Batman v. Superman: The stupidest argument of all time

Apparently, you have to have qualifications before you can criticize movie trailers now.  You can't just chalk it up to taste anymore.  You have to prove your impartiality before you can speak on movies now.  I don't know where this shit started, but it really needs to stop.  The Batman v. Superman trailer was leaked over the weekend, and naturally, some folks didn't like it, but folks got mad when they dared express that online.  Like, more than usual.

We're talking about a movie trailer about a fictitious alien that wants to be friends fighting a fictitious rich guy with an inability to let go of the past.  It sounds like the plot to a Pixar movie, but people were acting like they were investigating a murder, trying to figure out the motives of people who didn't like it.  This isn't exactly serious scholarship here.  Taking on critics of this movie trailer isn't going to get you a job at The Atlantic.

It just blows my hair back when people get this serious over fictional characters, as if it's going to make a bit of difference either way.  Instead of people just enjoying the fact that we're all nerds, people are out here acting like people who didn't like it are going to block off the theaters in an act of censorship.  People are actually drawing conclusions about the characters of real, living people based on what they thought about a movie trailer.  Because, as we know, movie trailers are the modern iteration of Rorschach tests.

And the thing is, I don't think people defending the trailer really understand where the problem is coming from.  People aren't loving the way this movie is turning out (and the one before it) because it continues the Batman-ization of the DC Universe, and it was something that a lot of people could see coming after The Dark Knight came out.

See, Batman is grim and gritty.  He's tormented.  He wreaks vengeance on those who wronged him so that others don't have to suffer like he did.  Basically, this dude is broken inside and uses that to punch criminals until they're broken like him.  That formula for a superhero made Warner Bros. a billion dollars.  And because movie executives are generally unimaginative, they said, "Hey, Superman is having trouble.  Why not make him like Batman?"  You know, completely ignoring the context surrounding Superman's movies.

I mean, the problem with Superman Returns wasn't that Superman isn't tormented, it's that it was two and a half hours of washing Richard Donner's balls.  But who has time for a true examination of the issues?

And that's why Man of Steel is the way it is.  That's why Superman is morose, everything is dimly lit, and there's no sense of joy or fun in a single frame of the movie.  That's why Superman doesn't save anyone.  Superman lives in Batman's world now, and in Batman's world, you need to learn that life is shit.  

Except that's not the world Superman lives in.  Superman is supposed to represent all of those good things.  He tries to save people before he punches people.  He's supposed to inspire people to be good and do better.  He always tries to de-escalate the situation, even though he's powerful enough to turn the person in front of him into a fine, red mist.  That's what makes him Superman.  Of course he can kill everyone on Earth, but he doesn't want to.  He wants to show us a better way.  Even if he's existing in Batman's dark, depressing, basement of a world, at the very least, he needs to be that.  He wasn't, and right there is the difference in opinion on Man of Steel.

Superman fans didn't need for Superman to change.  Batman fans needed for Superman to change.  And Batman fans loved that movie.

That's why some people weren't excited to see the Batman v. Superman trailer, because they're worried that it's gonna be more of the same: A Superman that Superman fans don't recognize. And there's a huge possibility of that if the movie is based on "The Dark Knight Returns," a story that paints Superman as a government-owned bitch.  The only people who want to see that are Batman fans.  It has nothing to do with a secret love for Marvel or an inability to let go of the Donner Superman movies or any other of the silly shit I've seen thrown out there this weekend.  Maybe it just doesn't look that good to some people.  We're talking about art, not an arms treaty.

We won't know for sure until the movie gets released, but in the meantime, dial back the hostility.  We're all allowed to have opinions, and none of us need to justify them to you.

I Can't Believe I Rented It - Man of Steel

It's damn near impossible for me to talk about "Man of Steel" on the level that I want to without giving away spoilers.  I won't say if it's good or bad, because my friends say that I don't like anything, and I'm a harsh critic.  I'll just say, it's not unterrible, and I'm not even 100% sure what that means.  I didn't hate it, but I didn't love it, either.  I can say this, it's better than "Superman Returns," but that's not hard to do unless you're making "X-Men 3." But here's a quick, spoiler-free rundown of the movie.

1. Superman doesn't have taco meat.  Seriously, someone could have run the clippers over his chest before he put on the suit.

2. Lois Lane is no longer the dumbest investigative reporter on the planet.  I'll let you figure out what that means.

3. Also, she must have powers, too, because she somehow shows up everywhere Superman goes.  It's like she's Bruce Wayne after he gets out of that pit.

4.Y'know General Zod, if you had just gone next door and terraformed Mars, none of this would have ever happened.

5. People really shouldn't spend that much time saving themselves with a Superman flying around. 

6. It's like Superman is in a competition with Spider-Man to see who can ruin his own secret identity the fastest.

7. He throws punches this time. Unfortunately, for him, he isn't very good at it or most things.  As a result...

8. They beat the brakes off of Superman.  Seriously, they curbstomped his ass.  Rocky style.

"Man of Steel" does have some decent moments.  But they're surrounded by a bunch of changes to the Superman mythos that are either unnecessary or illogical.  And the movie never seems to be building towards anything.  But I guess that's just the hater talking.  The filmmakers seemed to be more concerned about making Superman relatable than making him super.  He's got all kinds of angst about being an outsider, so he's Emo Superman this time around, which I guess is a step up from Deadbeat Stalker Superman.

The movie was darker than the usual Superman movie, and felt like it should have been a sequel.  There are some emotional moments for the characters that would have had more weight if there had been a first part.  I guess they felt like they could get away with not building relationships between the characters, because we all know most of them and have a pretty good idea of how they would act.  But at the same time, they acted like they wanted to throw out the rule book and have a brand new Superman. 

To put it in nerd terms, they wanted to reboot "Star Wars," but throw on the ending of "The Empire Strikes Back."  That's the simplest way I can put it.

One thing they did do was make Jor-El interesting, for the first time ever.  I don't know why filmmakers keep holding onto Jor-El, because once he presses the button on the rocket, there really isn't any reason to ever bring him up again.  But he found his way into three Superman movies now, and multiple seasons of Smallville.  He still wasn't necessary, but there's stuff for him to do to justify paying Russell Crowe.  Jor-El was actually a human being in this, and has one of the best scenes in the movie.

The highest compliment I can pay to a movie is, "I can't wait to buy this on DVD."  For this one, I can wait.  It'll be on HBO sooner or later.  But it wasn't a bad flick.  It's just not a Superman flick, kinda like how "The Dark Knight Rises" wasn't really a Batman movie.  I guess that's why they called it "Man of Steel," so they can't get sued for false advertising.