The DCEU's Character Problem
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 янв 2017
- The DC Extended Universe has a bit of a problem with its characters.
Help us make these videos: / patrickhwillems
MY VIDEO GEAR tinyurl.com/z9kb5ow
TWITTER: / patrickhwillems
FACEBOOK: / patrickhwillems
TUMBLR: / patrickhwillems
INSTAGRAM: / patrickhwillems
Music by Epidemic Sound
Story by Robert McKee (it's my favorite screenwriting book, check it out!) amzn.to/2jsGOud
FEATURING FOOTAGE FROM
Man of Steel
Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice
Suicide Squad
Wonder Woman
Justice League
Iron Man
Spider-Man
Batman Begins
Die Hard
Back to the Future
The Godfather
______________________________________
SEND ME SOME MAIL:
Patrick Willems
P.O. Box 380333
Brooklyn, NY 11238 
Развлечения
but what about Slipknot, the man who can climb anything?
Rawbeard THIS IS KATANA
I WOULD ADVISE YOU NOT TO BE KILLED BY HER. HER _SWORD_ TRAPS THE _SOOOOULS_ OF ITS VICTIMS
what are we some kind of Suicide SQUAAAAARD
+Rawbeard
*boom*
this comment
brace yourself..... the delusional fanboys are coming
They should be here any minute now. It's inevitable.
theyre prepping the petition to shut you down bro
That's how I'll know I've finally made it.
It's only delusional if the evidence of the counterargument aren't present in the film
I'm a die hard fan but i'm not butthurt, some of your point are quite right
This is rather unrelated but Yondu's death in Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 is way sadder and more impactful than Superman's death in Batman v Superman. Even though Yondu is portrayed as a funny scary guy in the first and he gets more character background and growth in the second. Superman in the DCEU had two movies all about him and he's so bland in both and almost not investing that it's hard to care for him when he died, especially since all of the dramatic stuff that resulted was supposed to be impactful but all of it was lost because he's actually alive and he has to be in Justice League.
Also, why kill Superman in his second movie? You surely could have saved that shit 6-9 movies later, where he is more likely a better character.
Definitely Not Tommy Wiseau I only just started watching Marvel movies this year. As GotG2 is on Netflix, I watched it first. I had no idea who Yondu was less than 3 hours ago, but when he died I started bawling like a baby because his character in just that one movie was so damn good.
I totally didn't notice that superman had died in BvS. That's how much I didn't care. I started the Justice league like, "Huh? When? " 🤷 Yondu was a way greater tear jerked.
"This is rather unrelated but Yondu's death in Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 is way sadder and more impactful than Superman's death in Batman v Superman"
Ironic considering that film was not very good and it didn't earn the emotion from that death.
For the simple fact that Superman in the DCEU was written as this hopeless character completely detached from humanity. Killing him in only his second in-universe appearance was ridiculous. Doesn't matter if Snyder was envisioning a five-movie arc. Nobody was going to care anyway.
@@HTHAMMACK1
Are you talking about GOG2?
Amen for what you said about Harley. Freaking tired of people idolizing her for the wrong reasons.
Agreed. Margot Robbie is perfectly believable as a blonde bimbo who is interested in the rich man, even though he is already married. She steals your family, makes herself at home, but splits the nanosecond the money runs dry. Regardless, men still weirdly want to screw her at their own peril. Robbie is good at this because she IS this. She is pretty godawful, talentless, and unfunny as the millennial version of Harley Quinn and I'm too smart to find her hot.
Ganychan Agreed while I do like Harley in the comics cartoons and games I prefer Catwoman and poison ivy as female villains in the Batman universe
If you would combine lollipop chainsaw and jinx from league of legends you would get Margot in suicide squad it seemed like she was trying to hard.
Jim Slav well you have a perfectly healthy view of women, don’t you?
Watching this smug version of her that thinks she's just the coolest thing ever without giving any justifiable reason why just annoys me. I prefer Arleen Sorkin and Tara Strong's portrayal of her in cartoons, because she's at least sympathetic and adorable there.
90% of the people in the comments don't understand what a character arc is.
Give a fuck what you hope.
most people in general don't
I feel like most comic book fans don't get it because most comic books and comic book movies are poorly written.
MarlonOwnsYourCake but there are some very good comic books with a well character arc and even superhero comics with a nice one
Of course there are some good ones, there have to be partially by sheer volume (infinite monkeys on infinite typewriters kind of thing) and partially because no one would ever be interested in them if there was never anything good.
But there's also TOO MANY comic books being produced without much vetting for quality and there's way too much of a landscape of racism, sexism, general ignorance, poor character development, and half-hearted storytelling in comic books that's often times just wrapped up in great concepts (which can lead in a conversation too deep for me to want to get into). And it makes me feel like anyone who loves the majority of the comic books they read, or anyone who holds comic book canon as gospel truth and uses "it happened in the comics" as the only justification for nonsense that happens in adaptations, doesn't have an eye for quality or an understanding of how storytelling really works.
Supermans character arc can be summed up with one world: Acceptance
-Why does he save people: Because he can, and he wants to, he has the power to do so
-Pa Kent doesn't tell him to not use his powers, he tells him to use them when he's ready
Man of steel starts with a man who wants to find his place in the world. Which is the character arc he goes through. He
1. wants to find himself (his relation with his alien background)
2. wants to find his relation with humanity.
When Zod shows up he stands between the choice of standing by and let everyone die, or expose his privacy and maybe save humanity.
(Privacy is one of MoS and BvS main themes, as that's what his parents mean when they tell him to not be a hero: Don't do anything people expect you to do, do it because you want it yourself)
3.Through Lois Lane Superman finds a reason to trust humanity, so he ends MoS with wanting to try out being their hero. 'welcome to the planet'
..............................................................................................
BvS continues the arc starting with superman after 2 years trying to fit in as the hero everyone expect him to be. But he has to choose between having a good image, and also keep the ones he loves safe. (Almost starting a war by saving lois lane)
4.He has avoided political issues, until the event in Africa, but now has to stand trial. He decides to stand in front of humanity for the first time to show he is trusworthy.
(He tries to use the media, as a tool, since he's a reporter to destroy batman without violence. since he sees that batman is doing bad things)
5.After the bomb blows up, he decides to give up. As every time he shows up in a public place, many people seem to die because of him.
6.When he is forced to kill batman, he stands between the same problem as the start of the film: Do a bad thing (execute someone) or save the ones he loves. He tries to find a middle way by holding back in the fight, almost dying for someone else.
7.When Doomsday shows up he understands his purpose: Not to be the hero everyone wants him to be, but to protect humanity no matter what they think about him. Therefore sacrificing himself for humanity.
MarkFilipAnthony wait when does darkside show up?
in short:
MoS
1. He doesn't feel like he fits in anywhere (start of film)
2. Is forced to expose himself
3. He decides he want to fit in with humanity (end of film)
BvS
3. Tries to fit in (start of film)
4. He discovers humanity doesn't accept him
5. Finds out that he doesn't need to fit in, just do what he think is right (en of film)
Lol, sorry mybad Doomsday
Don't point out obvious facts, BvS and MoS are shit dam it.
The sad thing is, though these are probably accurate points about those two films, I find they were done horribly, especially in the second film. In the first film, it was...alright until the end when the disaster porn started. In BVS, more was done for the sake of a spectacle instead of a coherent story. People blame Nolan for Man of Steel's ending but it was has been made clear that Clark killing Zod was entirely Znyder's idea, even when logically (and as Nolan intended) he should've been sucked into the Phantom Zone with everyone else.
That in itself is a metaphor for BVS, the sacrifice of an organic progression of events for the sake of some cool looking fight scenes.
is cheering and clapping a thing in american cinemas because this has literally never happened to me in Britain
Yes
Brendan Mulcahy
If you hear someone cheering and clapping in a British cinema that's me
Brendan Mulcahy I only ever have heard clapping in toy story 3
While seeing WW at a midnight show, during the no mans land scene, everyone was cheering and freaking out. It was great
Brendan Mulcahy sort of ( it depends what part of the US you live in).
Suicide squad had a horrible story, I didn't know what the motives of characters were or even what was truly going on half the time
Agree and I find that movie a Mess and I’m Happy James Gunn The Director of Guardians of a Galaxy 1 & 2 Directed of way better Verson than 2016 one.
You're dead wrong about Superman not enjoying saving people, as he smiles at the girl's family as he carries her towards them. He's simply not happy about how others are treating him as a messianic rather than who he really is: someone trying to do his best to help people. This point was practically spoon-fed.
Stef Tep I think this is the problem with so many video essays involving the DCEU: they tend to talk about what the movies should be before understanding what the movies actually are. For example, Jonathan Kent has told Clark to find out what his place in the world his, but the video didn't count that as Clark's motivation for whatever reason.
I really wouldn't care if the guy hates the DCEU as there are perfectly understandable criticism made by others even though I disagree them. It's just that he dismisses so much of what could be counted as "motivation", "growth" etc since his definitions of those terms seem to be extremely narrow.
***** This is not me confirming what Superman was thinking during the flood scene, but seeing as how one family painted the S-shield and the others didn't, Superman was in a dilemma of deciding whom to save first considering the public would continue to give him abuse for showing any kind of bias.
***** I've been critical of that scene for being unclear ever since the movie came out. But to say a scene is there just to look cool is ironically shallow analysis. How is it out of character for Superman to be struggling with dilemmas about whom to save first?
***** How would you propose Superman solve that dilemma? Save the S-shield family first and gets lambasted for showing bias towards said family, or show no favoritism and save the other families first but gets criticized for showing bias against the S-shield family?
Again, the flaw is that Superman's thought process wasn't shown to us, but just because his actions don't make the immediate sense to us, that doesn't mean his actions were without reason.
Mario world N.Y Well, I can't disagree with that.
3:28
"Can you tell me how he changes from the start of this movie to the end? That a trick question because he doesn't."
Due to Jonathan Kent's protectiveness, Clark had to hold back for
most of his life, until Zod came along. He decided to trust humanity for
the first time, and worked with them to save the world. Just because
there's no character growth in terms of motivation, doesn't mean there's
none in other areas.
4:06
"Why is he helping people in the first place? I don't actually think
there's an answer to that question other than 'he's Superman.'"
Doing the right thing needs an explanation?
5:02
"True CHARACTER is revealed in the choices a human being makes under
pressure - the greater the pressure, the deeper the revelation, the
truer the choice to the character's essential nature."
The video claims that Man of Steel never gave Superman a moment like
this, but this is false. For a person hiding his true identity for his
entire life, his coming out party was perhaps one of his most defining
moments. Superman inherently trusts humanity.
6:33
"Helping people despite the fact that he appears to not enjoy it."
Clearly you didn't see him smiling at the girl's family as he carries her towards them?
6:53
"He ends the movie by sacrificing his life in order to kill a giant
monster which seems like the completion of an arc that's never set up."
I guess you missed Superman's line "This is my world" which is a big
deal considering not moments ago Clark was saying things like "My world
doesn't exist anymore" after the capitol bombing and continuous abuse by
the media.
7:37
"It takes him a year and a half to actually act on that."
It's BATMAN. He's not going to act right away but instead plan things out. You claim to know the comics but you not knowing one of Batman's BASIC characteristics (PREP TIME) leads me to think otherwise......
Hey, it's my Reddit post!!! (This is not me criticizing you for posting my Reddit post, because I'm flattered someone found my post interesting enough to share with others.)
Rene Valdez
Okay this is just telling me things that happened to him, which is exactly what the movie did. Superman's character seems to have been created with the idea that we already know the history of how Superman should be as a character. Superman does everything he does in these movies, simply because he's Superman not because he wants to or believes it's his duty to do it.
Spider-Man, in Sam Raimi's version, doesn't decide to save anyone as soon he gets his powers because at that moment the only reason he'd have to save people is, because he's Spider-Man. These characters need to be created without the "Spider-Man" or "Superman" aspect of themselves. We need to care for them by watching them struggle with what they should do. Man of Steel makes Superman save people because he's Superman, it's what he does. But when writing an origin story we need to find out why he does it. There has to be a clear reason why he did it. Sadly these DC movies have yet to do that.
Stef Tep
Which one? Because his adoptive father gave him really mixed signals
Stuff and What Not Not at all. Jonathan Kent has never objected Clark saving people, just that he should wait until he's ready. The "maybe" scene and the graveyard scene at the end of MoS both expressed Jonathan's wish that Clark would be able to bear the weight of revealing himself.
zhengyingli
See the way all of that is explained is messy. It's not clear, he never even implies that he should wait, just that you're going to do good things. But the rest of the movie, even when Jonathan Kent dies he tells him, don't be a hero. Like come on, that moment was fabricating drama where there wasn't one. He easily could have saved. But because the movie believed it was much more profound than it really was, Jonathan Kent died for no reason.
If you love these movies that's fine, it's cool, it really. Clearly you enjoyed much more than I did and apparently saw something that couldn't see in 4 viewings of the film. Nothing you DC movie fans have said has made me change my opinion on how shallow all these movies are
So glad that Wonder Woman actually has a character arc in her standalone movie.
I love the movie, it's refreshingly great.
Chris Wong it was a good movie, Not great but a very good. There were some plotholes where the writers didnt think about batman v superman and the real world
The writers were smart in that regard then because from the point of WW onwards I am hoping to be able to forget that those first 3 films even existed.
Robert Troch If you've seen the trailer for Justice League, you'd know that the upcoming films will suck too. Typical pretty but meaningless slow-mo, unlikeable characters (the actor that's playing Flash is weird - creepily weird) - Zack Snyder will ruin the franchise again.
Even though I think that movie was decent, I don't really see how she changed over the course of the story. she fell in love, discovered our world, but her views kinda remains the same at the end of the movie. I am not an expert, I just watch movies for fun and maybe I missed a few things but I don't remember seeing any growth in her character.
"Associating with something good, doesn't make you good."
-me
"Good is not a thing you are, it's a thing you do." - Ms. Marvel from the Avengers game.
You know what I noticed? Really look at the majority of Superman's expressions in Man of Steel and BvS especially when he's around a lot of people. It looks like his super sense of smell is always picking up on people's farts and he's trying not to look disgusted.
I can't believe you said that. I had the EXACT SAME thought
RIGHT?! He's more like freakin' Edward Cullen than Superman! ; )
BRIAN SNIPES lol I didn't knew he had super smell abilities.
+Techniverse yeah, everything about him is naturally enhanced.
Oooh, you sound angry. Because you know what I said is true.
Batman was pretty well done in the Nolan movies, but yeah. the cinematic universe is not building the characters and giving them personality and stories you appreciate.
Nolan rules!!!
I think the Nolan trilogy, as well as the Tobey Maguire Spiderman, are not considered part of the "DC Cinematic Universe" that the studios are trying to create now. They belong to the old movies of DC characters.
Spider-man isn't DC lol
One thing you made me realize: it would actually make more sense for Flag to TRY to shoot Enchantress, be unable to because of the emotional stakes, and then have Deadshot take her out, since it would reinforce the idea of the Squad as a necessary last resort when normal means fail.
Batman: HAHAHAHA MACHINE GUN GO BRRRRRR
Superman: Save Martha
Batman: oh no his mom has the same name as mine ok I'm a good boy now
*30 seconds later*
Batman: HAHAHAHA MACHINE GUN GO BRRRRRR
Snyder stans will argue that the scene was “too complex” for you
He has guns installed in his vehicles. Which Batman didn't have that?
@@crunchy1547 If that ain't the truth-
@@crunchy1547 If Zack Snyder movies are 'complex' ... well, I'm going to start being a bit more simple.
11:00 "Suicide Squad" wanted to be "Guardians of the Galaxy".
the moment I saw the first trailer that's exactly what came to mind
That is exactly what the plan was, it was DC's GotG, same with BvS being their Civil War and JL being Avengers (it's why JL was instantly 2 parts, as Avengers AW was also originally a 2 parter), as rather than properly plan everything and have a structure to it, they went straight for trying to match up with the MCU's Phase 3 as best and roughly as possible, I said from the very beginning that it would do poorly for this very reason, they put catching Marvel over creating individual stories that fit within a larger universe, as so far BvS and SS have been nothing more than pushers for JL as that's a do or bust film for WB and DC, they played their hand too soon so it must work
+kyle dunn Cap 3 changed to Civil War in response to Batman V. Superman announcement.
Yes, Suicide Squad is like Deadpool & GOTG bc anti-heroes.
They've mapped out the entire DCEU before BvS was even released. Justice was (and could possibly still be) a 2 parter with Steppenwolf was baddie for 1 and Darkseid as baddie for 2.
It's not rushed. Hell, WB almost had a George Miller mo-cap Justice League film during the Nolan-era but was cancelled by the Writer's Strike. There's more than one way to do superhero films.
WB wanted it to be GotG. Will Smith wanted it to be his movie. Ayer wanted it to be a military black ops movie.
The video was right.
They tried so hard to be GOTG. The way they play the music is like a kid changing the radio every 5 seconds. In Guardians, the song Hooked Up On Feeling was playing in the end of the movie as far as I remember until the credit. While in SS, Bohemian Rapshody only played around 10 seconds!
A scene like this would establish Superman's character much, much more than both Man of Steel and Dawn of Justice.
"When people see what you can do, when they see how powerful you are, they're going to be terrified.
They'll need to see your face so that they can see no evil in it...to see the gentleness and decency in you, and know they have nothing to fear."
Martha Kent, Superman: Earth One
Alvin Tran Jonathan Kent says a similar thing in Man of Steel when he and Clark are in the barn
Hamza_Boujelouah He also told Clark that he should others die and to be a selfish dick.
Alvin Tran beautiful 🔥
And that's why it won't fit in Snyder's verse, too naive. The moment he'll try to save a cat from a tree, they will question his motives. Some will openly accept him, some don't, some will even try to stoke rumors because some people just want to see the whole world burn. And that's exactly what happened in BvS. You my friend, have no notion of fear and the general public. Good looks can only go so far.
So they can identify you and kidnap your mother/wife/dog and execute her in a way your powers can't help you save her. So you could never have a personal life unless you establish your own security through force.
That's a nice plan. Could make Earth One Superman into an Injustice version in like year and a half... Mostly taking time for Superman to establish meaningful connections to lose and go crazy about it.
I love your video essays, they're so high quality
Remember the days when Jurassic Park was criticized for flat characters? How times change.
They were just plain wrong about Jurassic Park's characters.
@@blokey8 I can't even remember the characters in Jurassic Park. Then again, I can barely remember the dinosaurs either.
Eh, its not the characters, the writing for the movies is just awful.
Thats all there is to it.
Exactly that's all there is to it.
ShadowsHeat that's what makes a character
The writing is awful BECAUSE it does such a terrible job with the characters.
ShadowsHeat I am a big fan of the movies, but you're right. The characters are and visuals are very good but the pacing and storytelling is lacking quality.
ShadowsHeat and the editing
can we all agree that the dceu may be like this because we have not had a good writers or directors so far
Will Brock of course! DC is just trying to rush everything out
I don't think anyone is saying its the characters' faults. The disagreement comes from the fact that there are some people who think the DCEU is either largely or completely flawless.
No, they actually have pretty decent directors and writers. The problem is that they dont have a good excecutive organizer like Kevin Feige. Thats why Civil War and Dr. Strange felt off, at least to me.
Chris Terrio is an award-winning screenwriter. And Zack Snyder is not a bad director. The problem is like others have mentioned, they didn't have a manager, and they're stuck with a shitty studio too. They should probably try hiring other writers besides Goyer, too.
+AdjutantReflex You really think Snyder filmed Terrio's script. Sorry, not seeing it. Funny how all these supposed DC fans NEVER mention the one guy to fix this ..Roy FUCKING Thomas.
Let's be honest, DC just hasn't put in the hard work. Marvel has made countless movies, setting up the avengers and civil war and coming up infinity war. Don't get me wrong, marvel does have problems with its movies. Specifically it's villain problem, but I would rather go see any marvel movie than watch bvs again. I do believe I can get just as excited for a D.C. Movie, I love the characters, my favorite super hero of all time is the flash, but they need some put some work in for sure.
The worst part is they shouldn't even need to do as much work as Marvel did at first. Unlike Iron Man in 2008, everybody knows Superman and Batman already, so they can get to the good stuff. But not only did they not do that, they screwed up doing what little they actually tried to do.
Marvel has redeemed its villain problem.
@@SonofSethoitae DC took the most popular characters and messed up. Marvel took unpopular characters like Iron Man, Gotg, Antman, Captain America etc and made them work really well.
Marvel is formulaic tho
@@jothishprabu8 Hollywood is formulaic tho. I’m not defending marvel right now. DC just meds to step it up.
7:24 To further your point, Superman's character was so poorly written, I actually wanted Batman to kill him. If we were suppose to dislike Batman, that tells you how bad Superman was developed.
YOU wanted batman to kill him, that tells us about you, not the film for it didn't apply to all us. Very simple.
I wanted Batman to kill Superman too
Superman was such a dick, I wanted batman to kill him too
in this franchise Superman doesn't really care about collateral damage, his character seems completely uninterested in helping people, and people are starting to worship him as a god.
as far as batman can tell he's a ticking time bomb of a unstoppable tyrannical dictator. I was rooting for the Batflek for the entire movie.
Ian Smith I'm not sure where you get your ideas from, but you must not have understood the movie right. Superman did help people and he did care about the damage he caused but the motivations and his struggles within both movies were unclear. Not sure how he deserves to die from Batman when Batman was so blinded by destroying him when all they had to do was talk to each other first. This was the problem with the movie. Did you seriously not understand that? Probably not
Next time I see someone saying that DC movies are "complex" I'm showing them this video.
Joshua Price complex? What is simple to them tho
Joshua Price and then there's video out there showing how suck marvel flims are. pls dont be marvel girl.
When did I say anything about Marvel?
And how credible is this video. He's a commentator like the rest of us.
DC films _are_ complex. This video essay raises some definite good points on character development, but not all of the questions raised need answers. From a writing and filmmaking standpoint, yeah it's good to have an established reason for a character's behavior, but like saying Man of Steel's Clark Kent being a static character that has a flat emotional tone throughout would not be exactly justified. Not everyone _needs_ to be explained or spoon fed to an audience. It's okay to me to just have the makings of a good person and to want to do good. There doesn't have to be a huge tragedy or sense of fault that has to ignite a spark in a character and cause them to change their ways. Sure you could explain it by saying "Well he's Superman and he helps people" but that's not a structured or valuable response and I'd urge you to ignore people that would argue that point. Clark isn't perfect by any means. He exhibits moments of anger, and he makes mistakes, but he never tried to do anything but good. Superman was never a character to relate to but a character to look _up_ to.
That's what this essay is lacking. There are some things that are deeper than what can be criticized from simply a writing or filmmaking standpoint.
Zack Snyder is a glorified TV commercial director. He never learned storytelling.
+Peter Huang Right because Zack is the one who writes the scripts for his movies. Christ the amount of couch critics who know jack shit about movie making constantly rip snyder for mistakes on the writers parts. And this isn't only with snyder too often I see blame going to the directors yet everyone seemingly ignores the people who write the damn script.
It's one of the duties of a director to tell the writer when the story they've come up with needs improvement.
Caerere+Kevin Carney If it was a small independent movie I would agree but that isn't the case with blockbusters or all movies in general. For instance Snyder is not given a story credit in man of steel or BvS story credit is given to Goyer and Nolan in MoS with Goyer getting the writting credit. BvS is Terrio and Goyer are given writting credits no story credit for Snyder you may say directors never get story credit but thats false Nolan was given story credit on Dark Knight and Dark Knight Rises. Now im not saying that snyder had absolutely no say in the story he had a vision and a script was written around that vision that doesn't mean he has say exactly how a scene is written, character motivations etc. I mean if your biggest issue with BvS is the basic plot of the movie ok go ahead blame snyder but the statement "He never learned storytelling." is not his fucking job he does not write the story he comes up with a general vision of the movie to which a movie is written around in this case he worked with Goyer. Also according to sources Goyer had a different script and story which TERRIO (brought on by affleck) changed heavily more than likely at the behest of WB not Snyder. So go ahead blame snyder if you want but you're an idiot if you think Snyder really has as much say in the overall movie as you think he does the Ultimate cut vs Theatrical cut is pretty much all the evidence you need. The directors role in a huge blockbuster is 100000000000x different than the directors role in a small indie or any other smaller movie. And im not a huge Goyer fan but personally if you believe the rumors about his original take on the story I think it would have been a much more liked film by audiences and critics than the divisive one Terrio gave us. I personally loved BvS but the leaked rumors of Goyers script actually sound interesting to me personally.
reaper39 I haven't seen the Ultimate Cut. When it came out, everyone who had seen it said it didn't fix the movie's bigger problems, so I figured there was no point.
***** Most people actually really enjoyed it and while I did like the theatrical cut I thought the UE was amazing and there were scenes constantly I literally yelled at my TV WHY DID YOU CUT THAT OUT YOU DUMB FUCKS (not kidding literally did) If your biggest issue with the movie was that you didnt like the plot (not that you were confused or didnt like the pacing but the actual plot itself) or the tone then yes it doesnt fix the movie for you. But if your issues were things like editing, character motivations, character arcs writing etc the UE cleans up 99% of the issues the theatrical version had.
My brother and I had many discussions about how bad Suicide Squad was from top to bottom, but we’re both writers and the one thing we always agreed on that people seem to overlook is that out of the group, the best written character in the movie was El Diablo. Diablo was the most redeeming character of the movie who really wanted to change, sure he may not have had much going on in the way of an arc but he did show some growth. He went from reluctant fighter to becoming a hero in his own right.
Damn, this guys explanation really makes DC universe feel stupid even when he isnt throwing insults
DC universe is great it’s the movies that suck
As a DC fan, I agree, and this is the reason BvS hasn't piqued my interest. Superman is actually my favorite superhero, but that's precisely because it's rare to see him written well, as he's one of the most difficult fictional characters to write. Far too many people see him as a guy with a ton of cool godlike powers who beats up supervillains, but that's not how Superman started out. He isn't defined by his powers, but by his morals, and was originally conceived as a champion of the people who helps those in need. He needs to be shown facing dilemmas where he struggles to weigh the consequences of his actions and do the right thing, not merely fly around and show off his feats. And in any origins story, he needs to make mistakes and learn from them, so that we can see how he developed his moral compass.
Two of the best Superman movies IMHO are All-Star Superman, and Superman vs. The Elite. Those get to the core of the character and what he's supposed to stand for.
+Rodrigo Forense yeah An alien army that were the bad guys in the Avengers killed less people than "America's Golden Boy"
FrozenWolf150 Man of Steel was about an Clark making the decision of actually revealing himself to the entire world. Going against his kryptonian people, and saving earth from becoming a new krypton. The movie shows his actions growing up, in flashbacks. The kent scene where he said Good and Bad is him telling clark, once u make that desicion to put yourself out there people will respond and it will change the world.
Move into BvS where the world is divided by thanking him and honoring him to hating him. Clark is so conflicted in this movie because his choice to reveal himself has made him a blame for so much that has happened. Even when he goes and saves people, he is still being question for doing it. when he shows up to court to take full responibility of his actions, Lex creates a scheme that makes him look like the bad guy, clark blames himself for not seeing it before, and runs away because he loses hope. To see a broken Superman is what makes BvS real. Its when he comes back, and has that fight with bruce, in which he returns hope to bruce once again.
bruce in the start of the film fell into the darkness from his parents death, rose and became batman. years later shit happened he lost people, retired, and then bam superman and zod fight. that feeling of weakness not being able to help those who died, made him put on the cowl again but this time his tactics were more cruel. by the time he almost kills supes, supes reminds him that he has a mom too, and he needs to save her. this snaps bruce to relieve that moment his parents died how he couldnt save them, but how in turn he became the very same thing he set out to stop in the first place.
when supes sacrifices himself to save his world and people, he knew what his purpose was at that point, his embodiment of hope, had spread by his death. Bruce in the end says men are good. by justice league supes will come back when they need him the most to save them. and when he returns the world will be more accepting to him and to the justice league. At that moment we will probably see a more happier and funny superman, i mean the dude was dead for a while. But zack wanted to build this character up in this way.
Carlos Tellez This is a Fantastic Synopsis of the entire DCEU as it is now. this video commentary wants to ignore the fact that characters dont always change or grow for the better, and thats what makes it so great! there is redeption, hope, trust, understanding, betrayal, flawed nature and convictions. This Universe is much more humane than anything Marvel has ever put out. Superman could not have used the "Not so great person becomes better" formula simply because superman has an inherent tendency of being an standard to strive for. Same with Batman, His motivation for being a hero is always justified. You cant expect an origin story for a well known character.
Great point,
Moreover, the curse of superman is that he has the world to help, and doesnt have anytime to fulfill selfish desire like being with Lois. In Lois & Clark Tv series that was well represented, as anytime he was getting close to her, he would hear people in need of saving. I think that is what makes the character so likeable, doomed to help other as the ultimate sacrifice.
And what about Clark Kent, that DC movies totally forgot. He is Superman trying to live a regular life, being extremely clumsy, just so he can blend in. As an awkward individual, his secret is safe, and his family and friends are protected.
And he wants Lois to love him for who he is inside, not for what he portrays as Superman. But obviously Lois is not interested in Clark Kent, as she loves Superman.
That is why Superman is my favorite Character, and two aspects they totally left out in the movies.
They turned the greatest superhero, and his two conflicting personalities, into a dumb, super powered, destroyer of cities idiot.
People are always saying Superman is boring because of his powers and his personality and I was NEVER with that talk!
So it made me SO happy when One Punch Man came out and they really took the time to show how you can have an interesting story with an invincible hero. And then Captain America: Winter Soldier for successfully did an action movie where the hero is a genuinely nice, friendly guy for once and I was pissed because it SHOULD HAVE been Superman. And because I don't want Marvel to have good things.
Superman vs the Elite is definitely my favorite.
EXACTLY!!! So many Marvel haters don't understand character development.
They get hung up on Marvel having run-of-the-mill plots... but Marvel's MAIN focus is character, and plot is secondary.
A movie with great characters and a cookie cutter plot will always be better than any movie with bad characters, no matter what the plot is.
Geek Owt Lowd Batman and Joker are terrible characters but the plot of The Dark Knight is what makes it a good movie
yeah but Dark Knight wasn't part of a shared universe.
Underrated comment
This is a video criticising Dc
Yet you can find dc fans bashing Marvel. Like they just can't get stop hating marvel
So... in summation, people are making this way way way more complicated than it needs to be. It's not about how dark'n'gritty, the level of humor or the supporting characters they picked. Hell, it's barely about loyalty to the source material. You can quite literally get away with almost *anything*, if you know how to establish good characters, and make the audience *feel empathetic towards them*. So in other words: It all just boils down to the fact that Snyder is a piss-poor director, who couldn't even remake The Room without fucking it up even further. He clearly doesn't care about any of his characters, so why should I?
His big fancy expensive (and quite frankly gorgeous) shots, edits and moments are just loud colorful distractions from the fact that you don't care about what going on in them. Hiring a visual artist like Snyder to do a director's job, is like hiring a choreographer to train someone in martial arts. All spectacle and no punch. And then you loose.
I agreed with you right up until the point where you described Snyder's films as "gorgeous". I actually think they're quite aggressively ugly; I'm not sure if that's because of the way the images masturbate over themselves in punishing slow motion, or just because I feel like I can actually see his misanthropy seeping out of every frame by means of some unholy synaesthesia. Ah fuck it, it's probably both!
I was combing through scenes from The First Avenger on RUclips when I came across the grenade scene. The top comment was, "Steve Rogers was already Captain America," and you know what? I believed that with every fiber of my being when reading it. I couldn't help but salute him for it.
But then I remembered this video, and something troubled me; if what that commenter said was true, than doesn't that mean he and Superman were no different? If they both have no real arcs, then why does Captain America feel like the ultimate soldier and a symbol for some grand idea, while Superman strikes me as an angsty flying brick?
Captain America is a special case because the point is how his beliefs and morals don't change, even as he goes from being frail and weak to being powerful. There's the scene where Dr. Erskine says "a weak man knows the value of strength." We see Steve when he's weak and understand the foundation of his moral code ("I don't like bullies"). The whole reason he's picked to become Captain America is because he won't change. So basically, Cap is the rare example of a lack of an arc being intentional. And it works.
Characters like Superman and Captain America represent static moral conceptions, namely deontology and virtue ethics. While they can have personal arcs, their stories are more about how they change the world than how the world changes them. Steve Rogers begins THE FIRST AVENGER with his moral compass already ingrained, it is what makes him uniquely qualified to be Captain America. But the movie also shows him making MORAL CHOICES that advance the story, such as when he disobeys orders to rescue American soldiers. It is a major turning point in the movie in which he goes from mascot to superhero.
WONDER WOMAN's NO MAN'S LAND sequence is also a good example of how to adapt MORAL POWER FANTASY characters to the big screen while also showing character growth.
Power Metal i feel that i don't like superman because he never did anything to deserve such power. And he has almost never felt what it truly is to be weak and without that power. I can never truly relate to him because he is impossibly perfect and incredibly inhuman. He just shows up and saves the day with much struggle. Some say that his stories aren't about the power and more about his morals and effect on those around him showing what a great guy he is! But they aren't about that, he isn't interesting enough to be that, if thats what the stories are about then why even give him powers. He shouldn't have them! He's boring without them and wrong with them. Some say that he is meant to be something to look up too and learn from. Well he's not! Why? Because he never teaches or learns anything due to how incredibly easy everything is for him! He can literally do anything! And it sucks. My only hope is that one day they put some chains on him and develop him as an actual character. Like batman who is a complete psychopath with the best intentions, or Goku a selfish jerk who is pretty much just in it for the fight and earth second. Don't make him some impervious paragon that outshines others because then he just seems like a high school jock that ended up becoming the ceo of a major corporation.
Here is a great quote from writer Grant Morrison on Superman's relatability: i.imgur.com/D94DoZZ.jpg
And Superman definitely cannot solve all problems with his powers. Can Superman throw elected officials who oppose him out of office? Overturn unjust laws supported by the public? When trying to deliver food to the hungry in foreign nations, if denied access by the legitimate government, can or should Superman ignore their sovereignty and remove their governments? What are the consequences of someone as powerful as Superman adopting a utilitarian philosophy over a deontological one? Is it moral to have a secret identity like Clark Kent when Superman could potentially save more ppl without the facade? Or is Clark Kent necessary for balancing Kal-El's perspective as Superman? What kind of complications does having a secret identity cause for Clark Kent? What mistakes has Superman made that ultimately caused him to conclude that his current form of idealism is best? Writers like Mark Waid (SUPERMAN: BIRTHRIGHT) have gone out of their way to write stories that demonstrate that not only can Superman NOT solve all of his problems with sheer power alone, but that there are even things that Clark Kent can do that Superman can't.
EDIT: And if you think that tension in comic books or CBMs comes exclusively from physical struggle (which the most tense scenes in the best CBMs often have nothing to do with) then there is plenty of struggle for Superman. How "easy" is it typically for him to defeat Zod, Brainiac, Doomsday, Darkseid, etc.?
Also, it's not always about "deserving" power, but the burdens and responsibilities placed upon those who have it and what kind of man Superman would be if he wasn't raised with the ideals that inform his applications of said power.
Why is it that fanboys cant take criticism? Do they not understand that a critique is intended to improve the subject matter? Don't you want movies to improve?
Because they are content with just watching heroes punch each other
Sure, BvS is nothing but hereos punching each other. There was absolutely no build up to that fight, they fought right since the beginning of the movie and it was no presented as a tragic fight that shouldn't happen.
Of course superman had no goal, what goal Superman can have when there are no cosmic evil beings wanting to destroy Earth? You think this movie should have been Batman and Superman vs Brainiac? We saw that millions of time already. At least Superman saves people from mundane accidents in that movie.
Batman's motivation : not only did he not really know superman, he is a fundamentally paranoid character, having to fight superpowered beings with only his human strenght and wits. So of course he doesn't trust a person who cannot be stopped, just because he claims he has no political motives. Should Superman ever have any political motivations, he will instantly turn into a well-meaning tyrant who just want to better the world. Lex is scared of superman for those reasons, "so that the day doresn't come when your children wave roses at tyrants", "if we forge a silver bullet we don't have to depend on the kindness of monsters". Also probably because superman makes his achievements look like nothing and also the achievements of all mankind.
Batman spares Superman because he realizes Superman cares about a human being when he was just going to die, showing well the selflessness of the character. I mean that's the most heroic thing Superman ever did. The real problem is how it was presented.
Superman tried to tell about his mother at first, but Batman was defiant, and Superman grew proud and wanted to beat him up a little. Batman had previously done some reckless vigilantism and knowingly condemened some guys to death. So of course Superman would want to make him humbler.
Yeah yeah, bring the prequels into that.
his motivation is set in Man of Steel, he knows what he can do with his powers, help and save people. To give people hope to give inspiration. But certain people believe he shouldnt do those things. Lex hates Superman, because he believes a man like him cannot just exist. he sees supes as too good yet too strong, something thats impossible for us humans to be. thats what clark is trying to help the people of earth become, to join him in the sun and accomplish wonders. Lex hates that, its to good to be true, so throughout the movie he makes schemes tio make him look like the badguy. bruce motivation, is thats he lost loved ones, and certain friends have turn bad. old ways arent cutting it anymore, and now he knows theres a man who has the power to wipe out the world if he wanted to. As for the mother scene its not hard to see the meaning behind it. when supes says save martha. batman has flashbacks of the night his parents died. When he finds out that supes mom is named martha, he realizes he just became the same kind of man he set to stop in the first place since that night. zack aint fucking with us, he is giving us poweful films with real meaning behind each one. Mos= first flight, as in beginnings, Bvs= the redemption/sacrifice, JL =rebirth/hope. its not hard to see how he is setting up the films.
NeedsContent actually fanboys hate these movies
Before you post a comment about how Enchantress gave Deadshot the vision of his daughter, many people have already pointed this out. He still doesn't have a character arc.
Except he starts out a cold, calculated and ruthless mercenary driven purely by money; morals be damned. This is made clear in his introductory scene. Next, we are introduced to his daughter, where the foundation for his arc is built. She is his world. When the SS is first formed, we see him ask for his freedom first, then that his daughter and her education be taken care of. Note the order in which he makes these demands, as that is a detail that speaks volumes about his level of self-interest.
Huge choice that defines the character? Look no further than the scene where he intentionally misses Harley Quinn, even though he was promised his freedom and his daughter's future by Amanda Waller right then and there. That's the first time we see Deadshot do something selfless. He sacrifices what is presumably most important to him, for someone else, because it's the moral thing to do (from his perspective).
Finally, we see his arc conclude in the bar scene where Flagg begs for their help and reveals that Deadshot's daughter has been writing letters to him in prison. He doesn't care about the things he can negotiate for, i.e. the aforementioned freedom and education. He simply wants his daughter to know that her father is not a piece of poop.
Again, I enjoyed your video, and while it may sound like I'm a SS fanboy, I am actually far from it. I simply think you missed the mark with the points you tried to make in this video.
As for Suicide Squad, I had a great time watching it in the theater but can acknowledge how flawed it is from an editing and storytelling perspective. It is not a great film by any stretch, but that doesn't mean we can't enjoy it.
There's a confounding bit in these apologetics. I'm not saying that's not what was intended by his choices, but I will say that his having his freedom _also_ assures his daughter will be taken care of and additionally places him in her life. Him not killing Harley because of his daughter is weakened as an argument by the fact that he and she were bonding throughout the movie. It's one thing to kill some random guy for money, it's another to kill a friend, and a woman at that. It would need to be established first that Deadshot would kill a friend for him not to do so to have meaning.
Robin Thrush there's no point trying to analyse any motivations in that turd of a film. This is a film where after spending an evening together supposedly hardened super criminals start seeing each other as 'family'
Patrick (H) Willems Great video sir. In all honesty I felt the same way you felt about all three films and I agree suicide squad is the worst one. You articulated how I felt about Superman and him having no real motivation to do anything he did and for that I say great job.
Only this incarnation of superman is actually a good character. Out side of that yeah they need to focus on the character development if TFA showed me anything was that even if the plot is shit and all their characters act like 15 years old kids that run away from their problems they touch the kids who spend their time promoting the fandom on the internet.
They heard you. Wonder woman did have character growth
Jack Thompson not a lot (like breaking bad), but her beliefs about people, love, purpose were being formed throughout the movie.
If that's the criteria we're using then Superman experienced growth as well; he went from not knowing what to do with his powers to deciding to use them to help the world, id est becoming, "The Superman".
The best I can reason Diana's character arc starts with her being naively idealistic and ends with her being realistically disillusioned but hopeful. Aside form that, just like with Clark, everything that forms the core of the character remains the same throughout the film. This is not a bad thing, though. Some films are about character experiencing great change throughout the course of a story. Some films are about following a character as they navigate the story. There is room for some change and growth but it does not need to be exponential to be relevant.
+ Nithin Vasisth Yeah, I thought she stayed about the same. She was strong, brave & optimistic on the island and she was the same at the end. She traveled and had different experiences, but her character was basically the same. Very good movie though. And I think the success it is having is due to Gal's charming, wide-eyed & funny performance. As opposed to the grim slog that was MOS & BVS with their dark & dour performances.
Jack Thompson yeah, you're actually right
It's still a very good film. I could watch her all day long. She moves so gracefully - especially during the fight scenes. Plus she just lights up the screen. A star is definitely born!
Recent DC problem: Style over Substance
Recent Marvel problem: Substance over Style
Not perfectly balanced as all things should be
Realty is often disappointing.
I never thought about the marvel movies like that. but now when I think about it, I think marvel movies definitely lacks a sense of style in their direction. they all look bland and boring visually
@@v-trigger6137 yeah, but it's still miles better than DC's recent movies
This has probably been the most cogent, realistic and balanced argument of the Pros & Cons of the DC Cinamatic universe I have seen put to screen. True fans thank you sir. If there is anyway we can collaborate to get you to aid in the writing of the next 6 films, please let us know.
4:11 Thank You! My biggest problem with man of steel is that there seemed to be no journey towards him becoming Superman he seemed to have no true real reason to just decide to be saviour of the world especially when his parents conditioned him to hide.
El John Maybe because he just wants to do good?
Is that too crazy to consider?
That's literally the backbone to the idea of being a "Superman."
Superman Clark Kent The point is we are never shown why he becomes who he is. Did you watch the video? A good character would not just do something just because they would have a compelling reason. His parents tell him the opposite, his dad tells him maybe he should have let the kids on the bus die. One day he just wakes up and decides to become superman and be humanity's saviour? I know you may be a fan as I am, I even enjoy man of steel a lot but but can you genuinely see the issue with superman as a character?
What's the journey for Captain America? Steroids? Why is nobody pointing out that Rogers was always so morally high he's a fucking caricature of virtue with his weird skinny CGI body? Shit, at least superman was shown to have emotions like when he bent the dude's truck or destroyed the satellite. Captain America is literally holier than Jesus and nobody has a problem with that.....
Just saying.
I agree DC movies aren't good.....but Marvel's aren't either. A little honesty would be nice.
" is that there seemed to be no journey towards him becoming Superman he seemed to have no true real reason to just decide to be saviour of the world especially when his parents conditioned him to hide."
May I respectfully point out that the entire encounter on the ship with Jor-El set up his reason to be a hero....The whole movie was character driven and self discovery ...Don't forget he has 2 fathers...His conditioning to hide was until he was ready.
There is no issue with this Superman character...Pa Kent saying "maybe"...was in essence saying "I don't know"....this character developing moment brought into question the larger theme of Pa Kents concerns about Clark's discovery and the threat of him being taken away . People Like the one in this vid actually don't want this movie to be good....MOS was clear and simple and straight forward in it's character development .
You mentioned how we learn about a character through the choices they make. In man of steel, Clark is struggling with the choice of revealing himself to the world. Pa Kent says he doesn’t have to reveal himself if he doesn’t want to, and feels he’s not ready. Jor El says it is his destiny to lead humanity to the light. He’s struggling between destiny and choice. The theme of destiny vs choice comes up multiple times in the film. Krypton’s society has degraded due to lack of choice. Zod is flawed because of that system. He is the opposite of superman because he is incapable of choice. Superman finally does choose to reveal himself, which is difficult because it’s what Pa Kent didn’t want him to do and he also died keeping his secret. He also chooses humanity over his own people, knowing that krypton had its chance already and they messed up but humanity can still change and make the same mistakes. So I see a character arc here.
Man of steel is destiny vs choice. Batman v Superman is, now that he has revealed himself, what are the consequences and how he deals with them. Batman’s arc is different. He begins with someone obsessed with revenge, trying to kill Superman. Alfred knows he has gone off track and tries to talk him out of it many times but he doesn’t listen. He even has a vision of a giant bat coming out of his mom’s grave to kill him. That shows he’s gone off track, consumed by rage, becoming the very thing that killed his parents. At the end, he’s inspired by superman’s sacrifice, and has hope for humanity. He says “we lie we cheat we betray each other. But we can still change”. Superman, the embodiment of hope has given it to Batman, who has now found his way back. So I see his arc here too. A lot of people complain about Batman killing people, I kind of see that as a result of him crossing the line because he has no hope that a criminal can change. Although in suicide squad, I don’t remember him killing criminals like Harley or Deadshot. He just arrests them. I Guess he changed. So again I see an arc here.
Maybe these things I pointed out are not enough but there you go.
SPOILER ALERT: Ain't gotta worry about Wonder Woman being good
DC films confuse me. They do things that don't make sense, they decide to make Batman murder in the movie where his motivation to kill Superman is based on Superman maybe causing collateral damage(But Batman can murder, launch cars and gun down entire blocks without flinching), also they don't know each other so Superman doesn't have a reason to not get in that a*s when Batman comes for him, but instead of having Batman recruit help from, I dunno, the JL members he's tracking and using the power he actually has(intelligence) to plan an attack they decide to have a man with no powers or logical way to beat Superman with brute force do exactly that and it breaks logic. Suicide Squad as well, the roster would make sense if the villain was Joker but it's not, only Enchantress and Diablo could logically have any chance against a meta like Supes and again, they pit people with no powers against Enchantress with no way to logically explain how they could stand against her at all. Even if they fixed the characterizations, the plots aren't thought through and they come off stupid cuz they're illogical at they're core.
Maxx Nieves yea its not like he had friends, employees working in his billing that crushed everybody but that didn't happen
Random Again, it still doesn't make sense, he's mad at Superman for collateral damage caused by trying to stop a crazy threat, Batman is blowing up cars and gunning down whole blocks to stop regular human criminals not caring who happens to get caught in the crossfire. It makes him come off as a villain, which does not make sense in a JL lead up, Superman didn't actively go around murdering people and the level of threat made collateral damage kinda unavoidable, Batman was the exact opposite, the JL members should be sending Batman to Arkham not joining him.
Maxx Nieves again batman doesnt. see that pov cuz he's not superman its not that hard to figure out batman was already going that route the tipping point is superman and stop acting like batman did as much collateral as buildings falling down cause its not and you know it.
Random What he did was much worse, Superman didn't willfully murder people, and if he did nothing way more people would have died. Batman straight up murders hella people with no justification, Superman had no choice with Zod, you don't just get to murder criminals right and left and drag and flip cars into buildings and and parked vehicles, you don't get to gun down entire blocks, it is completely diferent and the threat doesn't justify the level of damage. He straight up murders like 10 people at least without question. He is without a doubt a criminal and you cannot compare his actions to Superman's.
The BVS fight happens the same way it has always happened between these 2 in comics...over a misunderstanding...Batman killed defensively in this movie.....
The way Martha and Jonathan Kent are written in these movies is the one aspect of the DCEU easiest to send me into a frothing rage. They are supposed to be the ones who formed and defined Superman's moral core and values, which is what drives him to *be* Superman, and instead they're... AAAARGH my head hurts
But Superman isn't supposed to be morally grey. He's the Man of Tomorrow, a beacon of hope, the Big Blue Boyscout. WB just knows the Nolan trilogy was a hit, so they're trying to emulate it, without understanding why it worked in the first place or understanding why Superman is popular in the first place.
Darkest Iron He isn't supposed to be relatable, he's supposed to be inspiring. He isn't supposed to be "just some guy, but with powers." Strip those powers away, and you find the ultimate boyscout. The kind of guy who, if faced with the situation of "kill the bad guy or let him kill innocents" will find a third option. You don't go to Superman for gritty realism any more than you go to Sherlock expecting James Bond.
Darkest Iron Superman could kill, but chooses not to. He could rule the world, but chooses not to. He could make a lot of money with his powers, chooses not to. He chooses not to give into temptation because, the only one strong enough to stop him, is himself.
He is not inherently perfect, he just chooses to be a good person.
There is always another way. To act like there isn't is either because the character or writer is too dense to find another way. If presented with two options, its a sign of a good writer who can present another, or a good hero to think of another.
And those are "What ifs." A Superman without a "what if" is not dark and gritty. If you want James Bond, don't go to Sherlock. If you want a dark gritty Superman, go for Sentry. Or Hyperion. Or Superior. Or Prime (from Ultra Force). Or Apollo. Or Captain Atom. Or Dr. Manhattan.
But if you really need the one version of Superman who isn't dark to be dark, don't go acting like its Superman just because he wears the costume. There isn't only one way to write a character, but when you change the core aspects of that character, he's no longer that character.
Darkest Iron Are you under the impression that the movie with the alien flying around in the red cape takes place in reality?
Are you also under the impression the phantom zone, which was established in MoS, is still a deus ex machine, if it shows up again, later?
And is a hero killing a villain about to kill an innocent compelling? I, as the viewer, saw two options, one was preferable, the hero took the preferable option. Same as anyone. So the only thing that separates him from others is that he has powers. And the consequence? A good person lives and, now that he's crossed the line once, there's no going back, so there's no reason to not keep doing it.
The Superman in the comics would have practiced with his powers upon learning them, not waited until adulthood to learn to fly, because practice means better control, and less likely to hurt others. Also, by pushing his limits, he could become stronger, and the stronger he is, the more people he could save.
Superman is not ashamed of who he is. But in MoS, he acted like a wandering exile.
Superman is more concerned about saving people than fighting the bad guy. MoS Superman made little attempt to keep Zodd out of the populated areas in the last fight.
Superman tries to find an alternative to killing. Why didn't MoS superman fly Zod out when he was trying to laser those people? Oh, write because the writers wanted him to kill. And the consequence? He was sad until the end of that scene. Not bothered by it the rest of the movie and doesn't really think about it in the sequel.
MetFanMac Go see LOGAN....every MCU fanatic go see LOGAN. MCU needs to take notes. It is the greatest MARVEL film ever created. it shows you that it actually is possible for a Marvel film to have a deep story and emotion and serious action without being a script loaded with corny jokes. It makes the MCU look like the complete farce that it is. Reboot the MCU !!!!!!! And I am a hardcore DCEU fan. LOGAN proves Marvel 'can' be great like the DCEU.
I used to think man of steel and BvS were just ok but never realized why I didn't love them. now I see why. Thank you!!
I never really liked Man of Steel and I thought previous was okay now I hate it I hate both of them
People talking about how “deep” these movies are and how we don’t understand the “deep character development” they have, I laugh, I enjoy both movies but the characters didn’t impress me in these two movies, especially Supes, his character arc is mostly driven by other relate characters, I never feel like he makes his own big choice for himself beside saving people which is what he does but cuz of the bland character arc it doesn’t feel right, I don’t even feel like he likes to save people, I don’t feel like he really cared about them beside Louis and his mom
they never even bothered to give a reason to why Clark loves Louis in the first place. they kissed in man of steel and now they are living together. hell, the fact that Clark was even ready to purpose her Lol. this is the most cliched character development you can see in any rom com movie. this just shows how piss poor Zack Snyder is, when it comes to character development
@@v-trigger6137 Zack is great visually, but storywise, he's pretty average
Superman’s arc in Batman v Superman is beautiful. If man of steel was about destiny clashing with choice, BVS is about the consequences of the choices made in the previous film. Superman has revealed himself to the world and that has consequences. It’s not as simple as Clark thought it would be.
Some people love him and some hate him. The government is discussing what to do with him. Batman and Lex are plotting to kill him. At first when Lois tries to talk to him about how complicated it is, he doesn’t take it seriously. After the bomb goes off, he realizes he can’t take the pressure of being Superman and flies off.
I love the talk he has with Pa Kent on top of the mountain. That’s about how to live with your choices and the consequences. He realizes Lois and his mom are what keeps him grounded. They help him take the pressure and live with the consequences.
At the end, he sacrifices his life not because he wants to kill doomsday and save the world. He wants to save Lois. She’s “his world”. She’s everything. This “world” thing comes up a few times. Pa Kent says it about Martha Kent and Superman says it in the nightmare sequence. His arc is complete by the end of the film because he’s Superman again and he knows what he wants to do. He can be a superhero and live with his choices. He didn’t know how in the beginning of the film.
I think Man of Steel was alright, but Batman V Superman was the one that fucked up royally with Superman's character. In fact the entire DCEU feels like it has great characters being hijacked by really bad stories.
I thought Man of Steel and Batman v Superman:Dawn of Justice were very solid and enjoyable films. However, even if both of our opinions don't see eye to eye thats fine by me.
I hated Batman vs Superman as a movie. But i just watched it again and skipped over any scene that didn't have Ben Affleck in it as Bruce or Batman. Sure it doesn't make any sense, but neither does the original movie. And this way it's shorter, more robust, has a better focus, no sub-plots and I can really appreciate the awesome fight scenes. I agree, the movie was ass, but if you watch it the way I did then you'll be watching an entertaining, one hour, incoherent movie with badass fight scenes as opposed to a boring, two-and-a-half hour, incoherent slog with cool fight scenes that ultimately piss you off since the rest of the movie was so shit.
Anshuman Roy Sorry but the fight scenes were nothing special or memorable. You have shit taste if you think that BvS had good fight scenes. I remember more from Man of Steel than from BvS (from that movie I remember only a brain damaged Lex Luthor).
MOS was about as bad as BvS. SS ...well I saw it once. Why bother again?
And then Wonder Woman came along and blew them all away making them fade into forgetfullness
The DCEU? More like the Snyderverse. If you're going to "extend" a universe, then how about having Superman at least have "heard" about a guy who shines a gigundo Bat Signal on a major city for twenty years. Clark is awfully fucking stupid.
"Who is this " Gotham Bat?"
Perry White-"Clark. You're fired! Get out of my fucking office!"
This is a pedantic response to be sure but I'm pretty sure that Clark didn't know who Bruce Wayne was. I don't think there was a mention of whether or not he knew who Batman was. And even still he grew up in Smallville, Kansas. The Gotham-Bat is an issue local to Gotham so I don't see how he would have heard. when he gets to Metropolis he has only been working at the Planet for the 18 months between MoS and BvS and he's been taking assignments as a stringer; he doesn't have a regular beat and even if he did, again, The Bat is a Gotham local issue.
+Michael Schinke It's poor worldbuilding/writing. You want a real world for these characters? Clark would have known. It's like saying tv ,radio, or pop culture doesn't exist on the planet.
I guess Clark never heard/ read about who the President or the Beatles were either.
He's a fucking idiot.
I actually do know 20-somethings that do not know who the Beatles are. They don't know because it isn't relevant to them. The Gotham Bat vigilante would not be relevant to someone living in Smallville Kansas thousands of miles away; especially if the Bat was working to maintain an air of mystery about himself.
You are of course free to believe as you wish but I do not think this is something outside the realm of being reasonable.
+Michael Schinke Dude, he's 35. Jesus Christ, he's not an Emo teen twenty something. 35 years old is aporoaching forty ... I'm really tired of fans going along with Clark's general incuriosity/knowledge.
It's like "Cool! Superman has. a learning disorder/reading disability because Zack Snyder hates comics pre-1985! Awesome!"
Jason Klawon while the validity of the information you base your assumptions in is questionable, at best, you are entitled to hold whatever opinion you wish.
"He never makes a choice that defines who he is to the audience" Have we seen the same movie? "Krypton had it's chance." Superman decides near the end of the movie to save the world and to destroy Krypton's last chance to survive, even though he has the chance to be together with his race ; to have the life that was taken away from him, when he was sent away from his planet and Krypton exploded, but he sees that Krypton had it's chance, and that Zod and his companions do not have the right to take this chance away from earth, in order to give Krypton a second one. This moment really defines what character Superman has. Because even, if this is not his true world and the humans are not his true race, he saves them. Oh, and he cares for the humans, probably because he was raised by humans and because he has been living among humans since he was a little child. I mean, you're acting like it is a strange choice for Clark to save innocent children from death... So, then the character development gets continued in BvS. Here we see how a dark, realistic world reacts to Superman. In this movie movie Clark tries to be the Superman as we know him usually, but the world he is living in does not really allow him to. He just tries to save people's lifes, but the humans constantly reject him [He gets framed for the happenings in Africa, The capitol gets blown up 'because of him' etc.]. Also he's constantly a big topic in media and gets treated like a God or a devil etc., but he does not want this. He just wants a normal life and to be good person. All that pushes him so far that he loses hope. And because of all that he just doesn't feel like this is his world ["My world doesn't exist anymore." - Superman, BvS]. But then the scene in BvS comes, where he talks to his dad. And he tells him something important ["She (Martha Kent) gave me faith that there's good in this world. She was my world." - Jonathan Kent, BvS]. This scene tells the audience and Clark that Clark's relationship with humanity is within Lois Lane ; that Lois is the same figure to Clark that Martha was to Jonathan. Lois is the one that gives Clark faith that there's good in this world ; that there is good in humanity. She is his world ["This is my world. You are my world (Lois Lane). - Superman, BvS]. It's the continuation of Martha Kent's sentence in response to Clark's "The world is too big, Mom" in MoS. She tells him "Then make it small". So, In BvS the world is overwhelming Clark again and Jonathan kinda also says him "Then make it small". The sentence works in a new context and tells Clark that he can instead of letting the world overwhelm him, just make the world small and focus on Lois as his world ; as his relationship with humanity. This realization gives Clark hope again and gives him the will to sacrifice himself for HIS world ; to sacrifice himself for Lois ; to sacrifice himself for the people he loves... To me his arc works unbelievable well, to show how a real Superman would look like. See, it is opinion related, if you like his arc or not, but if you are saying that there isn't an arc at all, then you're lying.
I think this is a case of "it's not character development if the character doesn't develop the way I want."
zhengyingli Maybe more like “Character development that’s not true to the character is bad character development.” Because Superman has an established, canonical character, a character that has been shown over 80 years to work very well for Superman, a character that defines who the man in Superman is. Discard that and you aren’t doing a Superman story. It may be a movie that has a guy called Superman in it, but it isn’t a Superman story.
@@flatebo1 What do you mean by "not true to the character?"
@@zhengyingli "Zod can't be trusted. The problem is, I'm not sure the people of Earth can be either."
This sentiment is diametrically opposed to everything Superman stands for. Superman may not trust individual people, but humanity? Superman trusts in that.
@@flatebo1 He said he's not sure, right? In the end he did decide to take a leap faith anyway because like the priest said, the trust part comes later. Plus, at the end of the movie, he did end up trusting Swanwick to convince Washington of his motive.
This continues to be shown BvS where he submits to humanity's judgement at the Capitol.
3:27
I know that he doesn't change in the film from beginning to end. But this is Superman. There are several ways of writing character arcs.
1.Change Arc (Eg. Tony)
2.The Flat Arc (Eg. Superman)
3.Negative Change arc (Eg. Villains who turn bad)
Superman being the character example of the flat arc makes sense. A flat arc character doesn't change, but intern changes the people around him. So this isn't lazy writing. Yes, characters can be underwritten but the flat arc is its whole different thing. A character like Goku doesn't change either and yet he is still loved.
Despite that, love the video Patrick. Keep up the great work!
Sure, except in this case, the flat arc doesn't even work in this case. Aside from the fact that we can't really empathize with Superman from the beginning, we also don't really see any changes from the people around him. The military initially distrusts superman, and at the end of the movie, they still distrust superman. It's not so much that we need CHANGE in a character. The most important thing we need is EMPATHY. We need to know WHY Superman is the way he is, we need to relate to Superman's decisions, and we need to see how his decisions impact his story world. Since we barely got any impact, the story ended up a dull bore.
@@ajerqureshi6411 I agree with that analogy
@@ajerqureshi6411 but whats reletable to someone isn't relatable to someone else so...
@@LuisAngel-mu4zv I agree, so using the term "relatable" may be wrong here...what I meant was "sympathetic." You can have a character you don't relate to at all, but if you can truly understand the characters' motivations and WHY he's pursuing that goal, you will stick with him and root for him in the story.
The one criticism I have with this incredibly well done video is that Harley Quinn is not allowed to grow as a character. That in itself, is part of her character: she NEVER learns a lesson and can never leave the Joker. If she were to ever leave the Joker, she would probably revert back to Harleen Quinzel and that would be the end of Harley. Harley is meant to be a parable to women in abusive relationships who, for whatever reason, do not flee their abuser. She fantasizes about having a normal life with the Joker someday, but the Joker will never stop being who he is. Harley is meant to elicit sympathy from the audience and we're supposed to root for her independence, then be utterly disappointed when she goes back to the Joker yet again.
Except she does learn. She hasn't been with Joker in the comics for a while now, in fact she's in a commited, loving, though not monogamous, relationship with Poison Ivy. She's still Harley Quinn, just not as crazy. Now she's less of a parable for women in abusive relationships, and more of an inspiration for women who have gotten out of abusive relationships. Not a great inspiration (She is still kinda homicidal) but there ya go.
Yeah, except that's not a character arc. If Harley was to learn that she is so ignorant and fights to stop that, that would be an interesting story. It would give the women in abusive relationships that you were talking about a good representation and show them that they CAN change who they are. The most important thing in a character is change. No one doesn't change.
This is a great point - except I would argue the film didn't explore this well. It's a good subject matter for the format of film, and they are great characters to explore this with. The problem is, you don't have the opposing side. You don't have friends talking to the character about her being in abusive relationship, and you don't have her dealing with that or analyzing herself. Even if she ultimately went back to him after struggling, that would still be interesting (and, sadly, realistic). However, only the audience sees the abuse, and never witnesses any internal struggle of hers.
if that's supposed to be substition for a character arc, then simply she shouldn't have been major character in the movie in the first place. If she literally never changes, why should we care about her for more than couple of minutes? At least challenge her never changing attitude, explore the parable, dont make a dull, blend, boring, unfunny character as one of the mains.
Enrique Marquez She grew in Injustice though. Not saying she needs to grow in the films a bunch but only slightly.
WB/DC didn't make characters, they made caricatures.
Eric Ling This.
This is true.
caricatures have personality
THey didnt creat caricatures. Caricatures have personality. They made more a frowning cardboard with a superhero logo in the middle and called it a day.
Eric Ling DC made characters, the movies fuck it all up.
Snyder gave us a Superman that's purist to the lore ever put on film~
Count the number of lines Henry Cavill has in Man of Steel and BvS. It’s no wonder his character feels so underdeveloped. He barely even talks. Bryan Singer’s Superman Returns has the same problem. It’s as if the writers of these films have no real interest in Superman as a character. He’s there almost as a plot device. Tim Burton’s first Batman has the same issue. The script just doesn’t seem to be interested in the main character. We never even learn why Bruce wants to fight crime or do so dressed as a bat. Now compare this to Richard Donner’s Superman or Chris Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy. Donner goes through Clark’s childhood establishing why Clark decides to become Superman. And Nolan’s last movie is so focused on the main character that we see him mostly out of his Batman costume.
The thing with Snyder's films is that not only did he develop the hero, he developed the villains and the world. No other comic book movie does that, it's why his films are so long.
Man of steel - Superman is finally ready to reveal himself to the world and aims to protect people but learns about his real family and zod and is forced to kill zod which in turn wipes out all the other Kryptonians making him the last of his race.
Bvs - he is framed for murder, his mother is kidnapped, batman comes after him, the whole world is against him, he learns consequences and has to come to terms that he can't save everyone
Justice League - honestly I have forgotten that film but I remember superman being more of a boyscout in it and a lot happier and he was having banter with Bruce and he felt more like actual comic superman
What's wrong with that character arc? It makes perfect sense and he becomes more comic accurate along the way. I think my only issue was the death of superman bit
@Erik Kemeey But Max had 3 movies before that.
9:20 I don't think it was them trying to force an arc, I dont think it was supposed to relate to his "arc" anyway, I think it was just enchantress using his daughter to try to make him not do it, which resulted in him being angry that enchantress would try to use his own daughter against him.
In Batman Begins, Bruce decides not to murder the thief, but then he murders everyone in that monastery
You can make the argument though that it wasn't his intention. He uses the fire to aid in his escape. He didn't force the Ra's decoy to fight him or for the ninjas to stay. He even saved the real Ra's. It's more of a plot hole then anything since he refuses to kill Ra's at the end and no one in the universe calls him out on it.
The Groovy Movie Man Shhh! Don't use logic on him! It only makes them angry
Armando Batista wrong
that distraction killed a lot of people. what did he think was going to happen when he lit it on fire?
+Armando Batista Still isn't the same as Batman firing machine guns at people and blowing them up or smashing people's heads open with crates. Once again, Bruce didn't force the fake Ra's to fight him. He didn't force the ninjas to not escape. It wasn't his intention to kill everyone. He even saved the real Ra's.
Um its good and all but the ending of SS you got wrong I think, it wasnt deadshot imagining his daughter I think it was the witch showing him his daughter so he wouldnt shoot and in term kill her but your point still stands, he doesnt have an arc.
Is your profile pic Clockwork Orange?
+Navon Myhand Congratulations, you identified a pop culture reference, do you want a cookie?
Thank you! I though that was pretty straightforward but apparently it wasn't. I guess they should have made the Enchantress's motions more obvious during that though so it would be more clear.
Interesting that you showed Marty McFly in this video when he doesn't really have a character arc until the sequels came along w/ the whole "Nobody calls me chicken" gag. The closest he had in the first film was his brief insecurity about being rejected as a musician, but he immediately insinuated that he doesn't want to sound like his old man. He learns certain things about his parents as teenagers, but he pretty much stays the same from beginning to end. Not to say that this is an excuse for the DCEU. Just saying that writing/filmmaking is a versatile art, and can work or fail in many ways.
i think back to the future 1 should have ended with Marty sending in that tape he was too afraid to send in because of fear of failure. His father has the arc.
The inclusion of Marty was more as an example of how knowing a character's motivations makes them empathetic, so we enjoy following them. We clearly understand Marty from the start of the film: he want's his family to have some backbone; he wants to be a musician, but struggles with self doubt; he wants to take his girlfriend to the lake. We empathize with him even before all the time travel, so we are invested in following him.
@@pieter_kok Well, there are many other characters with actual arcs who convey empathy that could have been chosen by this video.
@@SuCKeRPunCH187 Not really needed for the main story. Marty serves his purpose perfectly well.
@@shiranuiaensland1442 (I assume RUclips just decided we both need to see this 3 year old video today x-D) True, there are many examples other than Marty that also have great arcs, but really Back to the Future is just a great example of a movie that is completely engaging because of its characters. We are probably reading too much into a background example that might just have been chosen because it comes to mind quickly; it does not detract from the overall or the specific points of the video just because there are possibly better examples to use.
I just discovered your channel and am quickly becoming a big fan. I would love more comicbook movie breakdowns or essays, please reconsider.
5:41 : Superman had this choice. When he killed Zod.he choose to kill the last of his race to save humanity.
I mostly agree tough. With my love of superman, I should have cried at the end of BvS. But I didn't care enough.
Thomas Dargent Well, the movie's issue was not presenting it more clearly that he wanted to kill the only one left from his race to save humanity, no obvious implying, it just looked like superman killing a regular bad guy to save people. Otherwise if it was obvious, so many people would've noticed and pointed out your point.
AboAbdulable well him screaming and crying made it quite evident I think... I don't know. It's true that the choice could have been more clear. But the idea that he has to choose between Krypton and earth is totally present trough the film, so the connection is easy to make.
Thomas Dargent I agree, but the crying could've made people think it's only because well, he's superman so he would feel guilty in general brutally killing anyone, whether kryptonian or human, I wish there was more clear visual foreshadowing or even some dialogue to show he screamed the way he did BECAUSE he realized he killed the last one of his race
AboAbdulable true. It's a 'flaw' very present in the Snyder movies I think. If you take time to put everything together it makes sense, but at a first viewing, you can think some things are rushed or stupid. Not necessarily because it's very smart, but because.. Well editing, story telling, etc... Are a bit flawed at some level. (still love Zack more than reason tough)
I thought Deadshot's daughter was a halucination made by sorcerress
it was.
Lol it was. This guy just wasn't paying atention to the scene... or any of MoS.
Such a good video, some really great points here; good job man I've never saw this channel before!
Oh my god! You are the voice of my thoughts about films and finally i can hear them trough your voice. Thank you very much.
Great video!! Take notes DC...
This vid is garbage ..almost all lies facebook.com/notes/man-of-steel-fan-gives-hope/zack-snyders-superman-is-the-purest-to-the-lore-ever-put-on-film/1485185938177932
Elijah de Castro
Which is your opinion?! Lol a lot of people think that the MCU is not very good as well but those are just opinions as well. My point is that movies are subjective. You can love a movie that I hate and neither of us is subjectively wrong. Just because "critics" say something is good doesn't mean it is nationally accepted.
scontent.fagc1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/16265166_1147036462062142_7452248736949543606_n.jpg?oh=76626e2202b62522513a7bfb026f27a7&oe=5909D013
+All_Things_ Nerd Thank you.. I've been on this thread constantly saying that. These films are subjective. Not everyone is going to like them.
TheNew RUclipsr
People don't understand that. ALL movies are subjective. More and more people are growing increasingly tired of Marvels safe and predictable movies but some aren't yet. But these kids think that because they have the numbers and the critics that it makes them right and me wrong. It's crazy but I've grown quite used to angry vulgar RUclips comments bashing me for the things I prefer and trying to tell me what to think. Be your own person. Make up your own mind. Don't ever let people tell you that a movie is garbage just because they don't see the beauty in it. Simple as that
The characters are great in the comics- but they fucked it up in the movies.
This version of superman is the worst.
Big Moist yeah Snyder has a complete lack of understanding of the character
Well yes but no, Christopher Reeves Superman beat up that same truck driver cause he was mean, Henry Cavill’s Superman ruined his car cause he was mean.
He pays for all the damage he does he did not just destroy and run
Well he did leave him batters and bleeding
@@imspecial5503 no broken bones or lasting damage just a bruised body and a ego
I loved both MOS and BVS I still agree with what your saying I'm just so happy that you've actually brought up valid reasoning and not just blindly hating like 99% of the internet this easily the best video essay on what the flaws are with the DCEU
Don´t make esseys about comic book movies if you don´t want to, but keep making video esseys about movies in general, and even video games, or watheever you want, just don´t stop doing video esseys, you are very good at it.
Thanks! Also, not sure if you saw the previous one, but in it I announced I'll be releasing a video essay every month.
Yes, I actually subscribed for that one, but didnt remember that announcement. Even better! One thing that you can consider is that while working on the next one you can also do shorter and rougher videos with the little interesting things that you may find out during your research, it will help keep the buzz about your channel. Just an idea. Ill be waiting for the next one.
Well, I still have videos every week, just usually not essays. Since those are all scripted/narrative shorts they take a while to make, so adding additional videos, even if they're short and rough, is tough.
Sure, you are right. Good job!
making essay about comic book movie cause contraversy. marvel fanboy will just join the wagon and go along with you here. if you care about making useful video more than baiting more view pls stop doing this. this video is not needed. there are a tons of material out there you can use as resource for new video essay. i'm agree with daniel here.
Send this video to zack synder
RohemaWitten nope
jimmy perkins He will probably add some explosions to it and republish
Why not David S Goyer?
WhatTheActualMark why not WB to begin with
As all the baby cucks then turn and cry after watching justice league and wanting the Snyder cut
Such a good channel man, honestly really good. keep it up :)
Had to revisit this essay after seeing WW and WB/DC seems to finally have gotten their first well rounded character through the gates with her! I'm very pleased with the film overall and it's quite refreshing on multiple levels. To quote The Collector "1 down, 5 to go." LOL
And then, Justice League happened.
@@MrGlenbw then Aquaman happened you fucking hater
Been watching your videos and want to start off and say great job on the videos man!
For this video though, I believe that the characters do have character arcs.
MOS - Clark in the beginning of the movie (and in flashbacks) is shown to be "lost" and not really knowing what to do (as stated in the movie: travelling from place to place and he only helps people if it is pretty much right in front of him like the school bus or oil station as he isn't actively looking to help people). He pretty much is a loner trying to find out his past and understand what his is supposed to do. His "father" tells him that he needs to hide his powers as people will not accept him and will fear him BUT he makes a CHOICE to reveal himself to the world and SURRENDER himself to zod in order to protect a world he is not even from. That is one choice he makes and from then on he chooses to actively look out for the entire world's population and CHOOSE to condemn his own species (kryptonians) to extinction in order to save humanity. Lastly, his final choice is condemning himself and murdering someone (something he did not want to do) in order to save a family.
So he started off as a loner and hides himself from the world and does not really care about humanity UNLESS it is directly in front of him (not actively saving people all over the world) and ends off the movie choosing to be a hero for humanity (takes a job at a daily planet so that he can hear about possible events he can help save people and etc.) and basically reveals himself to the world and understanding that is what he wants/should be: a hero.
BVS:
Clark - living up to his choice from MOS and being that hero for the world in the beginning of the movie BUT the world is not accepting him and even hates him (that sequence when he is saving people with all the news anchors talking about superman). This leads to clark choosing to attend a political hearing in order to explain himself (and that the Africa scene was not even him) and hopefully make the people of the world understand that he is just trying to help everyone. BUT there is a bombing which clark believes he should have seen but didn't and so he CHOOSES to leave completely and basically gives up. he then has that scene with his dad and realizes that no matter how hard he tries to save everybody there will always be more he could have done and people will always hate him for that (basically it will never be enough). then at the end he even says "this is my world" completely committing and even sacrificing himself for humanity which leads to the WORLD finally accepting him as a hero (which i think from justice league and on we will see the traditional superman which is loved by the world and he is more happy).
Bruce has the biggest character arc - he begins the movie as this tired and stubborn old man who has seen and figured out that people are not good. He believes there are no more good men left and that anyone with power should be "put to bed" and that is why he has no problems killing. add this to superman (basically a god to eyes of humans) comes to earth and causes thousands to die and he becomes angry and believes he needs to kill superman before superman turns bad and kills more people. He doesn't care to talk to him or find out more about him, he believes that he is absolutely right in this and is so driven by rage and powerlessness that he needs to do this. then by the end of the movie he understands that "men are still good" and that they may have their problems and such but there is still hope and superman gave him this hope again.
Your analysis is exactly how I felt. I loved the character arcs in MoS and BvS.
And people don't realise that it is unreasonable to expect a cheerful and boyscout Superman on just two movies. I really really liked the ambitions of Snyder. MoS and BvS were all about what would happen if you place a god-like power bearing alien in the real world. The promotional comics preceding the BvS movies even mentions Superman not getting involved in conflict areas of international political interests but in the movie he has to inorder to save Lois.
Also I absolutely loved the TV discussions in BvS. Jon Stewart, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Anderson Cooper! And what they were saying was so relevant. If Superman had been real, we would actually be discussing these exact topics in TV. This is one aspect of the movie that is underappreciated, I feel.
And coming to Batman, this was clearly a Batman who is tired, old, existential and nihilistic. And ofcourse he is. Despite all his efforts, crime never stops. Add to that Robin is dead. He is emotionally unstable and far from the perfect Batman from grant Morrison's comics. And I loved it. I love to see directors showing their own interpretations.
But I agree BvS's story could have been better (especially Lex Junior's plots) .
Still I don't think it deserved the amount of hate it got.
I hope WB let the directors' ambition fly and keep making unconventional superhero movie ( I didn't like Suicide Squad. it was pretty conventional. it should have been more grounded), especially movies like MoS and BvS where it actually feels like the characters are in the real world.
It's not that they don't have arcs(that much i'll agree with) it is just that they don't really work all that well with the movie they're in.
Hey thanks a lot. I totally agree and am a Superman fan. It's time someone actually illuminated this problem and I hope Zack watched this video.
Daniel Ndegwa dont hold your breath
The storytelling and character development in Man of Steel was solid and on point ..
John Wonder no it wasn’t, there was no character development. He started out and ended in the same spot
@@rolandngom5080 You Are wrong ...there was great character development and started off one way and ended different which was prepared for the next step for BVS
There is no character problem...zero.....
This video was posted in January 2017. Little did patrick know that 10 months later, the DCEU's problem would get even worse with that terrible Justice League movie.
Great analysis, I really enjoy yr videos..
“Brie Larson should have smiled more as captain marvel!!!!”
Superman literally all the time - -______-
What do you mean? Superman smiled many times in MoS.
Did u really just compare captain marvel with superman...
Great analysis. But, I still really like Man of Steel. I just do. 🤷♂️
The only two videos seen from you have been your video essays. It is the reason I am looking over the rest of them. Can't say I will stick around if there are going to be your only two. A shame I thought in info in both was great.
There are seven video essays so far. There are just two on comic book movies.
Can't wait to see your Wonder Woman review! I feel like they finally made progress in some of these areas and it's the most compelling DC film so far.
Superman is motivated because he wants to give back to the race that saved him and raised him. He sees love in every person. “Love them Clark, the way we loved you” literally his motivation
@@youtubeviolatedme7123 thank you, hope that law suit against RUclips goes your way
The other day I was thinking about Superman in the DCEU and I realize what one of the core problems is. A lot of people here in the comments are saying "In Batman V Superman he tells Lois "You are my world" so he loves Lois and Lois represents humanity for him, and that's why he saves people"; neat idea, sure, but what about that? I mean, in Classic Superman, he grows up the way he does because that's how he is raised, but in MOS he is raised to care more for himself than for other people. Okay, so the idea will be that loving Lois is what will tie him to humanity and make him want to save people. Fine idea, but again, what about that? What is it about Lois that represents all of humanity? What does he love about her? Why does she represent humanity? What is the point? There's no point in brooding out "themes" and "ideas" if you don't develop them, and this is, I think, the prime example.
It’s sad that these movies have such a perfect cast (for the most part) yet pretty much all of them are wasted especially Henry Cavil and Ben Affleck they are such perfect picks for Superman and Batman yet it hardly even feels like they’re playing Superman and Batman
6:24
My interpretation was that super man does make choices that define him. He was forced to kill zod, one of his own kind to save others. And he essentially sacrificed himself at the end of BVS despite the fact that most of the world hated, showing that he still cares for people despite their hatred of him. But then I could be wrong. Similar to literature is about interpretations.
No that’s basically what Superman’s arc was.
I'm glad you balanced the scale a bit. It's rare to find someone who will admit that both sides have both good and bad attributes. I prefer Marvel's movies, but if DC was able to create strong characters I might like them more, since I grew up more with the DC characters than the marvel ones.
This is some well thought out shit. You earned yourself a sub.
I love your work mate, keep it up :)
Best video of 2017!!!! Were can I donate money to this channel?
Good Video as always.
Wondering how you feel about Logan coming out soon.
It looks good! I'm bummed Cliff Martinez isn't doing the music anymore, though.
Patrick (H) Willems Yeah me too.
Im also sad to see Patrick Stewart leave the roll of Prof X.
But the idea of Jackman maybe coming back for deadpool 3 is fun.
Rothur Nah. We finally have a finale for the classic(? I don't know what else to call them) X-Men films, and especially for wolverine. It's an end of the line story. If he shows up after, that defeats the purpose of the finale, especially if it's only for a silly deadpool role.
benspreciouslittlelife what?
Logan's gay?
in MOS, he does have a life-defining choices. He chooses to turn himself into the humans instead of Zod. Also, Zod offers to let Kal-El join him in rebuilding Krypton which he refuses because it would destroy mankind.
DONT STOP
these videos are geniou!
Good video man, lots of great points. You've earned a new subscriber. Also, I was thinking as I was watching this that you should collaborate with Lessons From the Screenplay. Have you ever considered that?
I have to say it: Pa Kent never tells Clark to let people die. He simply says “maybe”. He doesn’t know, and neither does Clark. The point is that it’s up to Clark to decide how to use his powers, and nobody else can choose for him.
And that makes him an unlikable John Kent. It’s children in a bus that almost died. There’s no maybe.
@@TheShockVox exactly, it shouldn't be a question.
"maybe" is not in any way a good response to "should I let a bus full school children drown". It's really one of those things that has exactly one right answer. Also it's just out of character for pa Kent.
This video deserves a follow up in the future.
I am not a filmmaker, but I enjoy your videos so much. I write. Maybe that makes me a writer. I write short stories and, these days, I am pulling out my first novel. Your videos are about the way to craft well told stories. And they help me through my writing. You are one of the youtubers I look up to the most. And, besides, listening to you has made me enjoy cinema much more. Thanks. All the way from Mexico, thanks
I agree with you on this, like for real you're right.
Idk if it's the same but it's true that it's really cool how such events become turning points and stuff like that. Most awesome ones that I can think of is of Captain America : Civil War, where the avengers were torn into two. When that happened people can find answers and thinking why each character choose this side and why are they fighting and thats really cool! Like I understand what motivates Tony (Iron man) wanted to sign so badly because of not only his past of shutting down distribution of stark industries weapons (something like that) but also of what happened to Ultron that he made (even though it was ant-man) and resulted alot of conflicts not only to Sokovia? (i think) but also to few others places like Wokanda (resulted more political threat for vibranium shit and black panther t'challa thingy and hulk went berserk I think? and further worsen at Civil War during the first few parts of it) also korea with the train thingy. Then we also get to know why Steve doesn't want to sign because of his belief and experiences, his ideology is more realistic while Tony's already corrupted as by the events that already happened, he even created a monster by just his action during Iron Man 3, not the mandarin but the fire boiiss.
In DC characters I see less of that, like sure Batman wants to kill Superman because of what he did to the wayne building but shit he could think more rationally like wtf thats an alien shit and stuff. While Superman... idk hes like a mindless being that just helps.
9:10 i think that was the enchantress character messing with his mind again as she did before hand.
This video is spot on. Well said.
I fully agree with this video. As a true lover of good films, I know what Patrick is trying to tell here: what he is basically saying is that there must be two 'conduits' that must fit each other together to make a character arc work (let's just say that these two conduits are 'tell' and 'show' e.g.). The 'tell' elements are contexts and/or characteristics that are analyzed based on how the main characters expresses in their own voice and what supporting characters see in and/or relate to a key character while the 'show' elements are actions that are taken by the key character who is influenced by sense of morality, choice and/or situation created by the environment they are living in and/or supporting characters who also have experienced the same burden as the main players, allowing them to grow and learn from their personal perception. Connecting the dots between the two conduits, you actually form a 'something' (you can't see it but you can actually feel it via your strong emotional, RELATABLE connection to a particular character): a 'core' that clearly define who this person is. That is why Man of Steel doesn't work well for me due to the fact that the two conduits do not fit each other (a recurring problem I keep facing in most DCEU movies, except Wonder Woman): what the 'tell' elements try to say to the audience (Pa Kent and Jor-El keeps telling Clark about how special this guy is, leading humankind to salvation, blah blah blah) often contradicts the arbitrary actions made by Superman (he bashes almost half of Smallville/Metropolis without considering the safety of civilians, which is strange considering that he seems determined to save them in the first act), creating a very confusing arc that tries to mean something but ultimately falls flat, emotionally and thematically.
Great video ı really starts to wonder your thoughts about Wonder Woman Patrick..
Another thing MCU does well above DCU is the casting. Their characters are ALIVE through their choice of actors/actresses. That is something Marvel has done that DC has not, arguably until Gadot was casted as WW.
Take the popular comparison between RDJ and Tony Stark for example. From the way he sits, speaks, walks, RDJ embodies every bit of Tony Stark, and the audience goes crazy for that. Hemsworth looks like Thor, and MCU even incorporates his Aussie sense of humor into the character. MCU even builds the new Spider-Man around Tom Holland, his young and fun spirits is incorporate into the creation of the new cinematic portrayal of an old character. Pratt brings his own funky humor into Starlord, and Renner is as sarcastic as Hawkeye. Now for those like Chris Evans, who is the opposite of Capt because he is light hearted while Capt is a hard ass, this actually works in Marvel's favor because this contrast makes audience likes Capt a little bit more. Many people who hated comic Capt for being a boring old man came to love Evans portrayal of him.
So in order for DCU to succeed, they need to be aware of the realistic connection between their cast and character. I see very positive changes in DCU w the casting of Gadot and Jason as Aquaman. Affleck, however, is mediocre casting because he doesn't have anything relatable to Batman (and no im not asking for him to have parents shot in an alley). Bale as Batman was amazing, because there is some connection between his obsessive dedication to method acting that is similar to Wayne. Henry Cavill is a bit lukewarm just like his Superman. He just looks like a typical hot man who looks good in a cape.
Well I know this was long to read, but if you made it to here, feel free to leave your opinions. I'm opened to intelligent discussion, not fans who can't take criticisms.
Totally agree with you. The thing is RDJ IS Tony Stark even outside of screen. They couldn't have gone better than him as an actor. I read somewhere that Chris Evens didn't want to play Captain America at first but RDJ convinced him. Chris is more close to his character as human torch in real life than Captain America but MCU casting team wanted him because they saw the potential. I think they were going for exactly what you say they did. Fun in realo life but can look serious on screen with a portion of that fun spirit. When they were casting, Tom Hindlestan and Sebastian Stan auditioned for Thor and Captain respectively. But Feige wanted them for different characters. Loki and Winter Soldier. They have this way of seeing the best potential of actors. Most of them before getting casted IN MCU are relative nobodies and make them A- listers. DCEU needs actors like that who actually cares about DC their characters and the future of the cinematic universe. Not people like Affleck who looks like they'd rather be anywhere else than here in the movie and during promotion.
The problem in DC is not necessarily the casting, but the writing. The MCU actually bends their writing to their actors, but DC does a poor job, probably because they are too keen to preach their message about god killing and objectivism.
Superman's huge choice comes in his first heroic act! It's not an action scene. He surrenders himself to Zod for the safety of mankind.
Also, you have to place the same complaints on the Reeeves superman. He doesn't have an arc. He goes in to the cave of solitude for 2 minutes- they play a montage, and when he comes out, he is perfect superman.
My biggest issue with them (specifically BvS) was that the characters all seemed to act as the plot needed them to and not as I would expect them to act...