I just don't see the point in taking multiple films to establish that Superman is a optimistic hero who does good things for the betterment of mankind.
But, that was already established in MoS. the only difference is that Clark is new, a rookie, inexperienced. An older and more experienced Clark may have been able to stop Zod without the destruction of Metropolis... who knows? The early flashback scenes (and multiple of the modern day scenes) showed Clark to be selfless and optimistic about humanity (hence his desire to choose humanity over his native Kryptonians). We already have that hero. The only difference is how the world perceives him, and given MoS was his first appearance on the world stage, it's to be expected that the world would react in different ways (illustrated by the talking heads voice overs at the beginning of the trailer, something lifted directly from The Dark Knight Returns).
I see MoS as a symbolic of Clark's acceptance of Earth and humanity as his home to protect, whereas Batman v Superman hopefully addresses the world's acceptance of Superman as the world's savior (or at least viewed that way). Least I'm hoping it goes that route. That sets up the more established and beloved Superman known from the comics.
While your crack about Transformers is accurate, lets not act like Man of Steel was beloved. The response was fairly tepid, as has been the response to this trailer. WB and some fans seem to think that the audience will just come out in droves to see the DC movies. I'm not sure that's the case. I'm sure they do for this movie, in nothing else because it's Batman and Superman in a live action movie for the first time, and that the opening weekend will be huge. Whatever happens after that will depend on the quality of this movie. If it's bad, I can very easily see people giving up on Justice League. I'm not saying that WB should base everything they do on Marvel, but Marvel is there and they have established a hugely successful movie universe. DC is the new kid in town. If they aren't hot out of the gate (which they haven't been so far), the consumer has an already established alternative that is churning out fun, quality movies that people seem to love.
I'm not acting like MoS's response was critical acclaim. I'm merely addressing the criticisms leveled at it. Some are MORE than fair and accurate... others simply aren't.
But my crack about the Transformers films does illustrate my point: there's a large audience for horrible films out there as long as they involve lots of CGI and explosions. I'm not saying that's a good thing, it's certainly not, and can and sometimes does result in half-assed, shallow approaches to properties (some of which MoS was certainly guilty of). I'm hoping that doesn't happen with the DC films, but it may.
All I'm saying is I doubt those potentially horrible films will tank at the box office no matter what. I promise you, no matter if Batman v Superman sucks, people will still be lining up in droves to see Justice League (whether it's due to hope for it being better than BvS, apathy about quality, or whatever). That's the likely reality.
But my point was that all of his actions are based on what Pa Kent and Jor-El tell him to do.
But, it's not. At least not in the MoS film. For one, we're never shown a scene where Jonathan inspires Clark to save others. In fact, almost the opposite: we see Jonathan scolding Clark for displaying his abilities while saving his fellow students. Clark did that on his own.
And he didn't even know of Jor-El at that point, so...
The comics are a different story.
Sure, he saves the bus, but he would have been a monster not to.
That's a gross oversimplification.
I'm not the audience should consider that a feather in his hat.
I'm of the opinion going out of your way to save lives--no matter the circumstances--usually qualifies for a feather in their hat.
After that he kind of wanders aimlessly around the world (and yes, he helps some people in the process)
Nope. He wanders around the world (not aimlessly) trying to find his place in the world. It's something everyone experiences at some point. Not sure why it's beyond belief an alien being capable of amazing things who doesn't understand his powers, their origins, or what they make him would need some time for self reflection after his father's death (a death he could have prevented but was asked not to by Johnathan, for Clark's own protection). Clark learned an invaluable lesson in self sacrifice on that day, one that would shape even his early battle against Zod.
until he ultimately dons the Superman outfit at the behest of Jor-El's recording on the scout ship. I'm not 100% on the details since I haven't seen the movie in a while, but I believe that's how it went down.
Sort of. Again, grossly oversimplified.
As for Pa Kent telling Clark not to expose his powers, I actually don't have a problem with that. As you said, he's a parent and that's a reasonable concern. I do have a problem with Clark listening to that advice though.
You have a problem with a kid following their parent's advice/rules? Clark wasn't the rebellious type, really. And Clark also listened to the advice Jonathan gave about essentially finding himself (the entire "maybe" response by Jonathan to Clark's question of just "letting them die" I took to be Jonathan trying to instill the right thing in Clark while letting him make up his own mind.
Again, his path to becoming Superman is dictated by one of this fathers. It just strikes me as more interesting and dramatic if Clark himself decides to become Superman, especially if Pa Kent isn't completely behind the idea.
But again, you're misremembering the movie. At NO point do Jor-El or Jonathan influence Clark to become a superhero. Jonathan is protective, as all parents are, and Jor-El is more clinical, while also protective. He sent Kal-El here because he's be naturally protected by our yellow sun. It's arguable he also sent Kal as a savior/messiah figure for humanity (given the "join you in the sun" monologue). But he never lays out for Clark that's what he should do or dictate it in any way, forcefully, manipulatively, etc. Not the case.
I agree that the dark tone is intentional, but I disagree in that I don't think it's meant to serve any narrative purpose. I honestly just think it's the look of the DC movie universe because Snyder seems to be at the wheel and he loves dark, gritty stuff, and maybe as a way to consciously differentiate this comic book universe from Marvel's. There's really nothing that leads me to believe that they plan on moving past this at some point. Time will tell, but I just think this is the tone that they've landed on for all of their movies. Has Zach Snyder ever made a movie that didn't have a dark, gritty look and feel? I don't expect him to start once he makes Justice League in a few years.
And that's fair. It may not serve any narrative purpose. We'll have to wait and see.
I think that's something else entirely. Harry Potter had the benefit of being adaptations of a hugely successful book series. I'm not sure how much of their ever increasing success was due to tone, and how much of that was just because beloved movie franchises tend to gross more and more, especially as they near the end of the story. More importantly, the progressive darkness of the films served a purpose. It represented the growing threat and power of Voldemort and the Death Eaters as they gained more and more support. As I've already touched on, I don't really think there's a reason for the doom and gloom of Man of Steel and Batman v. Superman other than that's just what Snyder likes.
Again, that's fair.
It seems to me that there is a real pendulum swing back towards fun action movies. The success of the entire Marvel cinematic universe is this, as is the recent success of teh Fast and the Furious franchise. Now, I have no way of proving that (it's just my hunch), but I think it' s the case.
That, to me, would indicate DC/WB are trying not to fit into that mold. I'd applaud them at least for not taking the popular bandwagon approach.
Clark never forced Zod to come to earth, but Zod came to earth because of Clark. Even if it was completely unintentional on Clark's part, he's the reason why Zod came to the planet. I believe that's exactly how the plot went. So, while I'm not saying that you should blame Superman, I don't think you can necessarily say that Superman beating Zod was him solving some issue that had always been there. Metropolis would have been better at the end of Man of Steel if Clark had never put on the cape.
Maybe in the short term. Absolutely NOT in the long term.
I think they like that tone when it's done right. Man of Steel did solid box office numbers, but it wasn't a smash hit. Guardians of the Galaxy did better and it had next to no name recognition before it, and had no real stars. Man of Steel was about one of the most iconic characters of all time. Regardless of box office numbers, I think the common perception of Man of Steel is that it was lackluster. It came and it went. That's fine for most movies, but not when that movie is trying to launch a multi-franchise film universe, but I digress. WB could very well be using a dark and gritty tone because of the success they've had in the past with those sorts of movies (the Nolan Batman films especially). If that's the case though, I think it's a mistake. Those Batman movies were successful because they were well made and that tone works for Batman.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the grimdark stuff is worthwhile. I'd prefer they take a more balanced approach and give each individual character's solo films their own tones. Batman should be dark and gritty, Superman should be considerably lighter in tone. I'm hoping by Justice League we'll have that Clark (and I like the idea of a couple films serving as an arc to get him to that point in his personality.
I realize that this is probably meant to be mainly a joke, but really don't see why we should assume that they couldn't do a more faithful adaption of his classic costume for the big screen. Is Aquaman's costume really THAT much more ridiculous looking than Captain America's? Than Thor's? I don't really think so.
No, it absolutely is. Do you really think the costume designers didn't start approaching it by making it something close to the comic version? You know why they passed on it? Because it looks ridiculous, and no combination of lighting and shot framing makes it look better.
They certainly don't have to go for a straight page to screen transfer, but if they wanted to they could put something on screen that looked much closer to Aquaman's classic look. He's King of Atlantis? How about some gold scalemail? You're halfway there.
That would work, and isn't that different from what his armor looks like now in the film universe. Besides, keep in mind this is likely a preliminary costume for his cameo in Batman v Superman. I have a feeling he may have a different costume or second costume in Justice League, perhaps even closer to the classic look (how they'll pull that off I don't know).
I'm not even saying that what they decided to do with Aquaman's costume is horrible. It could look fine. I understand the desire to change the look, even if I don't agree with it or think that it's the best approach. The thing about the Aquaman costume that makes me think he'll be just as dark and depressing as all of their characters seem to be, is the way it was presented in that photo. It just looks joyless and not at all fun.
Again, it's one pic. If Momoa spends all his screen time brooding and frowning then you'll have a point. But it's one picture.
