kalibex said:
Note: I have not seen this movie. However, I am intrigued by the amount of backlash against Zack Snyder's 're-imaging' of the Superman character that started in 'Man of Steel' (which I did see) and has by all accounts continued in 'Superman versus Batman'. I suspect that this general rejection of Snyder's 'darker, grittier' Superman may be (for what it's worth) an instinctive rejection of Snyder's attempt to essentially corrupt or 'ponerize' what was originally conceived of as an unabashedly heroic, 'light' character meant to be looked up to as an ideal. Thoughts?
It doesn't seem to be the case. Fans (I mean that in its true meaning) were greatly concerned about Snyder as the director as well as Ben Affleck as Batman, when the project was first announced. The movie is quite a mess.
IMO it's because of the director. Some have suggested studio "interference" but I doubt they'd do that to such an extent as to leave the final product being roundly derided. Ponerization? Dunno, but Batman is supposed to kill people in this but it isn't really explicit. It's like a sex scene where it's implied rather than shown graphically. But he does wield a shotgun for some reason. And most people think he's (Affleck) the best Batman ever. Personally I think this is due to the introduction of the videogame version of Batman where the moves are like a "meta-human" or something. Like a "soft" X-Men type thing. Again his actual fighting style (as opposed to him blowing stuff up because he's a jaded fifty year old or something) suggests that his enemies are dying by his punches, kicks & throws (look at a YouTube trailer to see) if a person were to perform this in real life.
His performance of Bruce Wayne on the other hand, is probably the best ever. As I said earlier, he's jaded & older & is now "a criminal." As for Superman.... they wrote him as they've always done since the great Christopher Reeves. After the events of "man of steel", (eighteen months approximately) humanity is debating whether they really need a god-like alien who caused millions of dollars worth of damage to the city, in their lives. He's doing all sort of good deeds yet lies are being told about him (I'm interested in what anyone else here thinks about Superman btw, I'll explain a bit more shortly) & a congressional hearing tries to hold him accountable. Well here's where the real mess of the film begins with Lex Luthor (Jr supposedly) & his actions paving the way for the "man vs God" titular battle - which doesn't make sense nor should it have happened.
Anyway, for me what I was interested in was "supes" & how he'd deal with the fallout from the maddening destruction from "man of steel." The congressional hearing bit especially got my imagination going because of the anticipated drama it was sure to bring. Well that never happens & from there incoherent story-telling ensues. Defenders of the film say that non-fans "don't get it" because of the fleeting appearances of other proposed members of the "justice league" (I expect those upcoming movies to be full of ponerizing influences) - which is "bats", "supes" & other "heroes" with this movie being a pseudo prequel. Yet this is supposedly a Superman sequel, yet he's upstaged by (the people's favourite) Batman & the script basically shows what is around 4 movies rolled into one... and Superman gets tired dialogue, makes highly questionable decisions, & is moody in general. He has a lot to be moody about in my view. Heck, he's even upstaged by the appearance of Wonder Woman, who for some reason has powers that seem to be on the same level as any Kryptonian that finds their way to earth, like "General Zod" & his cronies from the last movie.
Seeing this film & now writing about it has made me realize how much I actually liked the character. I was never in to comic books & I've seen about 3 movies in the last 6 years. Whilst I'm against the whole saviour idea that Superman represents, I've always seen that character as the epitome of the superhero phenomenon. Most others essentially blow things up & leave a troubling trail of destruction behind them & are barely accountable, if ever. Supes is supposed to think first then act, engage in talk or reason. Force is his last resort OSIT. Which is why the last film is bad & this one even worse, which is saying something. Most people were looking forward to Batman kicking the crap out of people, I was looking forward to supes doing the reasoning & showing a better way (NOT "truth, justice, & the American way!") for the world. I could always put up with the "boy scout" thing because of how he held himself with all that power & the responsibility he felt due to his conscience & empathy. Ah well, look back to Mr Reeves then I guess.
Oh I almost forgot to say... Superman disappointment aside, his ultimate foe & its powers..... WOW. The ridiculousness of its energy output ruined the film completely. As did the obscure references to various timelines of interchangeable "heroes" in different comic book universes. Only true fans will lose their minds over seeing their favourite "hero" in a different coloured suit, or a live-action depiction of a hotly debated storyline in said alternate universe... & give this film glowing reviews. I swear, these script writers either don't know how to write Superman, or they hate him. Or both. Of course it could just be an "attempt to essentially corrupt or 'ponerize' what was originally conceived of as an unabashedly heroic, 'light' character meant to be looked up to as an ideal."
FWIW.