Thoughts on "Justice League"

So Justice League has come and I have thoughts.

I'll preface this by saying I haven't seen the movie, nor do I plan to anytime soon. Everything I'm going to write here is based on spoilers, word of mouth and reviews, which I'll admit might not be fair or entirely accurate.
Some may believe that automatically disqualifies anything I say, but......meh. This isn't a review, and I'm not looking to sway people who loved the movie. If I'm completely off the mark here, then that's fine. Hell, I might even be relieved.

[UPDATE: Yes, I did eventually watch it on TV. I stand by everything I say here. In fact, it was even worse than I heard. So...yeah. If nothing else, I'm glad this movie landed with a wet thud and will most likely be ignored, assuming the DCEU even bothers continuing its continuity.]

If nothing else, I want to get this off my chest while it's fresh. Spoilers ahead, obviously.

I've been rolling my eyes over how this movie apparently tries retcon this iteration of Superman into some beacon of hope and inspiration. By all accounts, this movie all but directly asks the audience to completely ignore Man of Steel and Batman v. Superman which characterized him as a mopey, brooding figure who seemed to regard being Superman as a burden. And that's not even factoring those films' recurring theme of Superman being seen as a divisive and controversial figure...hence the Senate hearings about him.

This version of Superman was anything but the shining beacon Justice League would have us think he is, and it's especially egregious in the wake of Wonder Woman's success. Over the summer, Wonder Woman has pretty much been embraced as the DCEU's only real success and MVP—praised as the only character thus far to actually be heroic, inspirational, and hopeful.

So this made Justice League's insistence that it was Superman holding it all together kind of laughable to me.

To the film's credit, I've heard they at least acknowledge this dissonance.
They continue to fudge the "where's Diana been since World War I" thing by having her states she was around and helping people when needed...she just wasn't public about it or something because of Steve Trevor's death and reasons. I suspect, if it's vague, that's probably because they don't want to step on Patty Jenkins's toes for her sequel.

Anyway, at one point Batman essentially tells Diana even if Superman isn't around she should be the beacon of hope for the world. And on paper, that sounds like a fine arc and is actually kind of clever.
We're all asking why Superman's absence is such a big deal when Wonder Woman is around, and the film makes it a plot point: "Exactly. Diana should be a beacon of hope for the world whether there's a Superman or not."

The problem is it's not followed through, as Steppenwolf's defeat is not owed to Diana's leadership or ability to inspire hope in any way. In fact, from what I've heard & read, I would say its undermined because Superman swoops in and does what the entire League combined could not, rendering them superfluous.
So her arc is reduced to: "You should be a source of inspiration and hope for the world, Diana......you don't have to be, because Superman's back and he can apparently do anything you can do, only better...but it would be nice, I guess."

A side affect of Justice League being a cobbled together Frankenstein's monster of movie I suppose, but could've been avoided had they...I don't know...maybe not have Superman flatten the League single-handed? Maybe not have him demolish Steppenwolf with ease?

No, I haven't seen the film, but I did see Superman's resurrection and the subsequent fight scene. Ugh.
To be fair, if you want to kayfabe it, you could say Diana was holding back because Superman's not an enemy and she wasn't fighting to win so much as keep him contained. But still. Also doesn't do the other guys any favors. In the wrestling industry, this scene would be considered "poor booking" if not "burial."
Made even worse when Superman easily dispatches Steppenwolf by himself where the rest of the League could barely match him.

"You can't save the world alone" the movie's tagline declares.
Apparently you can...if you're Superman. Way to piss all over the whole concept of a team, Warner.

I can't help but find something almost insidious that the movie that retcons Superman into the great beacon of hope is the same movie that features him thoroughly outclassing Wonder Woman.
I doubt it's intentional, but it's hard not to see this almost as an attempt to not only course correct Superman's characterization, but restore the pecking order. SUPERMAN is on top, not Wonder Woman. SUPERMAN is the symbol of hope and heroism, Wonder Woman is below him.

If nothing else, it strikes me as a bit tone-deaf in the wake of Wonder Woman's success.
"Hey kids, did you love how inspirational and empowering Wonder Woman was in her movie? Well enjoy watching her get smashed into the ground by Superman because grandfather clause."

Given they came out so close to one another, it's hard not to see Justice League as almost an unpleasant epilogue to Diana's story.
If her movie was a celebration of everything Wonder Woman is and is capable of, Justice League comes across as a depressing dirge of everything she can't do. No, she can't lead the League. No, she's not the inspiration Superman is—she can't even compete with Superman. No, she can't fly after all—Batman has to drive her everywhere.
Instead, enjoy watching the Amazons get slaughtered en masse, gratuitous up-skirt shots, Flash falling into her cleavage (yuk-yuk), and Aquaman reducing her to a piece of meat he wants to bang (yuk-yuk again).

Fun.

Some of this can be chalked up to a weak villain.
By the looks of it, Steppenwolf is only the villain for the entire League in that he's "really, really strong," nothing more.  And if the only thing he's bringing to the table is "really, really strong," you're going to have trouble justifying why a team of the strongest heroes need to work together to stop him...unless, of course, you nerf certain characters' powers.
Compare to Loki in the first Avengers where half the team could take him on physically, but that wasn't the issue.

If at some point Steppenwolf brags that Wonder Woman is no match for him, I'm not going think to myself, "Oh no, only the entire League can stop him!"
I'm instead going to want Diana to punch him in the face and prove him wrong, because that's how heroic fiction works. In these movies we've already seen hold her own against Doomsday and go Super Saiyan against the God of War. Bullshit she can't take on Steppenwolf...or Superman, for that matter.

All the more frustrating because it's a problem with a relatively easy fix: increase the number of civilians in need of rescue/evacuation during the final battle.

Superman, as a character, always struck me as someone more content to be the savior and rescuer—happier putting out fires, catching planes that are about to crash, etc.—than the guy who punches things. So have him and Flash spend the finale evacuating civilians, preventing buildings from crumbling, etc.

With Superman focused on saving people, Wonder Woman fights Steppenwolf.
Where Superman is the rescuer, Diana becomes established as the one who ends the battle—suiting her as someone who stops conflict, whether as a diplomat or a warrior. Also, this completes her arc in which she proves she can indeed be the beacon of hope Superman is and, by defeating Steppenwolf, establishes whatever she lacks in raw power, she makes up for in skill and ability. And, as an added bonus, she avenges the Amazons killed when Steppenwolf invaded Themyscira.

Cyborg dismantles the Mother Boxes. Aquaman can either help Diana defeat Steppenwolf, or he saves Batman and helps occupy the Parademons while she fights. Everyone contributes, no one is made to look unnecessary, everybody wins.

Instead they reduce the Justice League to a bunch of chumps who can only waste time until Superman shows up. Why would I want to see that movie?

But this is a problem that stems from the comics, especially with Superman in particular.
If he's to exist in a shared universe with other protagonists, he shouldn't render them obsolete...yet DC loves doing stories that remind the audience absolutely no one—neither individually, nor collectively as a group—can match him or fill the void of his absence.

And, I'm sorry Superman fans, but that's a load of horseshit.
I understand Superman's thing—his gimmick—is that he's the "best hero," so having anyone challenge him in any way seems wrong. But he can be the "strongest" hero without stomping all over the others...some of whom are supposed to be "the best" or strongest in their own way (such as Wonder Woman). So either don't make him more powerful than everyone else combined...or don't put him in a shared universe.

Personally, I hope from now on Warner focuses on solo, self-contained movies. We got Aquaman next year. Make another Wonder Woman or two. A new Batman is inevitable. But don't bother worrying how they fit together and no more crossover movies. Just let the characters and their movies be their own thing.

At any rate, I'll just stay home and watch Wonder Woman again while patiently awaiting her sequel.