So in my previous article, I discussed what Marvel did wrong and what they did right, and if you haven't read that article you can read it HERE or just below this article. Anyway as mentioned hitherto writing this article has caused me to have to do a bit of homework myself and that homework was completing my DCEU, which you can read HERE. I suggest you read all the articles before reading this one as it'll solidify my position here. But here is what The DCEU ALMOST did right.
So back in 2013, Zack Snyder's "Man Of Steel" released to a polarizing audience, and the biggest issue everyone had was the collateral damage in the brawl between Superman and Zod, some were mad about Superman killing Zod and while I didn't care all that much, I can understand why people weren't okay with the Big Blue Boy Scout killing an enemy. But I believe "Man Of Steel" is a very misunderstood movie and that misunderstanding is something Warner Bros. should have leaned into completely. Here's what I mean. "Man Of Steel" was 100% an origin story, and by that I mean we are NOT dealing with Superman, we were dealing with a guy who has superpowers and now has to use them to save the world, basically we're dealing with a VERY, VERY amateur Superman. We're dealing with a Superman who hadn't become Superman yet. We can argue that he should've been Superman already but let's be fair to the film, he had spent the majority of the movie saving people and laying low, he never really used his powers for combat and probably never had to learn to fight all things considered, so fighting someone who was literally bred for combat (Zod) was going to be horribly sloppy on Superman's part. Plus not having been in that position before (fighting another super-powered being) he had no clue how bad the collateral damage would be.
Let's also remember that Clark hadn't learned about Kryptonite or basically anything about Krypton at this point so killing Zod was the only REAL way to resolve that conflict, you may disagree with me but with all the information present in the movie Clark made the best call he could. ALL of that being said What the DCEU ALMOST did right was lean into the polarization of Superman. "Man Of Steel" was a polarizing movie BUT this was the FIRST time we (the audience) were given an opportunity to see Superman the way Lex Luthor sees him. "Man Of Steel" gave us the opportunity to see Superman 2 ways, a hero who saved the world, sure he destroyed a city but that was in defense of a city which was already being destroyed by The World Engine, to begin with, and had he not intervened the damage would have been worse OR as a menace who brought destruction to Earth and must be stopped at all costs, thanks to "Man Of Steel" BOTH positions are completely valid to have and SUDDENLY Superman's enemies have a valid beef against The Big Blue Boy Scout OTHER than them simply being criminals.
I say The DCEU ALMOST did this right because instead of giving this clear and obvious motivation to Lex Luthor they gave it to Batman, making Lex Luthor simply angry at Superman for having superpowers. Also, this gives Superman an opportunity to cultivate that Big Blue Boy Scout persona, while no one will convict him for killing Zod, Superman knows his limits and vows he won't finish a fight that way ever again, that conviction pushes him to be a superhero instead of a crimefighter. The destruction of Metropolis shows Superman just how strong he is and he learns to pull his punches, control his strength, HE TRAINS, learns about his origins, and BECOMES the Superman we know and love. The DCEU had this potential but they didn't do it and continued to let Clark be moody and mopey and continued to let the world be polarized about his existence.
 |
| Baldy may have had a point... |
The DCEU ALMOST did this right because they used The Fight In Metropolis as a catalyst for "Batman v Superman" when it really should have been a catalyst for the entire DCEU. As mentioned in my previous article: learning aliens exists IS a world-changing event and it should be treated as such, and in this case, it was...more or less, "Suicide Squad" was predicated on the idea of "What if Superman went rogue?" instead of "What if there's another alien invasion and we don't have heroes to turn to?", instead of the Invasion of The Kryptonians, the appearance of Superman DID have the world's attention but it could have done more with it had they given Superman an opportunity to develop his character instead of informing us about him.
In the cartoons and the comic books Superman is a VERY conflicted character, he's conflicted with his strength because he has the potential to go overboard and he's fully aware that no one can stop him unless he wants them to (let's face it he could kill 100% of his rogue's gallery and still have time to watch Letterman) but he doesn't because he has something holding him back, what's holding him back? In the case of comic books? His upbringing and the morals that Jonathan and Martha taught him, in the case of the films, having crossed the line and making a choice to never do it again, both are valid and both WOULD have worked had they given Superman a chance to mea culpa for Metropolis. Hence why in my "What If..." I start "Man Of Steel II" with Superman rebuilding Metropolis.
But still, The Invasion and Superman's role in things could not and should not be ignored by fans and by the characters within the movie, "Man Of Steel" opened Superman up to criticism and hatred, things that previous Supermen weren't open to. Whether you believe this to be a good thing or a bad thing you can't deny that giving Superman's villains valid ammunition to turn on Superman isn't an interesting way to go. Superman is already a character we all look up to, but "Man Of Steel" showed us that Superman had to start somewhere, he had to cut his teeth learning just how powerful he really is and The DCEU missed that opportunity. "Batman v. Superman" almost did that right...but they didn't...and that is what The DCEU almost did right.
No comments:
Post a Comment