Script to DCEU Part 1

 AUDIO 1
 We are living a golden age and a dark age – the old quotation on the best of times and worst times but with something as unessential and, let's face it, silly as superhero movies. These films cost a hundreds of millions of dollars produce and hundreds of millions more to market – like a queen's ransom on top of a king's ransom. Hollywood re-centered its gaze to the stuff of comic books and ultra-tight spandex. The most important people are not movie stars anymore – they are characters. Franchise-able characters. Thor is a star. Chris Hemsworth stars in [12 Strong, In the Heart of the Sea, and Black Hat] January dumping ground movies that nobody sees or remembers. The comic book fans got everything they wanted: the movies, the attention, the respect, the lack of side-eye when wearing an Aquaman t-shirt in public. And yet, instead of being enthusiastic and thrilled with this unprecedented attention, some DC Comics fans are furious. Not at the movies – but at the critical  reaction to these movies. The biggest defenders of these movies, I will call them tribalists from here on in, for reasons that I promise will become clear. Marvel tribalists were largely happy with the critical and financial successes of their films. DC's tribalist culture progressed differently. If you tell a Marvel fan that The Incredible Hulk was mediocre or flat-out bad, they might grudgingly agree because it doesn't feel too harsh when said fans luxuriate in greater films in their chosen franchise.   
 But if you tell DC's tribalists that Batman v. Superman sucked, having few other options in their cinematic universe to fall back on as proof of its worth, they might react badly – calling you a “Disney schill” or “paid-off critic.” This is one part “tribalism” and one part broad misunderstanding of how film criticism works. That is the focus of this mini-series. Not a simple deconstruction of why most DCEU movies are bad but an examination of [bass voice] The Discourse and how fan culture shouts down genuine criticism and the emergence of hyperconsumerism, as well as an exploration of how discussing popular films has changed due to the advent of the Internet and intensification and mainstreaming of geek culture. This will, of course, need to happen side-by-side with a critique of these films, yes, but mainly as a means in which to show the bad counter-arguments to sincere criticism. Fans of big blockbuster franchises all have their ne'er do wells and bad fans, of course, but the DCEU tribalist culture is a wee bit different. [music stops] Due to all of its films (except Wonder Woman) being critically panned and widely derided by everyone who is not one of the aforementioned tribalists, [Wonder Woman blocking bullets with shield] the culture is always on the defensive. And defensiveness breeds an uncompromising attitude.   
 AUDIO 2
 Because giving an inch when you are on the defensive feels like giving up everything. [Krull/Masters of the Universe thing] Goals: #1: Discuss Societal Attitudes That Explain Both Admiration and Defense of DCEU #2: Explain What Is and Is Not Film Criticism #3: Discover the Difference, If Any, Between Fan Culture and Toxic Fan Culture. #4: Create an Honest Framework for Discussing the Authentic, Observable Problems with These Films Devoid of Said Toxicity. Not Goals #1: Make You Feel Bad About a Movie You Like. Criticism is NOT designed for the explicit purpose of shaming admirers of a piece of media but to help us question what we enjoy, the society that helped create it and the sub-culture it in turn created. If you are watching this because you want to hear someone dunk on DCEU, well, it's more my intent to explain genuine problems without much rancor. If you are watching because you want to hear someone dunk on DCEU FANS, you have definitely come to the wrong place. I'm here to help, not to shame. But if you are here because you suspect you are one of the aforementioned tribalists, bear in mind that this isn't really about...you. Because it's bigger than you because it is the studio that has manipulated you into feeling this way. Let's begin. [TITLE] In 2008, Warner Bros. listened to pitches from a number of comic book writers and screenwriters on a new Superman film. Ideas from Grant Morrison, Geoff Johns, Mark Waid and others were eventually shot down in favor of a concept pitched by Christopher Nolan based on something he and David S. Goyer once discussed.   
 Goyer was signed on to write, and much later, Zack Snyder came into the project that became Man of Steel. For anyone who is a watching a very long video about a movie without first watching the movie, first of all, why? Why would you do this thing? Second, here is a brief synopsis. Long ago on Krypton, Lara gives birth to Kal-El – our future Superman – which is unusual because Krypton does not do natural childbirth. The planet is about to explode, so General Zod takes control of the government, but it's too late, and Lara and Jor-El – Supe's daddy – send him to Earth. Over a series of flashbacks, we learn that Kal-El, now called Clark, grows up with super powers, and his adopted father wants him to conceal his powers even at the cost of letting people die. Clark disagrees because he is not made of stone. Superman discovers a Kryptonian ship and meets a hologram of his father who tells him about his past. After a Hamlet's ghost dad pow-wow, Superman becomes...Superman. Lois Lane tracks Superman down because it's a big scoop. General Zod and his minions come to Earth to get the “codex” – a record of Kryptonian DNA – so that Zod and company can restart Krypton on Earth. Turns out the codex was imprinted in Superman's cells, and Zod's gotta have it! Superman rips up Zod like Kal-El is Hulk Hogan and the General is a yellow tank top.   
 AUDIO 3
 Eight million punches and a triple 9/11 later, our big bad threatens to murder a few innocent people who could easily get out of the way. This is a bridge too far, and Superman snaps Zod's neck like a chicken bone. He is upset but tries not to let it show too much. [Clip: No!] Even after saving the world, the government still understandably wants to keep an eye on Superman, but the Man of Steel says no, and apparently that's something he can just do. … This is a bad movie. If you like it, I can't persuade you not to like it because liking something is often an emotional reaction more than a logical conclusion – but that's not why I'm here. I want to talk about its objective structural problems and the reasoning made by its tribalists to rationalize said problems. If you like this movie, that's a gut feeling that I probably can't change, but much like a pair of old schools that you personally find comfortable, Man of Steel visibly has a bunch of holes in it, and it is not useful to pretend they are not there.
 [RED] SCREENWRITING STRUCTURE   
 AUDIO 1
 Man of Steel features a great number of flashbacks. Throughout the main thread of the narrative – the present day tale of Superman learning who he is, Lois Lane tracking him down and General Zod's invasion of Earth – we see a lot of glimpses into Superman's past. Who he is, who his adoptive parents were, etc. They occur when someone says something that reminds Superman of past events. This movie Slumdog Millionaires all over the damn place. We have a J-Cut in the editing, which means the audio leads the cut, and then we are back in time with adolescent Superman. Example: [Clip of Superman saying Earth would reject him, at the graveyard] Now, one would assume that these flashback scenes would parallel what is happening in the scene that preceded it, but that is not actually the case. Some of it appears to be out of order and tells the story in such a way that the natural and necessary build of the narrative is cut down, removing tension. The flashbacks do not fit in thematically with what preceded it or followed it. Sorry, actually NOT Slumdog Millionaire. I'll show you what I mean. After the long prologue on Krypton, a pre-Superman Clark is working on a ship. An oil rig disaster threatens the lives of the workers, and he chooses to save them in spite of the fact that this reveals his superpowers to strangers.
 This undermines or even outright ruins the tension and the conflict of the rest of the first half of the movie. Will Clark Kent become Superman? Afterward, we begin to see flashbacks of Clark as a youth struggling with his emerging powers, but even more importantly, struggling with whether or not to use said powers to aid mankind. One such flashback has his adoptive father, Jonathan Kent, tell young Clark that he might have to let people die in order to keep his secret. Another flashback shows Clark being bullied and his father being proud of him for not fighting back and revealing his super strength. Another flashback shows Jonathan, faced with death, motioning for Clark not to save him because this would reveal his powers to strangers. A screenplay creates and removes tensions. Some tensions are short and exist within a few scenes and some tensions are related to a central question of the film. Whether or not Clark will become a hero who uses his powers to save people is the big question and the major point of tension in the first half of the movie...or it would be without this one scene. We begin with the revelation. We begin with a scene that undercuts the tension. During the prologue, Kal-El's mother fears her son will be rejected on Earth. Jor-El counters that they will see him as a god instead.
 AUDIO 2
 What will Clark do? Well, the first thing we see him do in the movie is get set on fire, display his super strength and save lots of people. The flashbacks happen in the wrong order. The flashback with Jonathan and Clark debating whether or not to use super powers means nothing to the tension because we already know what he is going to do. If the flashbacks happened in the right order, the tension will build and build, and THEN we would see the oil rig scene as Superman's revelation of who he must be. So, in the movie, when we see these flashbacks about whether or not he should fly around in a big red cape, it adds nothing to the tension or the rising action of the film. Now, in defense, some would claim that this is a Superman movie, and ultimately, he will help people and wear the suit. It's on all the posters. And that much is true, we know Superman will be Superman in a Superman movie. But that's not the point at all. Watching him slowly make that choice over the course of his life, building to it, one step forward, one step back, second-guessing himself before finally making the decision. It is this tension and this slow build that would make for a strong narrative.   
 But it is dashed when the first scene on Earth is Superman saving the workers on the oil rig and revealing himself. So, there is no tension or rising action in the traditional sense, and this robs the film of the catharsis of the protagonist's epiphany about who he must be. We will get into this more later, but one of the themes of the film is freedom to choose. This is set up on Krypton when we discover that Jor-El rebelled against everyone being born with a pre-determined occupation and goal in life. We immediately know the conclusion that the film wants to draw as it pertains to this theme with the scene on the oil rig being first. We get the solution before the problem. Now you might think that these flashbacks and non-chronological storytelling serve a greater purpose that nullifies this criticism. But what would that purpose be? In the 1978 Superman film, Clark's morality climax is when he chooses between what Jor-El wants – not to use his powers to change the course of history – and what Jonathan wants – the opposite of that. Superman makes a choice and changes human history.   
 AUDIO 3
 In Man of Steel, this flashback to teach Superman a lesson in morality never really comes into play. These flashbacks do not build to anything. They do not actually parallel what is happening in the present day storyline. The present day does not solve the questions posed in the flashback scenes or vice versa. We know this because the tension is immediately thwarted before it even begins. We also know this because the lessons learned in the flashbacks do not actually assist Superman in the present. This is not Slumdog Millionaire, in which the flashbacks help the protagonist solve the answers to the questions. Man of Steel's entire structure, the series of flashbacks, does not work. The flashbacks are also out of order, not chronologically, not formally. The flashback scene with the bullies belongs in concert with the present day scene with the bully trucker. In the flashback, Superman learns not to hit bullies. In the present, Clark does not hit the bully. That would be the best placement, but the movie does NOT do this.
 The scene with Jonathan telling young Clark to potentially let people die belongs immediately before the oil rig rescue scene. Again, that would be the best placement, but the movie does NOT do this. These would work if the flashbacks and present day scenes paralleled one another, but the placement is incorrect. The audio of the flashback scenes bleed into the present day, suggesting the flashback and what is happening immediately prior to it or immediately following it are related, but then it just...is not. The resolution of Clark deciding to help people at the risk of his secret happens at the wrong time. The OTHER instance of Clark deciding to be Superman – meaning giving up his secret and helping Earth – seems to happen as the point in the screenplay sometimes called the “Dark Night of the Soul.” The point in which the protagonist must make a choice about how to proceed. Will Superman sacrifice his secret and perhaps his life to save Earth? This almost works except the stakes are so high – the world being destroyed – that it nullifies his choice or at least the sacrifice aspect of that choice. If Superman does something about Zod, he may die and his secret may be revealed. But if he does nothing, Earth is destroyed, and he will die along with it. If the Earth is reduced to ashes, Superman will be killed as well. This is not the big Jesus moment the movie visually wants us to believe it is because his life is on the line as well if he does nothing.   
 AUDIO 4
 At this point in the movie, Zod has not offered Superman a chance to join him. If Zod tempted Superman BEFORE the Dark Night of the Soul, his inner conflict and hard choice would make sense. BUT it doesn't. So, this muddies the importance of this choice. It does not seem noble. It seems like he has been backed into a corner and has no real options yet. Also, at the end of the film, he still does not reveal who he is to humanity. He maintains his secret identity. The world is now only aware that there exists a Superman. Not that Clark Kent is Superman. And he can quit any time he wants now, which means he has not actually sacrificed anything or genuinely revealed himself. In short, Man of Steel sets up themes and narrative build that can only be resolved one way but does not follow through with that. [Memento] Not every movie needs its chronology in order, but because the whole narrative tension is about Clark deciding whether or not to be Superman, this movie does. Not every Superman movie needs to have Superman reveal himself, but because Superman and Jonathan Kent make such a revelation and the questions surrounding it the protagonist's internal conflict, this one does.   
 Another noticeable problem in the story structure of Man of Steel is how it attempts to portray Superman as the classic hero as explained by Joseph Campbell. The Hero's Journey or Monomyth works more or less like this. [Luke] We are presented with an Ordinary World or ordinary life with someone living in it. There is a call to adventure. Initially, the hero refuses the call for one reason or another. Not long thereafter, something happens that changes the hero's mind, and he accepts the call to adventure. This all happens within the first quarter of the story. To put this in screenplay terms, this all happens in the first act. In Man of Steel, most of the film is about the refusal of the call – one brief stop on the hero's journey. Superman does aforementioned superheroic things and shows his big beefy chest which ruins the tension about whether he will use his powers, but he never seeks them out. Things happen around him. Things happen...to him. Superman is not an active player in his own story. Now, not every movie needs to be a hero's journey or follow the monomyth, but this one does. It is literally a hero's journey. It is literally a superhero origin movie. It didn't have to follow the journey beat for beat – that might be too predictable – but it needed to work within this theory.   
 AUDIO 5
 If Star Wars used the Man of Steel method, Luke Skywalker would spend most of the film on Tattooine drinking blue milk, occasionally debating whether or not he should do something with his life and having flashbacks. Man of Steel does this, and it makes for a completely unengaging story. It strands itself on the island of the refusal of the call, and we, as the audience, are stuck there with a hero that is somehow not the hero of his own story. Because the hero is supposed to be the driving force behind what is happening. The driving force of Man of Steel is everything AROUND Superman. A bus crash. An oil rig explosion. An alien invasion. Superman becomes a reluctant hero. He never properly answers the call to adventure. Some reluctant heroes can work – especially if they are supporting characters and make a conscious decision to answer the call even when they don't have to. Superman MUST save the world because he is eventually given no choice by General Zod. It's Superman's world too. Superman spends most of the movie being completely passive. In fact, one could argue that he is still passive about his decision to reveal himself to the world at the end. Because he doesn't reveal himself to the world.   
 He reveals himself to the United States military, which is absolutely not an appropriate stand-in for “the world.” He also doesn't even fully reveal himself to said military because he continues to have an antagonistic relationship with them even at the end of the film. So, nothing is resolved. In a way, Superman is still refusing the call by the end of the film. His decision to become a journalist in the last couple minutes of the film is more decisive than his “decision” related to his heroics. There is an incredible dissonance between what the film says and what the film shows. Jor-El says that Superman will be the ideal human beings strive towards, that they will race behind him but eventually meet him in the sun. Except Superman never becomes active enough to be that ideal, and his actions are less than ideal. The film simply does not realize that. It frames Superman's punch-out with Zod as a triumph, when it is actually a disaster and makes Superman a killer. It frames Superman sacrificing his father as for the greater good even though it clearly is not, and he could have saved him in two seconds with minimal fallout for himself and his secret identity. There are, what, a dozen people there? [laughs] What the actual hell?
 AUDIO 6
 But back to the screenplay. Again, not every film needs to follow the hero's journey step by step, but it is a formula for a reason. Even beyond formula, it is theory. Not theory like a scientific theory, but academic theory, meaning something that frames a work in terms of history, interpretation, etc. Theory is taking – not rules – but a guideline of thought to make comparisons. Film theory as it relates to the three-act structure and where things...fall, basically...is comparing based on precedent. Applying film theory related to the three-act structure to Man of Steel, we see that it has a poor foundation compared to other films of its genre and other films that attempt to display similar stories. When screenwriters write for film, they might start by trying to “fit” their outline into the structure, or they might not, but in the end, they will probably come up with something that can at least be defined by this structure by accident. [Example] Even most non-linear and avant garde movies can be defined by the three-act structure. This means that this structure is not limiting. It is only a bit of film theory that we apply to movies to compare them either favorably or unfavorably to their contemporaries or analogues.   
 [Spanish Flea song] A three-act structure works like this: there are two sequences in Act I, four in Act II and two in Act III. Generally. Overlapping the hero's journey here, we are consciously stuck in the refusal of the call in Act I while narratively being propelled forward into Acts II and III. Psychologically, Superman is stuck in Act I while everything around him and also the audience is drifting through Acts II and III. Because of this, there is this bizarre incongruity about where we are throughout the entire film. Sequences create and relieve tension, and these tensions relate to the main tension of the film: Will Superman do...the thing? Except, as I said, the main tension of the film is relieved in Act I instead of much later in the film where it belongs. This creates ANOTHER bizarre incongruity throughout the entire film. In short, if you watched Man of Steel and thought something was amiss but couldn't quite explain it, THAT is why. The acts, sequences and tensions are supposed to help build the film, but they are arranged in such a way that they are not only ineffective but actively kneecap the film. Again, the problem is not that the flashbacks exist or that the movie is non-chronological. It is that the flashbacks are placed poorly and the rising action doesn't work. So, the defense by DCEU tribalists that Man of Steel is “good” because it's “different” does not hold up to scrutiny because it actually can be explained through the three-act structure.
 AUDIO 7
 It just follows it poorly and unevenly for all the reasons previously given, and because of this, it is unsatisfying to watch. One screenplay formula is not necessarily universally superior to others. It all depends on what kind of story you're trying to tell. In the case of Man of Steel, it is trying to tell the hero's journey and classic superhero origin story in three-acts, and I say it is TRYING to, but it is also failing to. Its prologue is long, its first act has no tension, its second act is passive, and its third act is loud, gray and unpleasant. Its interwoven flashbacks are demonstrably out of order, and our protagonist has so little to say that we do not get a sense of who he is outside of our [clips of earlier Superman shows] pre-existing ideas about Superman based on earlier properties. The screenplay went through a lot of re-writes, and frankly, it needed at least one more.  
 [BLUE] WHY DOES THIS PERSON KEEP SAYING “TRIBALISM” ANYWAY?
 AUDIO 1
 OK, before we go any further, we need to make some solid definitions. Tribalism is the state of being organized by tribes of lifestyles. Human evolution has occurred in small groups, which means humans naturally maintain a social network. Human evolution also prioritized fear of outsiders as a means of keeping us alive. So, it's natural for DC fans and Marvel fans to plant their flags in their favored franchise and see anything even resembling danger or opposition as the enemy – thereby becoming tribalists rather than admirers. The blind hand of evolution had found a simple and completely vicious solution to our survival. BUT this natural occurrence is also a malfunction. Tribalism is everywhere, protecting us by completely overriding reason, and in more dire cases than movie fandom, and pretty much anything else [Cold War] that could actually limit our chances of survival. And at the very same time, it's threatening us. I need to get super serious for a second. I promise it won't take long. Think about the history of the Catholic Church authorities abandoning their beliefs and forfeiting the safety of children by covering up and denying the existence of abuse by a number of priests. Tribe comes first. Reason and morals come second.  
  Refugees seek safety in America, but Americans don't see a refugee as “one of us” and so many are turned away. Tribalism. Tribe first. Morals seconds. We identify ourselves as members of all sorts of tribes. If you know someone is a murderer, the person who has this suspicion would probably alert someone to that fact, like the authorities, but if that murderer is your brother, that same person might keep that suspicion to himself because of...TRIBALISM. The fact that the murderer is someone's brother is irrelevant to his victims, but tribalism places such emphasis on “loyalty” that is bypasses judgment and morality. We even identify tribally just based on where we live. Go Yankees! Go Red Sox! Go United States World Cup team, if you're into that! Whatever. Now, this is some heavy stuff, and we're here to talk about super spandex movies, but we need to understand where these attitudes come from. Another example of tribalism is the polarized way we argue about issues, in this case, the quality of the DC Extended Universe or lack thereof. We ignorantly close our minds to views that conflict with our own because doing so is “disloyal” to our tribe.    
  AUDIO 2  
  Now, not all ideas are created equally. White supremacism is a form of tribalism, but people rejecting white supremacism is NOT tribalism. This is because of rejection of white supremacism comes from a pre-existing understanding of what white supremacists historically want to do – NOT because they're in another tribe. This is judgment based on evidence. Not tribalism.
  Our views are often shaped so they agree with the beliefs of the groups with which we most identify.  Research indicates that the more challenged our views are, the more we defend them. Remember when I said DCEU tribalists are distinct from many other geek fandoms because their franchise is critically panned? The more challenged the opinion, the more powerful its defense, and let's be real here, the more intense and TOXIC the defense. Not all people who like the DCEU movies (or just some of the DCEU movies) are tribalists, per se. Liking something does not necessarily mean your attitude about it will be so intense as to achieve that title. So, when I say “DCEU tribalist” here, I am referring to those who refuse to see or admit the obvious problems with these movies, who question the honesty of film critics who are just doing their jobs by claiming they are taking bribes, who question the “bias” or “objectivity” of both film critics and the average movie-goer as if there is some kind of conspiracy, and who and make other bizarre, erroneous claims about the discourse and criticism surrounding the DCEU.  
 Again, tribalism is NOT confined to fans of the recent Batman and Superman movies, but it is more pronounced than average in this case due to how widely derided these films are and how entrenched that makes its diehard fans. But even more than the critics and the fans, nobody gets the poison of the DCEU tribalists like Marvel Studios. To quote journalist Marc Bernardin, “Marvel vs. DC. Twenty years ago, it was just a discussion between nerds, nerds who had been collecting comics for decades and would hold imaginary bear vs. shark matches in bedrooms and dens — Batman vs. Iron Man, Deathstroke vs. The Punisher, Thor vs. Wonder Woman — while lamenting the fact that we'd never see those heroes on the big screen, not the way they should be. Stan Lee would refer to DC as the 'distinguished competition' in public, while likely saving the harsher language for behind closed doors, while editors gamed out how to steal market share.” Marvel vs. DC has always had tribalism among its fans, dating back to the days when they were known primarily through their comics and only a smattering of major motion pictures.    
  AUDIO 3  
  But this tribalism has intensified, partly due to how easily it has become to argue with each other. The Internet. The cause of and solution to all of our problems. [Friends/Windows clips] Not just that, but the movies exploded superheroes into the mainstream in such a way that even people who never read the comics or stopped reading the comics years ago could get in on the action. The fanbases grew bigger, but that also meant that the tribalists multiplied in vast numbers. A swell of new recruits in this completely avoidable war. Marvel fans were pretty happy. Iron Man was both a critical and financial success, and the seeds of an Avengers movie were planted on day one. DC fans had a wholly different experience. It was night and day. [Lex Luthor from BvS: “Day vs. Night...”] Shut UP, Lex! Like I said, if you tell a Marvel tribalist that Iron Man 2 wasn't as good as the original or some other criticism, they will probably agree and move on because there are so many other movies made by Marvel Studios that are so much better. But if you say Man of Steel was a goddamn mess, they have nothing to fall back on except Wonder Woman. In the comics, at least when I read them, DC was for proud, glorious superheroes with unshakeable morals and Marvel had more of an edge, more...grit.    
  In the movies, the tone is different. It's the Marvel movies that are funny and have the world's greatest human being, and it's the DC movies that go for darkness and edginess. Yet, these same DC fans who loved DC Comics for what they were claim they love the DCEU movies for the opposite reason. They make claims that they ALWAYS loved a harder edge even while previously reading Plastic Man and Booster Gold. This can't be true, so the culprit to this dishonesty is...say it with me now...TRIBALISM. [yay] Now, some people love the DCEU for authentic reasons, and it would be disingenuous and unhelpful to claim otherwise. I have some respect for the Wonder Woman movie, and I am personally looking forward to Shazam. Wonder Woman, for whatever reason, resonated with me, and for some, the DCEU in general resonates with them and does NOT cause fractious fighting and pointless sniping between studios. There is nothing wrong with loving a movie or series of movies, and I want that to be clear because the sarcastic, bad faith argument of “Oh, you we're not allowed to LIKE something now?” is unhelpful, and I would prefer to avoid that.    
  AUDIO 4  
  Nothing is more transparent than arguing against a point that someone is NOT actually making. I am not looking down on people for enjoying a movie, but the issue of tribalism – which is different – and how it affects the discourse surrounding media and its impact on culture is not something to be ignored. Some people don't love DC because of its tone. They love it because it's DC, and that's their tribe. See, tribalism is a double-edged sword. One side makes you feel at home with people, makes you feel part of something. It's warm and inviting. On the other side, there is a sharp cut for anyone who is not part of the tribe. When fans insist that everyone love what they love, it bypasses the borders of fandom and reaches tribalism. It ruins the discourse about movies on social media, and it ruins the minds of those who consume media because it narrows their interests. Media is often our window into the world outside of our own limited experiences. If our media interests are narrows, so, too, is our worldview and our attitudes about others.
 [RED] THEMATIC DISSONANCE
 AUDIO 1
 Throughout Man of Steel, Jor-El, either in flesh form or digital ghost form, extols the virtues of personal choice. See, on Krypton, long ago, the inhabitants decided that sex just wasn't for them – it's ICKY -- and they started growing their own children. These new Kryptonians would not be subject to the same random chance of skills and ambitions as other people. They are grown to have specific jobs and specific desires to perform said jobs. The reason General Zod is laser-focused on protecting Krypton, even at the expense of Earth and even after Krypton became space dust is because he was born that way. He was built to be a soldier whose singular goal is the protection of Krypton, a desire that lasts long after the destruction of the planet. Jor-El was bred to be a scientist so good and so sciency that he determines that Krypton is doomed, and even though he obviously knows what he is talking about because he was bred to do that very thing, nobody listens to him. The Kryptonian politicians with World Series trophies on their heads were bred to be politicians, so that probably means they received the gene that ignores good advice.
 Lara gives birth to big blue the old fashioned way, something that is forbidden on Krypton. Jor tells Zod about this and about the importance of having a choice in who you become and what you will do with your life. When Jor-El's computer consciousness speaks to Superman, he tells his son about all of this and how choosing your own destiny is the truth to a fuller, richer life. For those who skipping high school literature class, this is a “theme” in the narrative: a topic that the text examines. A theme in a book or a movie is what the work is “about.” In Man of Steel, the central theme seems to be personal choice in who we become. Jor-El sees a society revolving around no choices, changes it, and then his son spends the whole movie deciding whether or not to be the everloving Superman. Man of Steel is a story of excessive control over the ability to choose one's own path. It's not particularly novel – it's just an outgrowth of any protagonist's character arc. It's also the subject of any Disney princess song. You know the one in the beginning of the film where she sings about wanting more than what has been decided for her? Same thing. Superman is Ariel. He's an outsider on Earth who wants to [clip with text “part of your world.”]
 AUDIO 2
 Here's the thing. Jor-El says he is believes in these wacky new hippie concept called freedom of choice.  He says that Kal-El will forge his own destiny. His words. General Zod thinks that, if anything, Krypton had too many choices and the best way to [text] Make Krypton Great Again [/text] is to take out what he deems to be inferior bloodlines from the baby-making machines and the catalog of Kryptonian DNA called The Codex. In short, Man of Steel is a freedom vs. oppression narrative centered around the ability to create one's own path and choose one's own life – except that it also totally is not. See, a screenplay goes through several drafts before it is finished, and it generally has input from multiple people. David S. Goyer is credited as the sole screenwriter, but the story also comes from Christopher Nolan and probably had some input from director Zack Snyder and a bunch of other people, including uncredited script doctors. So, whether through a mistake by Goyer himself or because of so many cooks in the kitchen, Man of Steel has a thematic dissonance problem. A dissonance is a lack of harmony or a clash between two elements.   
 A contradiction of sorts. A thematic dissonance in a movie is a contradiction between what the film says is its theme – its topic, its purpose, or its lesson – and a contradiction in the narrative. After Jor-El tells his son, and by extension the audience, about the central topic of the film – choosing your own destiny – he tells his son that he needs to be Superman. He planned this all out for him. His job. His focus in life. He even MADE A SUIT FOR HIM. Jor-El says that people must forge their own path and then in the same breath tells Superman that he needs to be Earth's greatest hero, its shepherd, its Jesus, and he REALLY needs to do it while wearing this blue and red outfit with a cape. Jor-El has laid out his entire life for him in the same way that the Codex of Kryptonian DNA laid out the lives and occupations of Kryptonians. Now, technically, Superman could just say “No, thanks, Ghost Dad.” and walk away. After all, by the time they meet, Jor-El doesn't even have a body. That won't work, though. Jor-El messed with his son's DNA, an action he expressly is against, by the way, by infusing a copy of the Codex into his cells.   
 AUDIO 3
 That makes Superman solely responsible for the resurrection of the entire Kryptonian species. It's also why General Zod launches a world-killing assault on Earth, which only Superman is capable of stopping by being the goddamn Superman. So, Kal-El is free to choose his own path in life, but due to circumstances created by his father, including genetic manipulation of his own son, he really only has one choice. He can be Superman. In fact, he might have even less of a choice in what he can be than the average Kryptonian. This is thematic dissonance. The theme says one thing. The narrative displays another thing. It's an example of bad or at least inconsistent screenwriting. Imagine someone telling you the importance of non-violence WHILE strangling someone. That is thematic dissonance. Now, a little dissonance in a big story with tons of characters and ideas is normal. The Lord of the Rings has one part in which Gandalf teaches Frodo a lesson on being careful about dealing out death, but the main characters do end up solving all of Middle-Earth's problems with violence.   
 However, Gandalf's lesson is NOT that violence is NEVER the answer – only that we should be cautious and judicious about it. Also, it is never set up as the central theme of the story anyway. There is only dissonance in a superficial way, and it is not key to the story in the first place. In Man of Steel, oppressive lack of choice vs. personal choice is hammered into us from the very beginning, and like any good central theme, it reoccurs several times afterward. If you have ever heard a critic say that they don't think Man of Steel knew what it wanted to be, this is an example of why people think that. … But there is more than that. Freedom vs. oppression comes in the form of Jor-El's phony dream of Superman vs. the tyrannical, Krypton-First, militaristic fascism that Zod exhibits both on his now destroyed home world and later on Earth. Yet, Superman – due to the mistakes of the screenplay creating a thematic dissonance – embodies many oppressive qualities. [Blofeld] This is not a “We aren't so different, you and I” cliché moment in which the antagonist tries to get under the protagonist's skin to noting a superficial similarity. There's none of that here. This dissonance is a socially and politically tone deaf mistake of the film.
 AUDIO 4
 After the ordeal, Superman destroys a surveillance drone. The General says that was a $12,000,000 piece of hardware, and Superman is, like, whatevs. Superman says he does not appreciate the government spying on him and looking for where he lives. The General considers Superman a potential threat, and it believes it is in America's best interest to keep an eye on him. Superman disagrees, appealing to the General's patriotism by saying [2:09:28] “I grew up in Kansas, General. I'm about as American as it gets.” OK, two things about that. One: In America, there are far more deaths caused by domestic terrorists than by foreign terrorists. “I'm from America” does not exonerate anyone. But that's a tiny quibble and entirely explainable as something Americas would definitely say to defend themselves. So, that's fine, I guess. Here is what's not: Superman just told the General where he lives or at least where he was born. Superman is so concerned about people finding him that he destroys a $12,000,000 piece of government equipment, which itself is a major crime, but then he explicitly tells the General “I'm from Kansas.” This is NOT brought up like [old gangster] "Ha! You slipped up, Superman. Now we can refine our search." Because that does not happen. I  
 I've heard defenders of this line suggest that maybe the General already assumed Superman was from Kansas considering he fought Zod in a Kansas town earlier, but he had no reason to assume that. Superman was also seen as far north as Canada. Even if the General suspected Kansas as a possibility, Superman's confirmation of this makes absolutely no sense given everything that we know about his desire to remain hidden. It just seems like the most blatant screenwriting error in the film. If the General said that Superman slipped up, that would be one thing. We would see that as Superman's mistake and would create tension or even a cliffhanger for the next movie. But no. It's the screenwriter mistake because this was mistakenly written, and since it was never addressed in this movie or even future movies, it follows that it was never noticed. The American government has a long reach. It must have photos of Superman by that point or at least composite sketches. He got right up close and personal with American military leaders. It can do a search of Kansas if it wanted. Kansas is not particularly populated for a state of its size. Most states in that region are known for that. There are approximately three times as many people in New York City than in all of Kansas. And I'm not talking about this being a plot contrivance or a minor plot hole because most of those can be explained away as easily as one can come up with them.   
 AUDIO 5
 Examples: How do people in Kansas not figure out that Superman lives on the Kent farm after he was seen flying across it and exploding a silo or something? Well, maybe nobody saw. Maybe people assumed the explosion was caused by any number of things. Why isn't Lois Lane colder in the scenes in the Canadian Arctic? Well, because the movie is not scientifically accurate, but that's OK, because it's an action movie, not a science textbook, and it doesn't really affect the narrative. It only effects nitpickers. These things are not worth discussing unless you are keen on making one of those obnoxious “Everything Wrong with” YouTube videos that mostly amount to nothing more than easily explained away contrivances that exist in all movies. No, this is a screenwriting error that contradicts something said only a few seconds prior. It cannot be explained away except to say that Superman is hella dumb. It actually affects the narrative because Superman trying to keep his identity secret is a major point thread running through the whole movie. Jonathan Kent, his adoptive father, makes keeping this secret his mission in life.   
 He even dies to protect it by communicating with Clark to keep away and not display his super powers to save him from a tornado. Not to mention a lot of the movie is Lois Lane investigating the identity of Superman and his desire to remain hidden. So, the only real answer is that the screenwriter made a huge, obvious mistake – but not in an isolated scene. It happens immediately after Superman's by now all too familiar declaration that he wants to keep his identity secret. Why did you say “Kansas” out loud? Why did you say the name of your state? [CLIP Why did you say that name?!] It is galling. It is difficult to believe, after so many drafts, nobody excised this particular line. See, a movie requires what is called [use text a lot] internal consistency. So long as the narrative is internally consistent, minor quibbles about the plot or scientific accuracy do not add up to much in the way of hurting the movie. Asking why Jor-El did not make a larger ship for his whole family is a nitpick. It might not make sense to us, but his desire for his son alone to start over is not contradicted by the film's internal logic. Its internal consistency. It's a microscopic issue at best.    
 AUDIO 6
 On the other hand, Superman casually referencing his home state is NOT INTERNALLY CONSISTENT and DOES violate the internal logic because the whole movie's narrative has been following Superman keeping his identity hidden from the world, including in the exact same scene in which he destroyed a spy drone. Internal consistency is why we don't have to question the physics or biology of a cartoon character falling off a cliff and living. Within the confines of its own consistency, it is not unusual that Wile E. Coyote survives the fall because he always survives. The cartoon has its own internal logic, and strange as it may be, we accept it so long as it follows its own internal rules. Internal consistency can explain away a lot. This scene is a mistake that the screenwriter did not notice, and it undercuts everything else that came before it. Now, I realize I'm spending a lot of time on this one scene, but that is because it is a synecdoche of the entire film. This scene, much like the film at large, is a jumble of ideas that does not follow a clear path, contradict one another and make for an absolute mess. And it's why Man of Steel received such mixed reviews.   
 
 [BLUE] COMMON COUNTER-ARGUMENTS AND MISCONCEPTIONS
 AUDIO 1
 People who argue in favor of something questionable, like a bad movie or a problematic opinion, often fall back on the principle of their ability or right to like that movie or express that problematic opinion rather than justify the content of the movie or opinion. A rationalization of concept rather than content. You might have heard someone say something awful on the Internet – let me rephrase that, it's the Internet, there is no “might” about it, right? – you HAVE heard someone say something awful on the Internet, and when challenged on the opinion that was disgusting or vile in some way, the person who expressed it cried “Freedom of speech! I have a right to say it!” as if that were in question. That is a logical fallacy called a red herring, an attempt to move the goal posts of the discussion or change the topic. When Person A challenges Person B on the content of an opinion Person B expresses, Person A is not calling into question whether Person B has the legal right or ability to express. Person A is calling into question either the veracity of the opinion or the morality of what was said. The CONTENT of what was said. Not the ability or right to say it.
 A similar fallacy occurs when discussing questionable movies. Person A challenges Person B on the content of Person B's claim that a movie is good, and Person B, instead of providing useful evidence, simply says that movies, like all art, is subjective, as if that is a way to “win” an argument. It's not. It's really just a way to avoid an argument. And that's fine. Nobody is obligated to argue in favor of the things they like, but ducking this debate does not win it. Saying “Art is subjective” to close the debate is not the kill-shot that those who say it believe it to be. Saying “Art is subjective” to close the debate is forfeit. So, is all art subjective anyway? Well, not exactly? A movie is made up of a lot of different jobs run by a lot of different people, and the line between something that is an art and a “craft” begins to blur. The subjectivity of art comes from those witnessing it. Not from the craft itself. Meaning if someone in the audience enjoys a movie, that is their subjective feeling, and that's fine. But there are objective standards to what makes something effective or engaging in a movie. Someone, for example, objectively claims that a film has a plot hole by proving a discrepancy between one scene and another.   
 AUDIO 2
 One can provide objective evidence for what is and is not strong cinematography based on what the human eye finds striking. One can provide objective evidence for what is and is not coherent editing and storytelling based on what the human brain finds easy or difficult to either remember or follow. Film critics, I'm sorry but it's true, usually have a greater understanding of these objective truths about film than the average moviegoer and definitely the average tribalist. Partly because critics often have degrees in this field but also because, hey, you ever notice how their reviews explain why a movie does or does not work instead of just saying [RT real, cut to fake review] “I liked it, and art is subjective”? Well, that's because they know it's a bullsh*t non-argument that does not explain anything, and it's not even entirely true. Their review is what is subjective. Their feelings are what is subjective. There is no such thing as a truly objective review because a human being cannot escape their humanness. But a review or an explanation on why a movie is bad can contain objective evidence. Review of a movie or opinion of a movie? Subjective. Evidence to that end? Potentially objective.   
 Example outside of Man of Steel: In Transformers: The Last Knight, the aspect ratio of the film changes many times throughout the course of the film. In fact, it changes many times over the course of a scene. The eye generally finds this jarring and distracting in the same way that noticing a boom mike in a shot can be distracting. The frame is compromised. Whether this bothered you, as an audience member, is subjective, but the fact that it exists and that it can be distracting to the human eye are objective pieces of evidence against the quality of this film. Example within Man of Steel: The human mind reacts to various colors differently and associates different colors with different moods. Man of Steel has a washed-out color pallet throughout the film. Rarely does it deviate from these muddy, gray colors. This creates a consistent mood in the entire film, which means the audience may feel the same way during the scene in which Clark Kent becomes Superman as we do when Clark Kent is sad and lonely. Whether or not this bothered you in subjective. Whether or not it exists and can be judged based on how human beings often experience color in visuals is objective.
 AUDIO 3
 In terms of visual intensity in film, there is affinity and contrast. [text] Affinity means similarity. Contrast means difference. This can refer to the intensity or simplicity of a frame and movement, but for this example, I will focus on affinity and contrast as it relates to color because it's relevant here. Not every scene in a movie can have high contrast or high affinity because the audience needs to be told through film language when something is important and when something is not. In this scene in Blade Runner 2049, Ryan Gosling is silouetted against a brightly exposed background. We get the sense that his journey is momentous, and it is, because this is the beginning of the next stage in the film when he discovers great truths and meets an important character. It's not just “pretty” – it informs the audience about the significance of what is about to happen. But not every shot in the film can have high this level of contrast or this color. Previous scenes use different colors. The colors changed wildly when the protagonist is in a new place and a new part of his journey begins. In Man of Steel, there are scenes with high contrast, but so much of the film contains such affinity – even during intense and important scenes – that one questions some of color choices. So many scenes are just shades of washed-out blue or grey, and Superman does not pop, visually. The color of Superman here is also roughly the color of the background. Affinity. Similarity.   
 This affinity occurs during the scenes taking place in the present and during flashback scenes from the past. It can also be seen in Kansas or in Canada or in space. So, it is NOT a visual reference to time or a way to inform the audience through visual film language about when and where this takes place. Instead it seems to serve less purpose in Man of Steel than it would serve in other, more carefully crafted films in terms of color. Dramatic scene in which Superman's father dies: affinity. Low-impact scene in which Superman walks down a road: affinity. Scene in the past: affinity. Scene in the present: Affinity. Affinity is NOT inherently worse than contrast or vice versa. Rather, these are both tools in film language to communicate meaning and importance to the audience. Both are required for a film to have any kind of visual coherence, and Man of Steel feels less coherent because of it. Critics and others argue against the visuals of Man of Steel due to the film's inability to use both tools effectively. Cinematography and color grading after the fact are not just arts – they are crafts – and crafts can be judged by certain objective standards.   
 AUDIO 4
 To sum up, when people say they hate the way Man of Steel looks, it's not just because they have some personal vendetta against the color blue. It's because the human eye and human brain interpret things different ways, and also because a century of film language has given us a visual shorthand that Man of Steel does not fully embrace or utilize well. The use (or misuse) of contrast and affinity in Man of Steel is only one example of how objective evidence can be used to explain why this film does not work. It does not mean that your subjective enjoyment of Man of Steel is wrong, but it does mean that there is demonstrable evidence about the film's problems. Our reaction to art is subjective, but the art itself contains objective facts. “Art = Subjective” is not an argument all on its own. It's like saying “Well, that's just your opinion, man” instead of explaining the content of the opinion. It's a deflection. If someone says that there are calculable mistakes in the movie, responding with “art is subjective” does not address the criticism.   
 Movies are not objectively “good” or “bad” but their quality can be explained through objective facts and evidence rather than broad feelings that tell us nothing universal. This is something that film critics generally understand, but it can become muddied on, say, Reddit, and other places tribalists for these movies have a high population. It's particularly difficult to explain this complex subject on Twitter. People want short answers on social media, particularly social media with character limits, and “Art = Subjective” – though misleading, is easier to express.    
 
 AUDIO 1
 [RED] ESTABLISHING TONE FOR THE DCEU
 The DC Extended Universe has a tone problem. Usually, when a film has a tone problem, it is in reference to it having disparate tones. Disney's The Hunchback of Notre Dame has a tone problem because it is both the darkest and most mature Disney animated film of the Renaissance era, and it is also filled with among the goofiest comic relief seen in said era. This whiplash makes the film difficult to digest properly. But when I say that the DCEU has a tone problem, I mean something else. The DCEU's tone is fairly consistent, which is good. They merely chose the wrong tone, which is bad. It is very...*sighs*...very bad. Man of Steel came off the heels of the highly successful and critically acclaimed trilogy of Batman films directed by Christopher Nolan. They merged the pop culture aspects of Batman with heavier ideas about the nature of justice and whether or not a vigilante such as The Dark Knight can enforce justice, and if he can, SHOULD he enforce justice? Is he creating more problems than he is solving? Is his worth a net positive for Gotham City or a negative?   
 While the films are far from perfect and have some problematic bugs lurking around in the innards of the trilogy, the attempt to make Batman more mature but without alienating the popcorn audience was a solid move that established one of the best series of superhero films ever. Said films touched on weighty subjects but never in such a way that felt pompous, and it kept just enough of a sense of humor and fun that it avoided accusations of pretentiousness. Man of Steel, based on a concept by Christopher Nolan himself, aimed to establish a similar gravitas to Superman, but grafting a serious and grim face onto a character who traditionally has been the polar opposite of that was a little hard to swallow. Batman can pivot from superhero to serious figure more easily. In doing this, Man of Steel codified a tone for the DCEU. Serious, often grim, sometimes bleak and only occasionally triumphant. It's why the score was done by Hans Zimmer and not, I don't know, Meatloaf. This can work if the point was to pose the question: “Should superheroes even exist?” – showing them as flawed, sometimes villainous characters with too much power. But the DCEU presents this super-seriousness without any self-awareness.
 AUDIO 2
 It presents Superman as someone with whom we should immediately sympathize. It presents Batman's lethal violence as exciting rather than questionable. It presents the Suicide Squad as villains who we should cheer for because they are still better and more interesting than those who control them. Superhero movies are usually power fantasies at their worst and hopeful at best. The tagline to the 1978 Superman was “You will believe a man can fly.” but Superman and other superheroes of the DCEU spend more time in the gutter. We look down. Not up. Man of Steel was a box office success, and with the tone established and Zack Snyder helming more movies going forward, it couldn't really change. This was the “dark” superhero universe. For some fans, this is not a bug. It's a feature. [kid with cape] And while there were a few quiet moments and [Superman first flying] hopeful sequences in Man of Steel, these were most excised in the next movie, creating a grimdark movie series that is the darkest and grimmest it could be without receiving a hard R rating.   
 [clips] [Deadpool 2 clip]
 There is so much more in the DCEU to talk about that I don't even have time right now to talk about the deluge of product placement so bad that it would inspire a thousand obnoxious Tyler Durden speeches. I will save discussing IHOP for another video. I will save that for my WORST video.