No arguing on the Cap characterization - sums it up perfectly. But what I will ask is what is there to be conflicted about for Captain in those films? He doesn't have to fear his own abilities, he doesn't have to fear that the world will reject him (even when the military rejects him, he is literally adored by audience as he helps people buy bonds), he doesn't have to worry about what the world will do when it finds out at large that he exists, that he literally isn't from this planet. There is no job role that advertises "Superhero" in the description. In the world we are presented with, what we are shown is a person who is inherently good, has the powers of a god, and isn't sure what his position in the world can be (if he ever would have a position. He cannot expect that humanity would accept who he is at any point?)
You could invent reasons for Steve to be conflicted. Worried that he's too skinny/frail to be a soldier, fear of dying, worried after his gaining powers about leading men in the field and losing them, fears of getting too close to Peggy because he can never give her a normal life, worrying if he's up to the task of being a national symbol, etc., etc., etc. And yet, he feels none of that. He's unflinching, knows what he has to do, knows why he has to do it, and the sense of goodness and optimism comes through clearly in the writing and the performance.
In short, Chris Evans and the script itself perfectly (in my opinion) captured the essence of what is Captain America. His costume may not be the cloth one with the wings sticking out on the sides, but that kind of minutia is meaningless when you nail the core of the character and have a film that otherwise supports that depiction.
In MoS, he isn't a symbol yet. It's the first part of him getting there. Our Superman is developing on screen in front of us, rather than him being set up entirely within one film. I agree that I'd probably enjoy a little more exposition from Clark at certain points. But it is shown that he is a relatively quiet person within this film, and keeps to himself unless he is talking to someone that knows him (Martha, and then Lois) truly. When he gains the suit, learns to fly and is then given a choice to defy or give himself up to Zod, he gives himself up, if it means even a slim chance of Zod sparing people's lives. He gives himself up to humanity, who immediately cuff him, are wary of him, some even think he might be poisonous or carrying alien diseases, and then they hand him over to the aliens that have come to retrieve him. Compare that to Cap. No one is afraid of his abilities when he becomes powerful. They applaud him, literally. And then once the program falls through - they don't even see him as anything. Just a poster boy, despite his abilities.
Right, but to me, none of that really captures the essence of Superman. It's interesting as a generic demi-god-falls-to-earth story, but it ain't who Superman is. Also, the idea of "Well, he'll evolve in front of you" is interesting conceptually, but poorly executed. When you're dealing with a character who is a known quantity, I actually think the better move is to stick to the core elements of the character. I actually think that the Spider-Man 2 and Incredible Hulk opening credits have handled this the best way. They show the origin story IN the credits, and then start the film proper
in media res.
I mean, really, do we NEED to see the Batman or Superman origin on screen? It's been done and done to death. I get that THIS Superman is different from what you know, so, yes, you do kinda need to see his origin...but that's also kind of my point. Don't mess with perfection, man. Don't introduce change for its own sake.
Christopher Reeves Supes disappeared from life for 12 years after his father died. He certainly wasn't saving anyone within that time (MoS Clark was...). Reeves was receiving guidance, and council, and learning about the known universe. He was literally primed with knowledge, and then sent out to do good in the world. I agree, what was presented to us as Superman was hopeful and confident. He had reasons to be. The reaction to finding out there was alien life on the planet in the film was a reporter asking him if his junk worked like a normal mans, or if he was dating someone. Great back then, and I love the film, I truly do. But realistic? Not at all.
I'd forgotten that Reeves spends 12 years in the Fortress of Solitude learning "how to human AND kryptonian," learning his place in the world, learning why he matters and what he can do for the people of Earth. As for it being unrealistic....well...so what? We're talking about a guy who can fly and shoot heat rays from his eyes. "Realistic" is on a sliding scale.
In seriousness, though, there's no reason why he needs to go to the kryptonian archive to learn all of this. The new Supergirl show is doing a FANTASTIC job of showcasing a character who just exudes goodness and optimism, while also struggling at times with her own self confidence. You could do that. Or you could show that it's not Clark's kryptonian ancestry that makes the difference, but rather his human upbringing that imbues in him a sense of "Always do the right thing, especially because you above all others have the ability to do so. Share your gift with the world, but be safe about it." Instead, Snyder's version has him afraid to use his powers in large part because of the screwed up upbringing he had. I think that upbringing is more realistic in the sense that it's much more likely in the real world that a person like Superman would be feared and loathed merely for his power...but you know what? I watch superhero movies to escape the real world. This is why I find a lot of the gritty grimdark films to be boring, depressing, or otherwise off-putting.
Totally agree about Routh. He was given a "safe" yet "modern" Supes to deal with - which was a massive shame. He still did the role justice, but some of the story choices in that film were not even defensible by having a deeper look at it. Some great action pieces though. And still a really good looking film.
That it is. And he's been fantastic on Arrow and Legends of Tomorrow as Ray Palmer. Also his work on Chuck was a lot of fun. I really like him as an actor, but I think he's gotten screwed by some of the roles he's taken (e.g Superman Returns and Dylan Dog).
This is possibly the most annoying thing to defend because it comes up all the time. But within the context of the film (not who we think Superman should be) what on earth makes you think Clark is experienced enough as a fighter to take on Zod at all? Never mind take him on and be able to control the fight. And never mind the fact that during this fight, Zod specifically states that he is going to take humanity from Clark, he is going to kill all of us. Even prior to that, Faora had stated "for every one you save, we will kill a million more" Zod would simply return to a populated area. It is shown throughout the fight that Zod is the superior "I was bred to be a warrior, Kal" "Where were you trained? On a FARM?" and he is absolutely right. Clark was raised on a farm, and taught his entire life that hitting someone might kill them. He has literally never punched another person before he crashes into Zod after they have hurt his mother. Those are the very first punches he has ever thrown! Great scene btw, "You think you can threaten my mother!" I don't know why people think that he stood a chance at controlling that fight, and even if he could, Zod would find more innocents to slaughter, as was his modus operandi at that point.
Well, that kinda goes back to my point about handling characters in these films. I understand that MoS is trying to tell a specific story, but it's a specific story about somebody
other than Superman. Or at least other than the Superman everyone knows. I don't recognize
this Superman
. Sure, he's got the costume and the look. Sure, he has the powers, and some of the high points about his background. But the core of the character? Not really the same guy. That's by choice, too. That much is clear. And perhaps, within the context of those choices, the A-to-B-to-C of it all remains internally consistent.
But we're talking about a
Superman film here. And as a Superman film, I think it ultimately fails in its depiction of the character. That doesn't mean he needs to be saying "Great Krypton!" or "I used my super-[insert randomly made up power here] to solve the problem!" and other similar cheesy aspects of the Silver Age version of the character, but he needs to be recognizably Superman beyond just the costume and the powers, and for me, that's where the film fails. Well, that and I found it boring and overlong, but that's a separate issue.
I understand where you're coming from, and I don't think I'll change your mind, but I hope any of this can possibly help you to enjoy a repeat viewing. Because that's the main point - enjoying these films. I know once people have made their mind up it's usually a done deal. But I've maintained for a long time that repeat viewings and open minded nature really increases the enjoyment of these films massively. And that's all I care about really, is ensuring that any of these films, I enjoy myself.
You've got me thinking about trying to evaluate the film as a self-contained exercise, rather than referencing past versions of Superman. I went in wanting to watch a Superman film, and my experience was that I got a fairly dull film about a guy with similar powers and backstory, but who didn't really resemble the Superman I think of. That's not to say that the character in the film isn't well-depicted as that other character, but I think it fails as Superman. For me, at least.
It is a little hypocritical to say that the marvel characters are inherently good (and shown to be) and that killing isn't contrary to that - if DC's characters arent as well defined, then killing should be more acceptable logically speaking. But I know that isn't the point you're making, I'm just messing.
There's more to it than that. I mean, Cap's inherent goodness and optimism comes through, and his killing seems more rooted in the warrior ethos that others have discussed. He doesn't kill for expediency or bloodlust or revenge, nor does he kill as part of his personal mission (a la The Punisher). He kills because he's a soldier in a war and he has to.
More importantly, I think, is the fact that Cap is recognizably Cap, to me, in his films (as are all of the Marvel characters so far), but Superman just...didn't really feel like Superman to me.
In terms of Zack, I can see what you mean, but he is a director at the end of the day. He is responsible for directing and producing a solid story (there really is, in my opinion, a beautifully solid story in MoS if it is given the right space to be told, and not shoehorned into what it "should" be) but if you don't like the story, that is the screenwriter.
As director/producer, Snyder has a LOT of influence in the thrust of the story itself, the depiction of the characters, etc. Ultimately, I lay much of the creative direction at his feet and the feet of the folks running DC/WB. The screenplay is what it is, but it's also not written in stone. There could be rewrites, etc. if desired by the powers that be. The film itself may be good as its own thing, but for me, as a Superman story, it's just not that great. It doesn't depict the character the way I think he should be depicted.
And let's be clear, when you're doing a big branded property like Superman, you're playing to -- and on -- people's expectations. The whole reason you make a film like that is
because people go in with certain expectations; expectations you think will lead them to buy a ticket. And when they buy a ticket, they're expecting you to deliver a particular product. If the product doesn't work as they expected it, is it their fault for having the wrong expectations? Sometimes, yeah. In this case, though, I don't think so.
