.
No what I mean is that he produced better images when he had a DOP. But since he’s taken over DOP duties in his films the visuals have suffered. I believe you’re referencing his visuals on stuff...
No what I mean is that he produced better images when he had a DOP. But since he’s taken over DOP duties in his films the visuals have suffered. I believe you’re referencing his visuals on stuff like Watchmen but haven’t seen Army of the Dead or Rebel Moon.
DC definitely leaned too far into the God-like realm and I think the “upping the ante” argument is spot-on and I’ve made a similar argument in another comment. Based on that, though, how is the...
DC definitely leaned too far into the God-like realm and I think the “upping the ante” argument is spot-on and I’ve made a similar argument in another comment.
Based on that, though, how is the story linked amazing? You can literally substitute in any “hero” character and it’s the same. That story would be much more interesting if it was a police officer or a firefighter up on the ledge with her. It might be a “good story” but it’s a terrible “Superman story”.
And with that being said, how is Snyder being tropey and trying to find the one-up? His movies explicitly do the things you’re claiming they don’t do - namely, asking questions: 1) how does Earth react to knowing that not only do aliens exist but there’s been one living among them for decades? 2) should a person like Superman out himself to the public or keep his identity a secret? 3) does someone like Superman take agency away from people in solving their own problems? 4) what does it mean for someone like Superman to “save the world” at the cost of thousands of lives and countless miles of damage and destruction? I honestly could go on with the questions asked for hours!
It’s very odd to me that people can say things like “he cares that much about humanity” and then “I can hear some zero-sum plot” dismissiveness in the same comment. You’re right about so many of the problems with Superman and rightly point out the power level issues and even the Kryptonite albatross so it’s surprising that you seem to be ignoring all the rest (though I can’t speculate on your intent, the general ideas seem in opposition to each other).
Good Superman stories do focus on him as a man but, in order to be good Superman stories, they need to focus on what man he is specifically, not just stories in which anyone can be replaced and still fill exactly the same role. As I mentioned before, the fact that the story would be bettered by a normal human without powers being there in place of Superman really highlights that it’s not a good Superman story.
I don't know that there's much to explore with the loving humanity angle, but the idea of coming to embody the American dream (and the darker sides of that) would indeed make for a really...
I don't know that there's much to explore with the loving humanity angle, but the idea of coming to embody the American dream (and the darker sides of that) would indeed make for a really compelling trilogy. I wonder which director would best unpack that.
Can you expand on this? I feel the exact opposite about Snyder (as mentioned in a previous reply to you) and don’t understand how someone could come to that conclusion without ignoring major parts...
Can you expand on this? I feel the exact opposite about Snyder (as mentioned in a previous reply to you) and don’t understand how someone could come to that conclusion without ignoring major parts of his films. If Snyder missed the point of Superman, can you clarify what you believe the point of Superman is?
Although this is very heartfelt, this story always irks me for two reasons: 1) Other writers have done it better and in less panels with greater impact, 2) It implies that Superman stayed with her...
Although this is very heartfelt, this story always irks me for two reasons: 1) Other writers have done it better and in less panels with greater impact, 2) It implies that Superman stayed with her the entire time and ignored all the other places/situations where he might have been needed.
I actually think it's more interesting that he stayed with her. Superman cannot literally save everyone. Two gunshots fired on the opposite side of the world can't both be stopped by most versions...
I actually think it's more interesting that he stayed with her. Superman cannot literally save everyone. Two gunshots fired on the opposite side of the world can't both be stopped by most versions of the character.
Yeah, other people may have died, or may not have because other saviors saved them, super or human. But she mattered. In that moment he was what she needed. He took as long as was needed to save her life. Leaving once he was there would imply that she didn't matter as much as the others.
I talk people down off (thankfully only) metaphorical ledges. I've literally saved lives (which is sort of terrifying). And what he did was what is needed to save those lives. Those lives matter just as much as the train accident. Or digging someone out of a collapsed mine. But we don't complain about that time spent. If Supes was real, he's not obligated to spend his time or his powers in some optimized way to be a good person. I'd argue it would strip him of his humanity to make him respond on an algorithm
But you’re only highlighting the problem that a story like that makes up (that is wholly unrealistic and exactly what makes Superman boring) while, at the same time discounting what would have...
But you’re only highlighting the problem that a story like that makes up (that is wholly unrealistic and exactly what makes Superman boring) while, at the same time discounting what would have made that actually interesting.
Case in point: where is the decision-making in that? You can’t make the point that “yes, other people may have died” while also trying to say “Superman cares”. The part that makes Superman interesting is precisely that even with all his powers, he cannot save everyone (a point that Superman: The Movie drives home in the most personal way possible with the death of Pa Kent). If Superman cares so much about humanity, how does he decide that this girl on the ledge matters but a train car full of people can wait? If anything, this story above about him staying with her makes me like Superman less because it points out that the other people, the humans without all the powers doing their damnedest to make sure that girl survives, didn’t matter. It only matters that Superman stayed with her and cared? Why? Because he’s Superman? That’s boring. None of those other people matter?
Obviously, everyone will have different ideas about what is boring and what isn’t boring but I’m just surprised to hear that what people supposedly find interesting about Superman are things that aren’t unique to Superman at all. The story with the girl works exactly the same whether it’s Superman standing there or Wonder Woman, Flash, or even Batman.
You’re saying it’s interesting because he did what’s needed to save lives despite that being the case for any hero. I’m asking and arguing about what makes Superman interesting specifically and I think that Snyder actually thought about that too. He thought about what specifically about Superman makes him Superman. He asked questions about why Superman had a “no kill” rule and how he got to that point. He asked questions about how would Superman’s family would deal with the repercussions of hiding him. These are questions that are unique to Superman. So, to me, if people think Snyder doesn’t understand the character or made the character boring, I have to ask whether it’s just that you find Superman boring. Snyder didn’t do a great job with everything (his Pa Kent death was flat-out stupid and, while I see the intent behind it, it could have been done in a much better way) but I’m really perplexed at how anyone can say that his Superman is boring.
I really don't have an opinion about Snyder's Superman as I don't care much about him. Snyder doesn't make interesting movies to me so I don't particularly pay attention and I'm not arguing from...
I really don't have an opinion about Snyder's Superman as I don't care much about him. Snyder doesn't make interesting movies to me so I don't particularly pay attention and I'm not arguing from that point of view.
As for this comic, the interesting bit for me is Superman saves a life in a way not stereotypically about his superpowers. The fact he can fly makes it easier, sure but it isn't about that. It's because "anyone" could do it that it matters more to me. I don't find that boring at all. And I think that arguing that he could have been saving more lives doing something else is a non-sequitor unless you question what he's doing with every single second of his day. And I don't understand why him saving her makes you think the humans didn't matter, unless humans don't matter anytime he saves people. The humans may not have been the best trained at handling a suicidal person. They're trying their best. And maybe they'd have saved her too. But maybe they'd have dug out the miners in the collapsed mine.
He chose to try to save her life, through compassion and his time, not through strength or speed, and he did. Moments of kindness and humanity are what ground the DC "gods" and make them worth reading or watching, IMO. In his particular case his understanding of pain and loss is what allows him to connect with her.
I've seen other times he saved a suicidal person, and those matter too, but the time spent is the point. The whole point is sometimes you can't save the world, even if you're Superman. You save one person. And it's worth that time to do so. She was worth waiting for. Her life mattered.
Thanks for indulging me. i appreciate the response. I guess the part I’m still hung up on is why it needed to be Superman, then, or, more importantly, what does it say about Superman that he spent...
Thanks for indulging me. i appreciate the response.
I guess the part I’m still hung up on is why it needed to be Superman, then, or, more importantly, what does it say about Superman that he spent time doing nothing except being there while then not “being there” for people that actually needed him and not just someone. It’s great to read a story where Superman saves the day without the stereotypical use of his powers but, to my last comment, that’s not a great Superman story because you can just put anyone in his place and it’s more impactful specifically because it’s someone without powers doing it.
Why is asking questions about Superman a non-sequitor unless we question every second of his day? Shouldn’t a Superman story be about what makes him Superman and what choices he has to make that the rest of us don’t because we’re not Superman?
Him saving her literally ignores all the people that are on the ground shining the spotlight on her - Police, EMTs, mental health professionals, etc. It takes away from the fact that they’re spending their lives trying to help people just like this girl and makes the point that Superman saved her when, as I’ve said, it doesn’t need to be him and they were already trying to help her. Why would humans specifically trained to handle high-pressure medical and physical situations not be “best trained at handling a suicidal person” but Superman, someone who’s not even human is? It feels like all these implications are surface level to the writer so that he can virtue signal that Superman also cares about mental health and not just bad guys with powers.
I just feel like it’s far more of a Superman story to confront why “her life mattered” and those potential others don’t (including people who may have died and those who tried to save them and those that were trying to save her) which is implied by this story.
We don't know that she needed "someone." Because we cannot know of someone else would have saved her life. Sometimes people we try to help still die. Superman was there and he helped. You're the...
We don't know that she needed "someone." Because we cannot know of someone else would have saved her life. Sometimes people we try to help still die. Superman was there and he helped.
You're the one deciding that others died because of it. But if that's the case then others die when he's pretending to be a mild mannered Kansan. Either people are dying all the time and not being saved by Superman or they're only dying when the narrative says so. Either way this is not a standout in that. There nothing about this story that implies anyone died.
I fundamentally disagree that it didn't "need" to be Superman and thus the whole thing was pointless. It needed to be him because he was there and could help her. His life experience gave him the words to say. Maybe someone else could have helped her, but Aquaman can stop criminals too. Wonder Woman can fly and punch things. Green Lantern can dig out a collapsed mine. So none of those things are inherently Superman either. I don't "need" to be the person who helps a particular student in crisis either. I would not be offended or insulted that someone else came in and did a better/more effective job than me or even the same job as me. Those humans are not being slighted. (Spidey shouldn't stop petty crime because it slights the cops?)
The one you linked is fine. But it's not the same message. In the original comic, he very powerfully gave her a choice. He made a promise to give her that choice. She had the agency. He gave her space. Those pages mattered. She had to decide to live.
In the one you linked he saved her and then she hopefully decided to continue living. Both can be required, but they're different stories.
I don't agree that every story require powers to be a relevant Supes story. I like the moments of humanity (or personhood given the context) myself. And just because "someone else" can also do a thing doesn't make it a waste of Superman's time nor an insult to anyone else that can do the thing. One person being valuable is the point of those panels.
First off, thanks for the discussion. It’s not often I get to debate silly things like this that really fascinate me when it comes to fictional characters. That being said, I think you’re...
First off, thanks for the discussion. It’s not often I get to debate silly things like this that really fascinate me when it comes to fictional characters.
That being said, I think you’re misunderstanding what I’m saying and repeating things that are in that comic as if saying them again will address the issues I’m pointing out.
Superman was only there to help because that’s what the writers chose to happen in this story. That’s my entire objection. They chose to have Superman stay there for at least an entire day, ignoring everything else that was potentially happening. If he had given the exact same speech about his friend and asked the jumper if she knew that she wouldn’t have another happy day right from the start, the story would have exactly the same impact as the original without all the inherent issues of making Superman ignore the rest of the world. To your point, the writers could also have chosen to let her jump and then Superman would have needed to face the choice of keeping his word or saving a life. That is a choice only Superman can make because he’s the only one capable of being in that situation by virtue of his powers.
I’m not the one deciding others died. People die all the time and, based on the Superman comics of past, with far more frequency than in the real world because the threats are greater. The writers decided that other people died. They’re the same ones that intentionally show Clark stopping pretending being a Kansan because someone is in trouble. The choice you’re giving is a false one. The writers can literally do whatever they want. They could even handwave away the issue in question by having Superman radio Aquaman or anyone else you’d like just to say “I need you to cover for me… something important has come up” just like he had thousands of times before. They chose not to do that. Even your Spider-Man example isn’t a good one because Spider-Man doesn’t spend an entire day staring at a person whilst the rest of the city goes on and he’s explicitly let the PDNY take care of issues when he realized he wasn’t needed. Those are all choices that are made in telling the story of that particular character.
I never said that every story requires powers in order to be a Superman story so I’m not sure where that came from. I also like the moments of humanity but I want to know Superman’s take on those moments explicitly because he’s not a human. Otherwise, there’s nothing that the story gains by being a Superman story as opposed to a Batman story or a generic any- or every-man story.
And while you may say that the point of those panels is that one person being valuable is the point, I’m saying that the panels make that point very poorly because they attempt to say that rather than showing it (Why is she valuable? Just because she is? Is it because everyone is valuable inherently?) and they do so juxtaposed against the one person who is, objectively, more valuable to the world than any other person because of who he is and what he can do to help.
I don't think I misunderstood you. I just fundamentally disagree about what makes Superman interesting and what makes a good Superman story. I think the story both shows, through giving her the...
I don't think I misunderstood you. I just fundamentally disagree about what makes Superman interesting and what makes a good Superman story. I think the story both shows, through giving her the time she needs, and tells, through how he talks to her, the message of the value of saving one person.
Whether the writers decide that no one died during that time or whether someone is always dying, kind of doesn't matter. He made a choice to save her. And yeah everyone is valuable. I think that point is stronger coming from Superman. Not weaker.
I've told you I've literally saved lives. Am I more valuable than the person whose life I've saved? I'm not Superman but I have skills. But maybe a firefighter is more valuable? Or a neurosurgeon? To me, the answer is that people matter and that neither of them are more important than others. I certainly don't think my life matters more because I saved people. Frankly it terrifies me that I have done so. I don't usually like to frame my work that way but it is true. I think this version of Superman would disagree with you as well.
We want a Superman because he can save the day, he did that here. If you start complaining at the contrivance of this being a Superman story because the writers want it to be, then I don't get being fine with all other Superman stories.
I also really object to the use of virtue signalling in your previous comment. It assumes the motivation of the author. And dismisses the idea that they actually cared about the topic and the story.
Like I said, we just don't agree on what makes a Superman story matter.
This is why I think you misunderstand, though. You’ve stated several things without any explanation for them. For example, you say we disagree on what makes a Superman story interesting but...
This is why I think you misunderstand, though. You’ve stated several things without any explanation for them.
For example, you say we disagree on what makes a Superman story interesting but haven’t really expanded on what you think makes a story interesting, often just repeating that it is interesting to you. You say that it shows the value of saving one person (and, I guess, the manner it supposedly shows that) without actually getting to the meat of how it shows that or why the manner in which it’s shown shows that. You say that “the point is stronger coming from Superman” but never explain why it actually is stronger coming from him and, when asked to answer that, you’ve answered with another statement without meat - that it “grounds him” with no word of what that means or how this grounds him.
I know what you said about saving lives. My point was that Superman is, in many cases, the only one that can do certain things - stop a bus from careening off the edge of a bridge, stop Metallo or Parasite from destroying Metropolis, catch a falling airplane - and so is, pretty objectively, more valuable as a resource. Even if we agree that one of the points of Superman is to show that heroes struggle too, it’s odd to say that Superman would disagree with an assessment he has made himself in multiple comics and media.
I’m not simply complaining about the contrivance and don’t see at all how pointing out a flaw in one story somehow taints any others. There are plenty of Superman stories with problems. We just happen to be discussing this specific one and I’m pointing out issues that it has, specifically, and that other Superman stories don’t have. Your previous example of Superman being a Kansan and people dying would be a good counterpoint except for the countless Superman stories where his life as Clark/a Kansan is interrupted because he needs to save someone.
I’m not sure how to respond to the complaint about using virtue signaling. I didn’t intend any kind of dismissal, I was just making the point that the writer had full control of the story and chose to grandstand a bit for impact rather than make a more meaningful statement. They went for the emotional appeal at the expense of both the meaning of the story and Superman as a character by putting him in a situation that he could and would never be in.
We don’t agree on what makes a Superman story matter. That much is clear. I’m trying to understand what matters, though, and why that matters for Superman but you’re not really answering those questions.
Again, thanks for indulging me. Since you don’t need to answer or defend this in any way, I appreciate that you’ve taken the time to do so to appease my curiosity.
Allow me to try to be clearer then. I think that humanizing moments, moments that focus on the "Man" more than the "Super" are what make Superman specifically and the DC "god-like" heroes in...
For example, you say we disagree on what makes a Superman story interesting but haven’t really expanded on what you think makes a story interesting, often just repeating that it is interesting to you. You say that it shows the value of saving one person (and, I guess, the manner it supposedly shows that) without actually getting to the meat of how it shows that or why the manner in which it’s shown shows that. You say that “the point is stronger coming from Superman” but never explain why it actually is stronger coming from him and, when asked to answer that, you’ve answered with another statement without meat - that it “grounds him” with no word of what that means or how this grounds him.
Allow me to try to be clearer then. I think that humanizing moments, moments that focus on the "Man" more than the "Super" are what make Superman specifically and the DC "god-like" heroes in particular interesting. I think those conflicts and those triumphs, those much quieter 'saves' matter more than stopping a meteor. I think the human interaction with the people he saves is more interesting than the save itself.
To me the manner in which it "shows" that is clear - Superman spends the necessary time waiting with her to save one person. I don't know how to explain the fact that he waits so long with her is demonstrating through action the words that he said earlier any more clearly. I think the point can potentially be viewed as even stronger coming from someone who has physically saved so many people because he's speaking from that experience. When I say it "grounds" him I mean it humanizes him. (And I'm using "humanize" despite it being slightly the wrong term for an alien, but language is what it is.) It makes him feel like a person, not a god.
I know what you said about saving lives. My point was that Superman is, in many cases, the only one that can do certain things - stop a bus from careening off the edge of a bridge, stop Metallo or Parasite from destroying Metropolis, catch a falling airplane - and so is, pretty objectively, more valuable as a resource. Even if we agree that one of the points of Superman is to show that heroes struggle too, it’s odd to say that Superman would disagree with an assessment he has made himself in multiple comics and media.
I understand what you said. The problem is that you're treating the character of Superman as a consistent being for the decades he's existed. Different writers have different takes. This specific Superman would probably disagree with you about considering him more valuable than her. Maybe I'm wrong, but we all bring our own experiences to our interpretations, and that's mine.
I’m not simply complaining about the contrivance and don’t see at all how pointing out a flaw in one story somehow taints any others. There are plenty of Superman stories with problems. We just happen to be discussing this specific one and I’m pointing out issues that it has, specifically, and that other Superman stories don’t have. Your previous example of Superman being a Kansan and people dying would be a good counterpoint except for the countless Superman stories where his life as Clark/a Kansan is interrupted because he needs to save someone.
What I'm saying about this is that while he is interrupted sometimes he is not always saving lives. This means that life-saving is either not a constant need or he already chooses when not to intervene. This further means that trying to interpret whether he ignored people who needed saving or how many people died for him to save one person is impossible as it is always a contrivance by the story and the writers as needed. I think all Superman stories could be accused of this if there is literally any time that he's not saving lives, if we're making assumptions that lives always need saving. So I think this is not a useful criticism of this story if it's not equally applied to all stories where he engages in non-life-saving actions.
I’m not sure how to respond to the complaint about using virtue signaling. I didn’t intend any kind of dismissal, I was just making the point that the writer had full control of the story and chose to grandstand a bit for impact rather than make a more meaningful statement. They went for the emotional appeal at the expense of both the meaning of the story and Superman as a character by putting him in a situation that he could and would never be in.
Both "virtue-signaling" and "grandstanding" are dismissals of the writer's intent. You don't find the statement made to be meaningful. I disagree. I feel I've explained why pretty thoroughly.
You are focused on why this story has to be about Superman. I'm saying it is about Superman. I can't answer your question because I don't think the "why" is important. Because the story is about Superman, I think it says (and shows) his compassion, his humanity, his knowledge of how to save lives from suicide (not just by physical strength), and the value he places on the lives of those he saves. Those parts of Superman matter to people like me, and to me are far more interesting than him being a big guy that flies and punches hard. He, as an alien raised by humans, who is literally physically superior to humans in every way, he values us as individuals not just as the number of people saved today. That makes me like Superman. If that doesn't make sense to you, I think I'm out of ways to explain it.
Take your very first paragraph in your response here. None of those are explanations. You think moments that focus on the man are interesting. Why? You think the quieter saves matter more. Why?...
I think I'm out of ways to explain it.
How can you be out of ways to explain it when you haven't explained it?
Take your very first paragraph in your response here.
I think that humanizing moments, moments that focus on the "Man" more than the "Super" are what make Superman specifically and the DC "god-like" heroes in particular interesting. I think those conflicts and those triumphs, those much quieter 'saves' matter more than stopping a meteor. I think the human interaction with the people he saves is more interesting than the save itself.
None of those are explanations. You think moments that focus on the man are interesting. Why? You think the quieter saves matter more. Why? You think the human interaction is more interesting. Why?
I'm not really interested anymore in furthering the discussion at this point but I pointed out this same thing with your previous replies in the very first thing you quoted and you just did it again. You repeat statements in different ways but never actually expound on what these opinions are based on or what about them is particularly compelling. This is why I find the story that's been used as the example here, and your take on it, very surface level and why I have no issues with calling the story "virtue signaling" and "grandstanding". There's nothing more to it under the surface except for what's shown. That kind of shallow morality is boring to me because it lacks depth. It clearly shows that the writer didn't actually consider Superman as a living, breathing character who, despite the differences in character articulation over the years, remains the same basic "person". Even if the character himself isn't completely consistent over the decades, Clark Kent/Superman is a person in that story. He has motivations. He has opinions. He has principles. Stories like this one ignore those things and contradict their own characters to make a statement at the expense of the character and that is boring to me because it says nothing about the character. I would think that people read Superman to read stories about Superman and not simply because a story features him. I never said anything about Superman flying and punching hard nor have I suggested that those stories are more interesting. In fact, I'm explicitly stating over and over that there is far more to Superman that makes him interesting and that can be explored but, for whatever reason, that is being ignored.
The closest you get to an actual explanation is "...he values us as individuals not just the number of people saved today" but then stop again without elucidating why that's important, interesting, or fitting.
Thanks again for the replies. I appreciate the attempt.
I don't understand why stating that I find something interesting requires an explanation? I just.. do? You make an assumption in this post about why people like Superman stories. Have you...
I don't understand why stating that I find something interesting requires an explanation? I just.. do? You make an assumption in this post about why people like Superman stories. Have you considered that your assumption isn't universally correct?
Anyway am I supposed to base finding humanizing moments more interesting on? I have no idea what explanation of this, what "why" you are looking for? You're apparently correct that I misunderstand because to me, I'm explaining why I like these things and I don't know what you're looking for. I can say that I generally find compassionate characters more compelling. And then if you ask why, I can say because I prefer the writing if characters that demonstrate genuine emotions and I like or love characters that are kind and seem like genuinely good people for it.
I never accused you of reducing Superman to punching things, I was highlighting a dichotomy of the Super vs the Man and that I find the Man more interesting. And then you may ask me why, and I've tried to explain that I find kindness and compassion from the most powerful physical being in the world to be compelling and meaningful.
I find this story to demonstrate his principles and motivations and opinions. I get that you don't like it and why, but I don't get why you don't understand what I'm saying and insist my answers are insufficient.
This story shows the value of a human life. The willingness to let someone make their own, painful, choices rather than taking them away. That this self-determination is not negated by an all-powerful being, nor is it negated by having someone change your mind. This story speaks to me on a deep level because of the work I do and the things that matter to me - like mental health, and kindness, and that we all matter as people. But I've said this, and this is not sufficient.
I contest that I have not explained anything. I just don't agree with you and I've been clear that I recognize that. I have had no problem having this discussion but I'm truly and completely baffled at being accused of not explaining anything. Perhaps I am missing the unspoken assumptions I'm making here. Perhaps there an unwritten curriculum I'm uninformed about. Perhaps your assumptions about why other people read Superman stories aren't comprehensive. I don't know.
But yeah, I like this story about Superman having a quiet moment of compassion. And I think it is disingenuous to say you don't mean to be dismissive of it as you initially did when you just outright called it shallow, so.. like own it?
But your dislike of this story doesn't change my enjoyment of it. And I believe this is an excellent Superman story for all the reasons I've explained. I'm just confused. 乁( •_• )ㄏ
That’s funny. I’m a lifelong Superman fan and I thought Snyder made Superman more interesting by grounding him more in reality. As much as I loved Christopher Reeve in the role, the story of the...
That’s funny. I’m a lifelong Superman fan and I thought Snyder made Superman more interesting by grounding him more in reality. As much as I loved Christopher Reeve in the role, the story of the 70’s Superman film, and many comic book stories, is completely unbelievable (even with a hefty suspension of disbelief), especially in modern times.
Snyder actually thought about what it would mean if Superman came to Earth and what effect that might have on those closest to him first and then what effect that would have on the world itself. He thought about what an immature and unrefined Superman might be like on his first outing. Comparatively, most comic stories for Superman pretend that he would be immediately accepted by the world and that everyone would love and trust and celebrate him and fall into the trap of needing to continually increase both the threat and the level of power that Superman had. Instead of focusing on the character of Superman and what he is and what he actually stands for in our world, they focus on Superman needing to overcome a never-ending chain of the strongest villains in a world that doesn’t resemble our world at all.
Snyder really grounded Superman for me and gave me back the feeling of child-like wonder about what it might look like for Superman to be real in the world we live in rather than in a completely fantastic world. That juxtaposition of a fantastic character in our ordinary world leads to really interesting questions and conflicts like actually confronting the amount of damage and destruction someone like that could bring (which Marvel kinda unceremoniously copied and then continues to hand-wave away to keep their stories light and funny) along with a host of other questions and conflicts.
Superman is kind of a boring character just by virtue of being the first “Superhero”. That’s why the things that make him interesting are literally everything else except his super-ness - his struggle with fitting in, his restraint of power, his relationships to humans and humanity. Movies that focus on his powers (and sometimes invent completely new ones for him to resolve silly story issues) get boring really fast for the same reason the MCU is now boring - how do you top the stakes after your characters have saved the entire universe and have nano-whatever magic armor and unlimited energy?
I mostly blame WB for the failures of the DCCU. I think Snyder, despite the complaints to the contrary, does understand Superman and did everything he could to make him not boring. Unfortunately, that’s hard to do when you have to make movies overseen by executives.
They're Marvel's "First Family." The FF themselves became less popular as superhero comics started targeting teenagers and young adults more instead of kids, but they have historically been the...
They're Marvel's "First Family." The FF themselves became less popular as superhero comics started targeting teenagers and young adults more instead of kids, but they have historically been the vehicle through which Marvel introduced new concepts. Especially stuff like Cosmic Marvel, the MultiVerse, etc.
The Fantastic 4 have been on that echelon, just not in this era. They were one of the main driving IPs in Marvel's early years, and a lot of the first appearances of important characters came from...
The Fantastic 4 have been on that echelon, just not in this era. They were one of the main driving IPs in Marvel's early years, and a lot of the first appearances of important characters came from their comics (Black Panther and pretty much all of the space stuff). Spider-Man has always been in a tier of his own, but there has absolutely been time periods where the F4 have been more important than the X-men and Avengers. The problem being that those times were like 40+ years ago compared to the X-men, and in the past 20 years the Avengers have become way more ingrained into the cultural mainstream because of the MCU. They are a relic of the past, but they are a pretty significant part of the history of American comics.
The FF gave Marvel: Doctor Doom Galactus The Silver Surfer (my favorite) The Celestials (where The Eternala came from) various different dimensions They were among Marvel's first comics. There's a...
The FF gave Marvel:
Doctor Doom
Galactus
The Silver Surfer (my favorite)
The Celestials (where The Eternala came from)
various different dimensions
They were among Marvel's first comics. There's a gold mine there.
First in exactly decade actually. Fant4stic came out in 2015 and landed like a wet fart. Before that, there were the two movies from Tim Story in 2005 and 2007.
First in exactly decade actually. Fant4stic came out in 2015 and landed like a wet fart. Before that, there were the two movies from Tim Story in 2005 and 2007.
Dunno if it's the fact that the new Deadpool trailer landed for me (didn't really like 2) but this post-Kang MCU seems at least interesting. They could obviously still fuck it up but yeah let's see.
Dunno if it's the fact that the new Deadpool trailer landed for me (didn't really like 2) but this post-Kang MCU seems at least interesting. They could obviously still fuck it up but yeah let's see.
what is this, the third attempt at the F4 in the past decade? I don't know what it is about this specific IP that so many studios want to try and make work. I never recall the F4 ever really being in the echelons of Spiderman or X-men or even Thor
If you'd like to understand why people like the F4 (as i didn't either) here is a wonderful (if extremely in depth) video from B-Mask: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1OwoZZyhSo
That said, one of the main reasons they keep trying is that it's normally pretty popular so it should sell, AND some of the best Marvel big bads are all from F4. Doctor Doom would be perfect as the next thanos, and Kang was probably the best part of the previous attempts.
The problem, is that F4 DOES NOT NEED AN ORIGIN MOVIE. Their origin is dumb and barely relevant to most of their characters (unlike spiderman or batman) and already well known (just like spiderman and batman). It's a huge waste of a film, not remotely compelling, and a waste of the kind of stories they're good for.
On top of that, they keep wasting Doom. Given he's at or near the top of everyone's favorite bad guys with some great plot lines, them going off script and shoving him in the "mustache twirling guy who's defeated by the power of friendship" is such a waste. This also is the problem taking a generic action script and mad libbing in the F4 characters, so this might be the first time they don't do that.
If this was marvel before this arc, I'd be excited, but sadly they seem to be doing the same "find/replace" nonsense now, so I'd say 50/50 they get this close to right.
IMO the FF would lend itself better to a procedural type of TV series with 2-4 episode story arcs than a feature film. I wouldn't even get into Doom until a third season of that.
I also wouldn't bother with going into the origin story until you get to a story arc focused on Reed and Ben's friendship. And then, since you already have an investment and affection for these characters, you can really work on showing Reed's underlying guilt over disfiguring his friend and how much of a motivation that is for him. I think it should feel more like Supernatural tonally.
Honestly true of so many superhero movies in general. Everyone knows about Peter Parker, we don't need every Spiderman franchise to start with him getting bitten by a radioactive spider and struggling to adjust to his new superpowers. We don't need to see Bruce Wayne getting orphaned or Superman found in a rocket. Most origin stories can be worked into a conversation rather than shown on screen, heck could just have a flashback to the defining moment. It's just tedious to ALWAYS start from the beginning when it's a story that's already been recounted multiple times.
Thanks for that. I of course can't claim to be an expert on 60 years of comics from a 2 hour video, but it definitely nailed in me the differencce of the character in the comics that gave the group acclaim and the characters I experienced in tv shows and the 2005 movie growing up (and I don't even hate those). I was never in love with the F4, but I can see the sheer difference in characterization now. Especially Doom. I definitely wouldn't have really compared Doom to the likes of Thanos nor Galactus before watching that video. The shows made him so hammy and typical villian of the week.
Yeah, that's always a tough issue. Movies need impeccable pacing to fit years of content into 90-180 minutes of content, and origins tend to be the slowest, least action-y part of that. You don't want to wait until the end or even a sequel to suddenly see that Susan is more than just "invisible and force fieds" (another mistake of the shows. Though I can understand a kids cartoon not wanting to be quite as brutal),
But I also get that every movie can be someone's first. It'd be nice to balance that inevitable origin with flashbacks instead of another zero to hero story. That format tends to work better in TV than on the big screen.
I feel like there’s a Superman effect where characters just aren’t that compelling despite being really well known.
Every time I see the "Superman is a boring character" sentiment I always just dislike Zach Snyder a bit more
Superman might be a bit outdated, but he has some compelling stories and themes.
Thanks for the video, interesting!
Old scans for a comic that I feel like also illustrate this point :)
Thanks for sharing that. I think it gets clunky fairly quickly, but you're right that there's something very compelling about Superman having to choose not to save someone. There's definitely more meat there than those of us who have just seen the movies would assume.
Even if you look at it very literally, of Superman being a literal alien learning how to love and save humanity, and becoming an embodiment of the American Dream (as outdated as that can be nowadays), I think the Snyder Movies really did miss the point of Superman by a lot.
Snyder misses the point of a lot of stuff. He's not a storyteller; he's a cinematographer promoted past his area of expertise.
I'm no super-historian when it comes to comics, but I think most comic fans would tend to agree DC tended to lean on the "legendary godlike" angle of "superhero" considerably more than Marvel. And I say this even at the same time as I'd like to mention that comic you linked above is amazing. A real story condensed into, what was it, seven pages?
But superheroes are boring, and dumb, and droll, and dry, when all you see is the plot aspect of their powers. When Superman was invented, back in the 30s, he was invented to be super. And most of the powers/abilities we now associate with Superman weren't there at his creation.
They kept upping the ante, trying to top themselves. The jingle was "able to leap tall buildings with a single bound" because that's what he did. He didn't fly. Not initially. They grew his powers because last week he jumped a building, what's left? Hurdling the Atlantic? Fuck it, now he just flies.
Marvel made their name leaning into the human aspect of heroes. Spider-man is iconic because he's just a kid, with all the kid problems, and all the problems of being not-rich and not-connected. Tony Stark is a billionaire, yes, but he battles an addictive and somewhat narcissistic personality.
Marvel didn't always resist the urge to fall into the tired trope of "one-upping" what came before, but it didn't happen as often because their characters weren't impeccable gods. A lot of the Marvel heroes' stories revolved around their human aspects. Around character rather than plot power.
If the sole point of a Spider-man book is the Spidey fight, well it gets pretty fucking dull pretty fucking quick. How long does that hold the audience's attention? A year? Maybe? But if Spidey is grappling with moral questions, with character questions, that's interesting. That's things we all think about. We all run out of money, or have to pick between conflicting goals, or weren't strong/fast/smart enough to save our girlfriend (family/friend/etc) when the Green Goblin (or our boss/neighbor/random motorist/etc) dropped her.
Superman is an amazing character in the hands of modern storytellers (though I think the alien thing ruins it if you lean on it; just think of him as a man trying hard to be good, IMO). Snyder isn't a storyteller, so of course he doesn't understand this. He doesn't even get that there's a question to be answered. He thinks like tropey wanna-bes think; always struggling to find the one-up because they can't perceive anything else.
Lots of people don't even know kryptonite wasn't invented by the comics. The radio show invented it. Why? To one-up stuff. If Superman is invulnerable, infinitely strong, super fast, and all that ... how can we make any drama? Well, considering that they just wanted to focus on plot, they can't. Any pure physical plot is of course solved by Superman; the character is designed to blow apart any plot.
So they invented kryptonite. And now, conveniently, all the criminals have it. Suddenly they could do the tropey tired lame stuff of "will he reach the button in time, can he defeat the goons, is he fast enough ... tune in next time to find out."
Kryptonite misses the point of a good Superman story. Anyone who thinks you need a kryptonite to have a good Superman story is missing the point. The Superman movie (yes, the Superman movie, with Reeve), used kryptonite pretty well. Sure Luthor employed it as an excuse to monologue, but then Miss Teschmacher takes advantage of it to extract from Superman a promise to save her mother first.
That was a good use of kryptonite. A moral dilemma. "Trapping" Superman in a position where he has to deal with the dilemma.
The modern, "gritty" take lots of modern storytellers focus on would just have Superman lie. Have any hero lie. "Yeah, sure, I'll save your mom. Psyche, I have my own ideas of what's more important, but thanks for getting rid of the kryptonite for me."
That story you linked was great. Of course Superman can keep her from falling to her death.
Or can he? Sure he can save her now. What happens when she gets out of whatever hospital or clinic or asylum the city locks her up in? What if saving her isn't about the plot of "can Superman catch her in time?"
I can hear some of the zero-sum plot-centric complaints now. How many people could Superman have saved, but didn't, while he hung there waiting for her to process her pain and grief and sense of loss and despair? But she needed that time, and he gave it to her.
Good Superman stories focus on him as a man. He's the Big Blue Boy Scout for a reason, and those stories will always be more interesting than "oh look, we CGI-animated Superman catching a falling airplane." I loved that scene in the Singer Superman where he catches the plane. It's a very cool scene, arguably the best scene in the movie. But it's just plot powers.
Superman saving one despondent woman on a ledge is a lot cooler though. Superman's Superman because he cares. He's like Jesus in tights. Superman cares that much about humanity. More than any of us can understand. Yes, more than that too. And that. More than anything. Superman will always go down swinging, fighting the good fight.
Even if the fight is to hang there in the air waiting while one person struggles to find a spark of hope to keep living with.
I think it's a cycle. And we definitely cycled out of the "larger than life heroes taking on galaxy/universal threats" around the turn of the century. It may honestly be time to cycle back to it 25 years later, but to be frank: the cinema just hasn't done a good job of it. Superman v. Batman is pretty much how
you take the worst of both worlds with regards to that. Where's our Darkseids? Our Zods? Our Doomdays (and yeah, he was in BvS and wasted, lol)? If you wanna make a grand epic, don't just stick with the typical Lex Luthor origin story.
Infinity War was a great mix of both elements, but I'd hope the lesson to take away there isn't to use 10 movies to setup a grand payoff.
I’m curious about what you mean about BvS being the “worst of both worlds”. Can you expand on that?
I think BvS is the worst of the Snyder DC films (Aquaman and the like were trash) but I feel like that’s because of studio meddling and the need to “catch up” to Marvel and not anything explicitly that Snyder did. On its face, the criticisms are valid but I think it might be unfair to levy those against Snyder since it’s such a departure from what he had actually planned for the characters. Most people won’t have that context when viewing the movies but that doesn’t make those criticisms fair or accurate.
Note that I don't really have any particularly strong hatred towards Snyder's portrayal of DC here. Nor am I saying that one world is worse than another.
But the most obvious theme of a superman story that isn't trying to be an "epic clash" is Kyrptonite. Kryptonite is used when Superman is unable to be fought on parity but the writer needs lower staked conflicts to work with. Which inherently means they aren't going for an epic clash. As they'd explain later in BvS, Zod in Man of Steel was heavily affected by Kryptonite so he couldn't fight on parity with Superman until the very end, and even by then we see how easily Superman can defeat Zod when pushed. Zod in the DCeU was never meant to be this equal archnemesis to Superman in that way.
And of course, in BvS Kryptonite is a core tool used by otherwise mortal beings as Superman is antagonized for most of the film. Which honestly sounds fine when you realize Batman is the one crafting such tools, that's how he overcomes most adversaries above his mortality. But it was almost inevtiable that the fight would be cut short (and of course set way too late in the film) to make it fall short of that "epic clash" people expect from the titular title. It becomes another bout of misunderstandings and distractions from the true villians.
So these two movies weren't epic clashes. But where they good humanization of Superman? Well, that topic has been talked about for years, so I don't have anything particularly new to add. It's an arguably realistic portrayal of how we'd treat Superman if he came to our modern city, it's also a portrayal that goes against many of the themes Superman stands for. The most optimistic interpretation of this is that the two films portray a Superman afraid of his own powers, but pushed to take action when no one else can rise to the occasion (which feels like a different hero entirely, but I don't know off hand which DC hero to point to).
People say this a lot, but considering he did his own cinematography for Army of the Dead and Rebel Moon, he's really not.
That’s an opinion, though, and not an objective statement of fact. I love his cinematographic style mostly because each frame feels like it could be pulled straight from a comic book. That might not be great for all movies (and it hurts the pacing to have so. many. slo-mo. shots) but I think it’s perfect for comic book movies. Into The Spider-Verse took the same approach and I think it worked even better in that movie.
No what I mean is that he produced better images when he had a DOP. But since he’s taken over DOP duties in his films the visuals have suffered. I believe you’re referencing his visuals on stuff like Watchmen but haven’t seen Army of the Dead or Rebel Moon.
You would be mostly correct. Loved Watchmen and his DC films and I have seen AotD (pretty meh for me) and have not seen Rebel Moon.
DC definitely leaned too far into the God-like realm and I think the “upping the ante” argument is spot-on and I’ve made a similar argument in another comment.
Based on that, though, how is the story linked amazing? You can literally substitute in any “hero” character and it’s the same. That story would be much more interesting if it was a police officer or a firefighter up on the ledge with her. It might be a “good story” but it’s a terrible “Superman story”.
And with that being said, how is Snyder being tropey and trying to find the one-up? His movies explicitly do the things you’re claiming they don’t do - namely, asking questions: 1) how does Earth react to knowing that not only do aliens exist but there’s been one living among them for decades? 2) should a person like Superman out himself to the public or keep his identity a secret? 3) does someone like Superman take agency away from people in solving their own problems? 4) what does it mean for someone like Superman to “save the world” at the cost of thousands of lives and countless miles of damage and destruction? I honestly could go on with the questions asked for hours!
It’s very odd to me that people can say things like “he cares that much about humanity” and then “I can hear some zero-sum plot” dismissiveness in the same comment. You’re right about so many of the problems with Superman and rightly point out the power level issues and even the Kryptonite albatross so it’s surprising that you seem to be ignoring all the rest (though I can’t speculate on your intent, the general ideas seem in opposition to each other).
Good Superman stories do focus on him as a man but, in order to be good Superman stories, they need to focus on what man he is specifically, not just stories in which anyone can be replaced and still fill exactly the same role. As I mentioned before, the fact that the story would be bettered by a normal human without powers being there in place of Superman really highlights that it’s not a good Superman story.
I don't know that there's much to explore with the loving humanity angle, but the idea of coming to embody the American dream (and the darker sides of that) would indeed make for a really compelling trilogy. I wonder which director would best unpack that.
Probably James Gunn
Can you expand on this? I feel the exact opposite about Snyder (as mentioned in a previous reply to you) and don’t understand how someone could come to that conclusion without ignoring major parts of his films. If Snyder missed the point of Superman, can you clarify what you believe the point of Superman is?
Although this is very heartfelt, this story always irks me for two reasons: 1) Other writers have done it better and in less panels with greater impact, 2) It implies that Superman stayed with her the entire time and ignored all the other places/situations where he might have been needed.
I actually think it's more interesting that he stayed with her. Superman cannot literally save everyone. Two gunshots fired on the opposite side of the world can't both be stopped by most versions of the character.
Yeah, other people may have died, or may not have because other saviors saved them, super or human. But she mattered. In that moment he was what she needed. He took as long as was needed to save her life. Leaving once he was there would imply that she didn't matter as much as the others.
I talk people down off (thankfully only) metaphorical ledges. I've literally saved lives (which is sort of terrifying). And what he did was what is needed to save those lives. Those lives matter just as much as the train accident. Or digging someone out of a collapsed mine. But we don't complain about that time spent. If Supes was real, he's not obligated to spend his time or his powers in some optimized way to be a good person. I'd argue it would strip him of his humanity to make him respond on an algorithm
But you’re only highlighting the problem that a story like that makes up (that is wholly unrealistic and exactly what makes Superman boring) while, at the same time discounting what would have made that actually interesting.
Case in point: where is the decision-making in that? You can’t make the point that “yes, other people may have died” while also trying to say “Superman cares”. The part that makes Superman interesting is precisely that even with all his powers, he cannot save everyone (a point that Superman: The Movie drives home in the most personal way possible with the death of Pa Kent). If Superman cares so much about humanity, how does he decide that this girl on the ledge matters but a train car full of people can wait? If anything, this story above about him staying with her makes me like Superman less because it points out that the other people, the humans without all the powers doing their damnedest to make sure that girl survives, didn’t matter. It only matters that Superman stayed with her and cared? Why? Because he’s Superman? That’s boring. None of those other people matter?
Obviously, everyone will have different ideas about what is boring and what isn’t boring but I’m just surprised to hear that what people supposedly find interesting about Superman are things that aren’t unique to Superman at all. The story with the girl works exactly the same whether it’s Superman standing there or Wonder Woman, Flash, or even Batman.
You’re saying it’s interesting because he did what’s needed to save lives despite that being the case for any hero. I’m asking and arguing about what makes Superman interesting specifically and I think that Snyder actually thought about that too. He thought about what specifically about Superman makes him Superman. He asked questions about why Superman had a “no kill” rule and how he got to that point. He asked questions about how would Superman’s family would deal with the repercussions of hiding him. These are questions that are unique to Superman. So, to me, if people think Snyder doesn’t understand the character or made the character boring, I have to ask whether it’s just that you find Superman boring. Snyder didn’t do a great job with everything (his Pa Kent death was flat-out stupid and, while I see the intent behind it, it could have been done in a much better way) but I’m really perplexed at how anyone can say that his Superman is boring.
I really don't have an opinion about Snyder's Superman as I don't care much about him. Snyder doesn't make interesting movies to me so I don't particularly pay attention and I'm not arguing from that point of view.
As for this comic, the interesting bit for me is Superman saves a life in a way not stereotypically about his superpowers. The fact he can fly makes it easier, sure but it isn't about that. It's because "anyone" could do it that it matters more to me. I don't find that boring at all. And I think that arguing that he could have been saving more lives doing something else is a non-sequitor unless you question what he's doing with every single second of his day. And I don't understand why him saving her makes you think the humans didn't matter, unless humans don't matter anytime he saves people. The humans may not have been the best trained at handling a suicidal person. They're trying their best. And maybe they'd have saved her too. But maybe they'd have dug out the miners in the collapsed mine.
He chose to try to save her life, through compassion and his time, not through strength or speed, and he did. Moments of kindness and humanity are what ground the DC "gods" and make them worth reading or watching, IMO. In his particular case his understanding of pain and loss is what allows him to connect with her.
I've seen other times he saved a suicidal person, and those matter too, but the time spent is the point. The whole point is sometimes you can't save the world, even if you're Superman. You save one person. And it's worth that time to do so. She was worth waiting for. Her life mattered.
Thanks for indulging me. i appreciate the response.
I guess the part I’m still hung up on is why it needed to be Superman, then, or, more importantly, what does it say about Superman that he spent time doing nothing except being there while then not “being there” for people that actually needed him and not just someone. It’s great to read a story where Superman saves the day without the stereotypical use of his powers but, to my last comment, that’s not a great Superman story because you can just put anyone in his place and it’s more impactful specifically because it’s someone without powers doing it.
Why is asking questions about Superman a non-sequitor unless we question every second of his day? Shouldn’t a Superman story be about what makes him Superman and what choices he has to make that the rest of us don’t because we’re not Superman?
Him saving her literally ignores all the people that are on the ground shining the spotlight on her - Police, EMTs, mental health professionals, etc. It takes away from the fact that they’re spending their lives trying to help people just like this girl and makes the point that Superman saved her when, as I’ve said, it doesn’t need to be him and they were already trying to help her. Why would humans specifically trained to handle high-pressure medical and physical situations not be “best trained at handling a suicidal person” but Superman, someone who’s not even human is? It feels like all these implications are surface level to the writer so that he can virtue signal that Superman also cares about mental health and not just bad guys with powers.
Why do those moments make them worth reading and watching? Because the writer decided that Superman just waiting was good enough to save her (something that anyone could have done)? This page from All-Star tells the same story with more brevity and less of these issues: http://loser-city.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/All-Star-Superman-Suicide-Prevention-Week.jpg
I just feel like it’s far more of a Superman story to confront why “her life mattered” and those potential others don’t (including people who may have died and those who tried to save them and those that were trying to save her) which is implied by this story.
We don't know that she needed "someone." Because we cannot know of someone else would have saved her life. Sometimes people we try to help still die. Superman was there and he helped.
You're the one deciding that others died because of it. But if that's the case then others die when he's pretending to be a mild mannered Kansan. Either people are dying all the time and not being saved by Superman or they're only dying when the narrative says so. Either way this is not a standout in that. There nothing about this story that implies anyone died.
I fundamentally disagree that it didn't "need" to be Superman and thus the whole thing was pointless. It needed to be him because he was there and could help her. His life experience gave him the words to say. Maybe someone else could have helped her, but Aquaman can stop criminals too. Wonder Woman can fly and punch things. Green Lantern can dig out a collapsed mine. So none of those things are inherently Superman either. I don't "need" to be the person who helps a particular student in crisis either. I would not be offended or insulted that someone else came in and did a better/more effective job than me or even the same job as me. Those humans are not being slighted. (Spidey shouldn't stop petty crime because it slights the cops?)
The one you linked is fine. But it's not the same message. In the original comic, he very powerfully gave her a choice. He made a promise to give her that choice. She had the agency. He gave her space. Those pages mattered. She had to decide to live.
In the one you linked he saved her and then she hopefully decided to continue living. Both can be required, but they're different stories.
I don't agree that every story require powers to be a relevant Supes story. I like the moments of humanity (or personhood given the context) myself. And just because "someone else" can also do a thing doesn't make it a waste of Superman's time nor an insult to anyone else that can do the thing. One person being valuable is the point of those panels.
First off, thanks for the discussion. It’s not often I get to debate silly things like this that really fascinate me when it comes to fictional characters.
That being said, I think you’re misunderstanding what I’m saying and repeating things that are in that comic as if saying them again will address the issues I’m pointing out.
Superman was only there to help because that’s what the writers chose to happen in this story. That’s my entire objection. They chose to have Superman stay there for at least an entire day, ignoring everything else that was potentially happening. If he had given the exact same speech about his friend and asked the jumper if she knew that she wouldn’t have another happy day right from the start, the story would have exactly the same impact as the original without all the inherent issues of making Superman ignore the rest of the world. To your point, the writers could also have chosen to let her jump and then Superman would have needed to face the choice of keeping his word or saving a life. That is a choice only Superman can make because he’s the only one capable of being in that situation by virtue of his powers.
I’m not the one deciding others died. People die all the time and, based on the Superman comics of past, with far more frequency than in the real world because the threats are greater. The writers decided that other people died. They’re the same ones that intentionally show Clark stopping pretending being a Kansan because someone is in trouble. The choice you’re giving is a false one. The writers can literally do whatever they want. They could even handwave away the issue in question by having Superman radio Aquaman or anyone else you’d like just to say “I need you to cover for me… something important has come up” just like he had thousands of times before. They chose not to do that. Even your Spider-Man example isn’t a good one because Spider-Man doesn’t spend an entire day staring at a person whilst the rest of the city goes on and he’s explicitly let the PDNY take care of issues when he realized he wasn’t needed. Those are all choices that are made in telling the story of that particular character.
I never said that every story requires powers in order to be a Superman story so I’m not sure where that came from. I also like the moments of humanity but I want to know Superman’s take on those moments explicitly because he’s not a human. Otherwise, there’s nothing that the story gains by being a Superman story as opposed to a Batman story or a generic any- or every-man story.
And while you may say that the point of those panels is that one person being valuable is the point, I’m saying that the panels make that point very poorly because they attempt to say that rather than showing it (Why is she valuable? Just because she is? Is it because everyone is valuable inherently?) and they do so juxtaposed against the one person who is, objectively, more valuable to the world than any other person because of who he is and what he can do to help.
I don't think I misunderstood you. I just fundamentally disagree about what makes Superman interesting and what makes a good Superman story. I think the story both shows, through giving her the time she needs, and tells, through how he talks to her, the message of the value of saving one person.
Whether the writers decide that no one died during that time or whether someone is always dying, kind of doesn't matter. He made a choice to save her. And yeah everyone is valuable. I think that point is stronger coming from Superman. Not weaker.
I've told you I've literally saved lives. Am I more valuable than the person whose life I've saved? I'm not Superman but I have skills. But maybe a firefighter is more valuable? Or a neurosurgeon? To me, the answer is that people matter and that neither of them are more important than others. I certainly don't think my life matters more because I saved people. Frankly it terrifies me that I have done so. I don't usually like to frame my work that way but it is true. I think this version of Superman would disagree with you as well.
We want a Superman because he can save the day, he did that here. If you start complaining at the contrivance of this being a Superman story because the writers want it to be, then I don't get being fine with all other Superman stories.
I also really object to the use of virtue signalling in your previous comment. It assumes the motivation of the author. And dismisses the idea that they actually cared about the topic and the story.
Like I said, we just don't agree on what makes a Superman story matter.
This is why I think you misunderstand, though. You’ve stated several things without any explanation for them.
For example, you say we disagree on what makes a Superman story interesting but haven’t really expanded on what you think makes a story interesting, often just repeating that it is interesting to you. You say that it shows the value of saving one person (and, I guess, the manner it supposedly shows that) without actually getting to the meat of how it shows that or why the manner in which it’s shown shows that. You say that “the point is stronger coming from Superman” but never explain why it actually is stronger coming from him and, when asked to answer that, you’ve answered with another statement without meat - that it “grounds him” with no word of what that means or how this grounds him.
I know what you said about saving lives. My point was that Superman is, in many cases, the only one that can do certain things - stop a bus from careening off the edge of a bridge, stop Metallo or Parasite from destroying Metropolis, catch a falling airplane - and so is, pretty objectively, more valuable as a resource. Even if we agree that one of the points of Superman is to show that heroes struggle too, it’s odd to say that Superman would disagree with an assessment he has made himself in multiple comics and media.
I’m not simply complaining about the contrivance and don’t see at all how pointing out a flaw in one story somehow taints any others. There are plenty of Superman stories with problems. We just happen to be discussing this specific one and I’m pointing out issues that it has, specifically, and that other Superman stories don’t have. Your previous example of Superman being a Kansan and people dying would be a good counterpoint except for the countless Superman stories where his life as Clark/a Kansan is interrupted because he needs to save someone.
I’m not sure how to respond to the complaint about using virtue signaling. I didn’t intend any kind of dismissal, I was just making the point that the writer had full control of the story and chose to grandstand a bit for impact rather than make a more meaningful statement. They went for the emotional appeal at the expense of both the meaning of the story and Superman as a character by putting him in a situation that he could and would never be in.
We don’t agree on what makes a Superman story matter. That much is clear. I’m trying to understand what matters, though, and why that matters for Superman but you’re not really answering those questions.
Again, thanks for indulging me. Since you don’t need to answer or defend this in any way, I appreciate that you’ve taken the time to do so to appease my curiosity.
Allow me to try to be clearer then. I think that humanizing moments, moments that focus on the "Man" more than the "Super" are what make Superman specifically and the DC "god-like" heroes in particular interesting. I think those conflicts and those triumphs, those much quieter 'saves' matter more than stopping a meteor. I think the human interaction with the people he saves is more interesting than the save itself.
To me the manner in which it "shows" that is clear - Superman spends the necessary time waiting with her to save one person. I don't know how to explain the fact that he waits so long with her is demonstrating through action the words that he said earlier any more clearly. I think the point can potentially be viewed as even stronger coming from someone who has physically saved so many people because he's speaking from that experience. When I say it "grounds" him I mean it humanizes him. (And I'm using "humanize" despite it being slightly the wrong term for an alien, but language is what it is.) It makes him feel like a person, not a god.
I understand what you said. The problem is that you're treating the character of Superman as a consistent being for the decades he's existed. Different writers have different takes. This specific Superman would probably disagree with you about considering him more valuable than her. Maybe I'm wrong, but we all bring our own experiences to our interpretations, and that's mine.
What I'm saying about this is that while he is interrupted sometimes he is not always saving lives. This means that life-saving is either not a constant need or he already chooses when not to intervene. This further means that trying to interpret whether he ignored people who needed saving or how many people died for him to save one person is impossible as it is always a contrivance by the story and the writers as needed. I think all Superman stories could be accused of this if there is literally any time that he's not saving lives, if we're making assumptions that lives always need saving. So I think this is not a useful criticism of this story if it's not equally applied to all stories where he engages in non-life-saving actions.
Both "virtue-signaling" and "grandstanding" are dismissals of the writer's intent. You don't find the statement made to be meaningful. I disagree. I feel I've explained why pretty thoroughly.
You are focused on why this story has to be about Superman. I'm saying it is about Superman. I can't answer your question because I don't think the "why" is important. Because the story is about Superman, I think it says (and shows) his compassion, his humanity, his knowledge of how to save lives from suicide (not just by physical strength), and the value he places on the lives of those he saves. Those parts of Superman matter to people like me, and to me are far more interesting than him being a big guy that flies and punches hard. He, as an alien raised by humans, who is literally physically superior to humans in every way, he values us as individuals not just as the number of people saved today. That makes me like Superman. If that doesn't make sense to you, I think I'm out of ways to explain it.
Take your very first paragraph in your response here.
None of those are explanations. You think moments that focus on the man are interesting. Why? You think the quieter saves matter more. Why? You think the human interaction is more interesting. Why?
I'm not really interested anymore in furthering the discussion at this point but I pointed out this same thing with your previous replies in the very first thing you quoted and you just did it again. You repeat statements in different ways but never actually expound on what these opinions are based on or what about them is particularly compelling. This is why I find the story that's been used as the example here, and your take on it, very surface level and why I have no issues with calling the story "virtue signaling" and "grandstanding". There's nothing more to it under the surface except for what's shown. That kind of shallow morality is boring to me because it lacks depth. It clearly shows that the writer didn't actually consider Superman as a living, breathing character who, despite the differences in character articulation over the years, remains the same basic "person". Even if the character himself isn't completely consistent over the decades, Clark Kent/Superman is a person in that story. He has motivations. He has opinions. He has principles. Stories like this one ignore those things and contradict their own characters to make a statement at the expense of the character and that is boring to me because it says nothing about the character. I would think that people read Superman to read stories about Superman and not simply because a story features him. I never said anything about Superman flying and punching hard nor have I suggested that those stories are more interesting. In fact, I'm explicitly stating over and over that there is far more to Superman that makes him interesting and that can be explored but, for whatever reason, that is being ignored.
The closest you get to an actual explanation is "...he values us as individuals not just the number of people saved today" but then stop again without elucidating why that's important, interesting, or fitting.
Thanks again for the replies. I appreciate the attempt.
I don't understand why stating that I find something interesting requires an explanation? I just.. do? You make an assumption in this post about why people like Superman stories. Have you considered that your assumption isn't universally correct?
Anyway am I supposed to base finding humanizing moments more interesting on? I have no idea what explanation of this, what "why" you are looking for? You're apparently correct that I misunderstand because to me, I'm explaining why I like these things and I don't know what you're looking for. I can say that I generally find compassionate characters more compelling. And then if you ask why, I can say because I prefer the writing if characters that demonstrate genuine emotions and I like or love characters that are kind and seem like genuinely good people for it.
I never accused you of reducing Superman to punching things, I was highlighting a dichotomy of the Super vs the Man and that I find the Man more interesting. And then you may ask me why, and I've tried to explain that I find kindness and compassion from the most powerful physical being in the world to be compelling and meaningful.
I find this story to demonstrate his principles and motivations and opinions. I get that you don't like it and why, but I don't get why you don't understand what I'm saying and insist my answers are insufficient.
This story shows the value of a human life. The willingness to let someone make their own, painful, choices rather than taking them away. That this self-determination is not negated by an all-powerful being, nor is it negated by having someone change your mind. This story speaks to me on a deep level because of the work I do and the things that matter to me - like mental health, and kindness, and that we all matter as people. But I've said this, and this is not sufficient.
I contest that I have not explained anything. I just don't agree with you and I've been clear that I recognize that. I have had no problem having this discussion but I'm truly and completely baffled at being accused of not explaining anything. Perhaps I am missing the unspoken assumptions I'm making here. Perhaps there an unwritten curriculum I'm uninformed about. Perhaps your assumptions about why other people read Superman stories aren't comprehensive. I don't know.
But yeah, I like this story about Superman having a quiet moment of compassion. And I think it is disingenuous to say you don't mean to be dismissive of it as you initially did when you just outright called it shallow, so.. like own it?
But your dislike of this story doesn't change my enjoyment of it. And I believe this is an excellent Superman story for all the reasons I've explained. I'm just confused. 乁( •_• )ㄏ
That’s funny. I’m a lifelong Superman fan and I thought Snyder made Superman more interesting by grounding him more in reality. As much as I loved Christopher Reeve in the role, the story of the 70’s Superman film, and many comic book stories, is completely unbelievable (even with a hefty suspension of disbelief), especially in modern times.
Snyder actually thought about what it would mean if Superman came to Earth and what effect that might have on those closest to him first and then what effect that would have on the world itself. He thought about what an immature and unrefined Superman might be like on his first outing. Comparatively, most comic stories for Superman pretend that he would be immediately accepted by the world and that everyone would love and trust and celebrate him and fall into the trap of needing to continually increase both the threat and the level of power that Superman had. Instead of focusing on the character of Superman and what he is and what he actually stands for in our world, they focus on Superman needing to overcome a never-ending chain of the strongest villains in a world that doesn’t resemble our world at all.
Snyder really grounded Superman for me and gave me back the feeling of child-like wonder about what it might look like for Superman to be real in the world we live in rather than in a completely fantastic world. That juxtaposition of a fantastic character in our ordinary world leads to really interesting questions and conflicts like actually confronting the amount of damage and destruction someone like that could bring (which Marvel kinda unceremoniously copied and then continues to hand-wave away to keep their stories light and funny) along with a host of other questions and conflicts.
Superman is kind of a boring character just by virtue of being the first “Superhero”. That’s why the things that make him interesting are literally everything else except his super-ness - his struggle with fitting in, his restraint of power, his relationships to humans and humanity. Movies that focus on his powers (and sometimes invent completely new ones for him to resolve silly story issues) get boring really fast for the same reason the MCU is now boring - how do you top the stakes after your characters have saved the entire universe and have nano-whatever magic armor and unlimited energy?
I mostly blame WB for the failures of the DCCU. I think Snyder, despite the complaints to the contrary, does understand Superman and did everything he could to make him not boring. Unfortunately, that’s hard to do when you have to make movies overseen by executives.
They're Marvel's "First Family." The FF themselves became less popular as superhero comics started targeting teenagers and young adults more instead of kids, but they have historically been the vehicle through which Marvel introduced new concepts. Especially stuff like Cosmic Marvel, the MultiVerse, etc.
Second. Josh Trank’s Fantastic Four was released in 2015.
Yeah, you're right. I didn't realize the Pre-MCU F4 (and its sequel) was all the way back in 2005. My bones ache.
I saw at least Silver Surfer in theaters when I was a kid. I used to love those movies.
The Fantastic 4 have been on that echelon, just not in this era. They were one of the main driving IPs in Marvel's early years, and a lot of the first appearances of important characters came from their comics (Black Panther and pretty much all of the space stuff). Spider-Man has always been in a tier of his own, but there has absolutely been time periods where the F4 have been more important than the X-men and Avengers. The problem being that those times were like 40+ years ago compared to the X-men, and in the past 20 years the Avengers have become way more ingrained into the cultural mainstream because of the MCU. They are a relic of the past, but they are a pretty significant part of the history of American comics.
The FF gave Marvel:
They were among Marvel's first comics. There's a gold mine there.
First in exactly decade actually. Fant4stic came out in 2015 and landed like a wet fart. Before that, there were the two movies from Tim Story in 2005 and 2007.
Not getting Glenn Howerton for Mr. Fantastic is a huge L in my opinion.
But he's already Dayman, master of Karate and friendship for everyone!
i never considered this, but he’s perfect.
Dunno if it's the fact that the new Deadpool trailer landed for me (didn't really like 2) but this post-Kang MCU seems at least interesting. They could obviously still fuck it up but yeah let's see.