Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 34:01 — 31.4MB) | Embed
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | RSS
NOT AN EPISODE
See MOSAIC Brief 0 for explanation.
Recorded on or before 11/30/17.
Not intended for publication.
The views expressed are unrefined and subject to amendment.
Edited solely for length, no additions or alterations.
Intro and outro music performed by The Mad Mass Revolution.
Web: ManOfSteelAnswers.com
Twitter: @mosanswers
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts / RSS / Stitcher / YouTube 
You raise an interesting point about getting angry at WB (the foster parent analogy). Because in reverse, people got angry at WB, and they tried to change based on that anger and guess what happened, everybody ended up losing. We lost, the angry people lost, and WB lost big.
This leads me to another issue I have with WB. In marketing there’s a very simple concept:
https://philosaccounting.com/a/rogers-innovation-adoption-curve/
Effectively WB changed their entire product to fit the ‘laggards’, people who were not on board and would never be on board unless the mass dictated they come on board as their lives are incentivised by readership, clicks, & subscribers. So instead of making a product for the early adopters (the DCEU core fanbase) they had no chance of jumping the chasm because it’s the early adopters who bridge that.
When they invited the laggards on set and showed them “hey, we’re making the movie you want, come see” the movie was always dead, and with it the DCEU died too.
Yeah, the people who want conformity would be the bullies, but I failed to mention another solution which is that you change the culture of the school so that the bullies recognize the value of the idiosyncratic kid… instead of waiting to find your people in the wider world. That’s hard / impossible for the friends to do, but someone with power and authority like the foster parent MIGHT be able to shift norms enough that their kid gets respected as-is.
That’s where I feel like the WB dropped the ball in terms of marketing. The fact is that MOS and BvS will be with us forever and certainly going into JL they dictated a lot of the conversation. I feel like the WB failed to take ownership, command, or control of that conversation and refused to be a voice in it. Say what you want about Disney, but they have their Star Wars message on lock down in terms of regular, elevated content prompting their perspective from respected creators, panelists, etc. to secure, assure, and create a fanbase.
The WB just remained embarrassed by MOS / BvS and just moved on as if they would never be a part of the conversation again, instead of trying to change the conversation. Fans hunger for meaning, value, and information. The WB could easily provide all of those things for pennies-on-the-dollar via YouTube, podcasts, etc. If they let all the guest stars from BvS talk about their experience, their philosophies, their expertise and how it tied to the film, that alone would elevate it. If they had literature or film scholars explain the film, people would eat it up… or even if they disagree or debate it, at least it’s a legitimate elevated debate between experts and not just subjective disdain or silent denial.
The WB could have easily rounded up comic book historians to show how BvS is consistent or pays homage, etc. to the comics as a whole. There is so much they could have done to change the conversation around the Snyder trilogy and an honest effort would have cost less than all the reshoots and reworking they had to do on JL. I’m not saying it would suddenly become to everyone’s taste, but at least they could understand the motives, choices, artistry, and intentions behind the approach and it would give people a different narrative about how to approach them… as respectable or ambitious instead of as failed attempts at the fun four-quadrant formula.
I really believe if WB had accepted and run with the art house approach shamelessly, they could have converted a respectable amount of the audience and critics because expectations are everything. Anyways, all that rambling is to say, I agree, the WB chased the wrong market with the wrong tools and the wrong film. Even BvS suffered from that some since it was marketed heavily as a throwdown and that was perhaps one of the smaller parts of the film. If it had been advertised as a thriller, I think people would have balked at the marketing, initially, but have been less critical of the film since the marketing was truer.
The first two trailers of BvS (Teaser and SDCC trailer) made a great representation of what’s to come. Pity.
I love, love, love your podcast and respect your analysis and opinion so much. But I have to say that, in this (very) rare instance, I am a “reasonable mind who differs”. I found Justice League to be a fantastic cinematic experience and an appropriate continuation to MOS and BVS. Again, this is just my opinion, but to me the three films connect much better as a trilogy than most would give them credit for. Don’t get me wrong, I do understand where you’re coming from, that the tone and characterization of the film, in particular Superman’s character, seems different and that could be interpreted as WB or Whedon stepping in and brightening things up, making them more traditional, so as to avoid the controversy of its predecessors in the trilogy. But Ezra Miller has stated that Zack Snyder’s vision was *always* to brighten up the tone and make the third film more optimistic, since as far back as he was hired to be a cameo as the Flash on BVS. They spoke about where Snyder was going with the films, and this was the plan even then. In addition, the entire cast has confirmed that Whedon’s involvement was minimal and the vast majority of the film belongs to Zack. Even the input that Whedon was responsible for had to cohere to Zack’s vision.
And to me, this makes sense actually. I understand why you and many might find it jarring, but after viewing BVS, this is what I envisioned too: that the deconstruction of that film would pave way for the RE-construction of the characters into their more “classic” comic book counterparts. Superman dies at the end of BVS with a sense of purpose, a peace that has come over him, as he realizes that Lois is his world and that he truly does belong to this world and have faith in it enough to sacrifice himself for it. So doesn’t it make sense, as part of his character arc, that once he’s resurrected, he would have a newfound sense of peace, joy, and optimism to his character? That he wouldn’t feel as solemn and confused about his place on this planet, and that he would have almost a spiritual resurrection as well? To me, one of the most beautiful aspects of JL is this arc, because it shows that even the most powerful man on Earth, a god-like figure, truly at his core is so happy to be living amongst mortals again after tasting his own mortality. “I really like being alive” may have been delivered as a sort of tongue-in-cheek joke, but I feel that it actually speaks to a much deeper, richer character arc than given credit for.
On a parallel note, Lex states, “I have too much to live for”, suggesting a similar path for Superman’s greatest foe: his resurrection has given Lex a newfound sense of purpose. Lex, like Superman, is behaving in a much more “classic” way akin to what we’re used to of the character in the comics (and I’m a HUGE fan of Jesse’s portrayal in BVS by the way) and his aesthetic now totally aligns with the traditional Lex Luthor.
Batman, by that same token, has been inspired to redeem himself after the dark path he was on in BVS, so the Bruce we see in JL is one of the most human, sympathetic, and humbled Bruce Waynes we have seen on the big screen.
I’m sure you being you have considered these aspects before and decided they just didn’t work for you, and that is totally fine. As you always say “reasonable minds” haha, but I thought I’d state my case for loving JL nonetheless!
My position isn’t a conceptual issue. At the end of Episode 57, I say, “The Heroes Journey, like an engagement ring, is expressed in an endless loop rather than an eternal line because we come around and around and face similar challenges again and again. This never-ending cycle means to bring Superman full circle… The departure from what you thought you knew helping to highlight, remind, and appreciate what you had taken for granted upon return. The filmmaker’s fixation on this journey and cycle makes it all-but-certain this was always the plan, always the intention, and always where we were going… and that only the short-sighted saw a short-segment of the circle and projected the path as a tangent flying off into the void never to return.”
There was basically 3 points of subtext to Episode 57: 1) Trying to enjoy JL is not an endorsement of sexual harassment (see “mercy” / “mixed” discussion); 2) Expect things to be more conventional (“full circle”, back to standard / classic / basics… “once taken for granted”); 3) Lower your expectations (“JL is not intended to satisfy your need for superhero stories for all time! . . . Like an engagement ring it isn’t the culmination of a relationship but a milestone with the promise of much more. When you watch Justice League, check your expectations on it being the end all be all superhero experience…”).
The shift was always anticipated (and part of the reason I really disdain the “Differences” rumor I’ve blogged about twice because it grossly misunderstands the film’s intentions in my opinion). My issue is with the lack of integrity and consistent vision, incongruities in approaches to character, narrative, humor, world-building, etc. Zack can (and does) still deliver on a shirt rip, but how you get there makes all the difference to me.
I suppose what I’m confused about (and if you don’t feel like getting into it, no explanation needed, simply curious) is if the shift in tone doesn’t bother you, what “incongruities” do you see in the characters, narrative, humor, and world-building? I see the characters in JL as an organic extension of the events of BVS, so that’s why I’m a bit perplexed by what you mean. I can understand what you mean as far as world-building, since MOS and BVS were all about world building and placing these fantastical characters in a semi-plausible world, whereas JL sort of takes the opposite approach and focuses on the characters themselves more than the actual world around them and “realism” gets pretty much abandoned. It’s just that to me, that much is to be expected in a JL movie, and it doesn’t necessarily mean that the stand-alone films will be robbed of their more nuanced approaches, so it wasn’t a qualm of mine. Again, reasonable minds and again simply curious 🙂