Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by JoeZhang, Jul 20, 2013.
Unless your name was Pa Kent.
Yeah, Superman saved people. I never said he didn't. I said that it didn't seem like he cared about saving people, though. It's more to due to his character and the writing than anything else.
In Superman II, Zod made a point to attack civilians after realizing how much they mattered to him. Now, I'm not expecting the same exact thing to happen again verbatim, but it would have been nice to have see more of an effort from Superman to show that he actually cares about the people of Metropolis.
This is more due to the writing than anything, but it paints Superman as an uneven character. He saves the people on the oil ring, he saves Lois a few times, but when it comes to preventing the deaths of thousands while he wrecks havoc while battling Zod... it's like that part of his characterization disappeared. It was inconsistent. Then, after slamming Zod through numerous skyscraper after skyscraper, he's suddenly caring again when Zod threatens to kill a family. It just didn't feel consistent character-wise. If this Superman cared so much about people, where was this caring savior before when he was causing so much destruction and mayhem during his battle with Zod?
All I'm asking for was a little moment here or there that showed that Superman wasn't just aimlessly battling through skyscrapers... that he actually was trying to stop Zod from killing countless innocent lives. Yes, Superman even says "I am going to stop you", but it just feels so trite and cliche. I think my biggest complaint with the battle of Metropolis is that it lacked any sort of suspense or tension. It just dragged on and on and on. I said it before, but it felt like torture porn. I'm not interested in seeing Superman throw Zod through buildings. I'm interested in seeing Superman save people. If he even tried to save someone during that battle I would have been more forgiving - or if the battle itself didn't drone on for what felt like forever. I understand that sequence isn't that long, but that's after a ten minute sequence where Smallville is nearly eviscerated from the map. By the time Superman and Zod battle, it feels like overkill. Both literally and figuratively.
Unless Snyder is saving this for Batman vs. Superman, it also felt very strange that we didn't see Superman contribute or assist in the rebuilding/rescue effort at all. There was a big missed opportunity for Superman to save people from the rubble or to help police and construction workers. The fact that after the end we cut to Clark at the Daily Planet and there seems to be no acknowledgement of the fact that probably more than half of Metropolis was wiped off the planet was just incredibly jarring to me. It was like what we just witnessed didn't matter. Why should I care if the characters don't? Why should I invest time and energy into this bloody movie when clearly none of the characters invest any time and energy into what came before?
Then again, I hope to be proven wrong come Batman vs. Superman. I hope that there is some kind of acknowledgement of what happened in Metropolis. I believe we'll see it - although I remain skeptical. From what I have seen - a Superman statue being erected in honor of Superman saving the city - it seems that Snyder and company might have completely missed the point of why some greatly disliked the level of destruction in Man of Steel, but the movie is still two years away and we know close to nothing, so I'd rather remain cautiously optimistic.
Agents of Shield informs the audience that thousands of people died during the battle of NYC. We didn't see anyone die in Avengers though Since Whedon is in charge of both Avengers and AOS, we can conclude the death toll was glossed over. How do you square that?
So impatient. Can't you wait for the sequel.
More like a viable alternative to the ending used in MOS, based on canon events in previous films and comics. There's always Grant Morrisson's ending for MOS. You know where Superman and Zod fight on Earth, Mars and all the way to Pluto. The fight ending with Zod losing his powers from being so far from the sun and dying from asphyxiation.
Point is, that franchises allow character's to grow and reflect on past actions. E.g: IM2 showed Tony's problem with alcohol and negligence (which had been covered in the comics); this after the triumphant debut in IM. Giving Tony PTSD showed that time exists and their are consequences to his experiences across the 4 films.
Just like Superman II tied back to Superman TM, by giving greater depth to the characters and their relationship. MOS will do that with DOJ. It's a shame the franchise went off a cliff with Superman III in 1983 but the Salkinds got the version of Superman they thought the audience wanted.
Also you're missing out with TASM series.
Because they have to get their money out of you somehow. You want the next edition released while the project is still a work in progress. You should be happy that WB decided to move the release date up to March 25 2016, instead of May 6th.
I think MOS is the first continuous franchise Snyder is doing. Most of his films are one shots. Also Bryan Singer was a character director, who excelled at arcs and ensemble juggling (X-Men, X2, X-Men Days of Future Past, Usual Suspects). None of that helped Superman Returns. 19 weeks in theatres and the film couldn't even break $400 million worldwide. While X3, The Da Vinci Code and POTC Dead Man's Chest cleaned house in summer 2006.
Star Trek Into Darkness: Was that a memorial scene for the civilians Khan killed by crashing the Vengance into all those skyscrapers (Some REAL 9/11 imagery there. Written by a 9/11 truther; Roberto Orci) or was that a memorial scene for the deceased Starfleet officers? I think it was for the latter since Kirk says it's a ceremony to rechristen the Enterpise, and everyone in the audience is in Starfleet formal dress.
You don't remember PacRim? I'll remind you. Giant robots fight giant monsters in occupied cities. Like something out of Power Rangers. Giant Robots and Monsters crash through several buildings. Given the skyscraper scale of the machines and beasts, there is considerable collateral damage.
The Dark Knight Rises had Gotham under terrorist occupation, while simultaneously quarantined from the rest of the US for 3 months. I wonder how many people died in the that 3 month time period. Either from murder by Bane's army, the criminals released from prison, malnutrition, or Crane's trials. Don't matter. They glossed over it by the end of the film. As well as all the psychological tramua citizens and those police may have suffered living in "No Man's Land" for 3 months.
Transformers 3: Spock Prime aka Sentinel Prime gives the command to subjugate Chicago.
Guardians of the Galaxy: A large black ship of evil (not the USS Vengeance) crashes in the a civilian city. Are we supposed to believe that ALL of the cities inhabitants made it out? Not to mention all those fighter planes and missiles that came crashing down in to the city.
Already responded to Avengers above.
It's not about tone. It's about content and if we compare content; civilians dying or suffering en masse and massive amounts of property damage. Then MOS has plenty of films to keep it company. I guess to pacify you and other audience members who disliked the level of destruction in MOS, Snyder should've used a more powerful gloss to leave the audience perky and chipper leaving the theater.
There was no time during the fight with Zod for Superman to do much if anything, Zod's attacks were pretty relentless. And yes Clark did indeed care about saving people's lives.
And if you recall Batman did allow the missles chasing him at the end of The Dark Knight Rises to nit buildings with no knowledge of whether or not people were still in those buildings.
"For every one you save, we will kill a million more."
Clark did the right thing, a "little" collateral damage is nothing compared to what Zod, Fayora and the rest could have done if they actually tried to live up to that threat.
I'm not responding to the rest because this is important.
Tone is a huge part of a movie. Of ANY movie. The Avengers is more of a cartoon than MOS. The Avenger is more light hearted, less real, more quippy. I'm not expecting it to be grounded in emotion, I don't need it to be.
MOS, it's tone is more grounded, more real. The characters are supposed to be more fully fleshed out.
Tone sets out expectations to how characters respond.
Hell, look at the tonal difference between Batman 1966 and The Dark Knight. Should we have the same expectations for both films?
You strip tone from the conversation and you are taking a major component away from any film.
ANNNNNND... I'm done with you. I can't take you seriously anymore. Again, glad you liked MOS. Bye bye!
So, destroying half of New York, which undoubtedly killed thousands of people, is perfectly fine as long as you're brightly coloured and cracking wise the whole time?
I suggest you watch MoS again. Superman was not in control of the fights he was in. In Smallville he was getting his arse handed to him for the most part, and in the Metropolis throwdown, Zod's aggression was the biggest factor in the level of destruction. Superman spent a large portion of his battles being thrown into stuff by Zod, Nam Ek, and Faora, and when he did make an effort to move the battle away from Metropolis, Zod made sure it went straight back there.
And you and JacksonArcher need to go look up "torture porn" and learn what type of film that ridiculous term refers to. MoS may be classified as "destruction porn" or "superhero smackdown porn", but torture porn it wasn't. Using that term in this context is idiotic.
This, I think, is the central misunderstanding here. You do realize that everything that happens during these fights didn't happen because they had to happen that way, but because the writer & director chose to have it happen that way, don't you? They chose to put Superman in a position in which he couldn't prevent a ton of destruction and death, and then chose not to have him react to it in any way afterwards. They could have easily written and depicted it in a different way, which might have allowed Superman to help civilians during or after the battle.
I think you'll find everything that happens in any story, happens because the writer wrote it that way. So yes, I get that. Thanks for pointing that out, Captain Obvious.
^ It's just that your defense of the movie doesn't seem to take that into consideration. You argue that Superman had to act the way he did under the circumstances, when the writer could have easily changed those circumstances.
Well these were villains with godlike superpowers who were threatening to destroy all life on Earth with their giant superweapons. If all they did in the end was destroy a couple of buildings and kill 20 people, I'm not sure they would have come across as nearly as serious a threat.
And it would have made things way too simple and easy for Superman as well, whose struggle against Zod and the World Engine wouldn't have felt nearly as urgent, and who wouldn't have finally been forced to do something (kill Zod) that went against everything he had been taught and believed in-- and which provided such a powerful and dramatic moment for the character, and showed him finally having to come to terms with the new responsibility he has to protect the planet.
Yeah maybe the writers could have made this just another fun and simple superhero movie, where nothing really seems to matter that much. But they chose to go a darker and more serious route and show us a Superman who really IS put to the test. And even if they did go a bit overboard at the end, they at least stayed consistent with that message all the way through.
I didn't say he "had" to do anything. I'm saying that in the context of the film, he really wasn't in much of a position to dictate the terms of the fight he was involved in, as he was outmatched for the vast majority of it.
My "defense" is solely in regards to the things that happened in the film as written. I really couldn't care less about why it was written that way, or your perceived issues with the way it was written. The film is what it is, and complaining on the internet that they didn't write the film how you wanted them to write it, isn't going to magically alter the content of the film after the fact.
Yes. Honestly. Yeah. Think about Ghostbusters... how many people might have been killed with the Giant Stay Puff man. But, it's a comedy, it's not really--oddly for a supernatural film--dealing with real life and death.
So, yes. The characters in the Avengers aren't being treated as realistically as being asked of the characters in MOS or the Dark Knight Trilogy.
Do you expect the same emotionally reality from the characters in the Godfather as from Johnny Dangerously?
And also, I would argue the level of destruction presented in the Avengers wasn't nearly as on level of MOS.
Superman is a fictional character put into a fictional situation by creators. I would argue, Synder wasn't in control of his story.
Why do defenders of MOS feel the need to be condescending That's idiotic. And it certainly doesn't make having a conversation fun or worthwhile. Glad you like MOS, but I don't.
MoS is a superhero film based off a comic book. It's not really dealing with real life and death. Any more than any comic book, or comic based film is. Regardless of how gritty, or cartoonish, they may be portrayed.
And yet most of the detractors in this thread lay the blame squarely at his feet, indicating that he was in complete control of his story. He just didn't control it the way you wanted him to.
Because calling MoS torture porn is idiotic. It's a shock buzz term that has no relation to MoS at all. No-one got tortured, Eli Roth wasn't involved, it wasn't Saw or Hostel. So not torture porn.
And if you want to talk condescending, have a word with your buddy AvBaur, who felt the need to explain that things happen in films because the writer wrote them that way. Duh.
Both terms are close enough. Lots of people brutally die for our amusement. Why are you being so pedantic about the term?
Because I can. And because the term still does not fit, regardless of how "close enough" you think it is.
By your definition, any film where "people brutally die for our amusement", whether seen or unseen, is torture porn. And you wonder why people think your opinion of this film is OTT.
So what that it's based off a comic book? What does the source material have to do with how they chose to do the movie?
Do you believe, tonally, that the Avengers and MOS are the same? Do you believe that Moonraker and Casino Royale are the same?
My point was that it's all fiction, and none of it deals with "real life or death".
Plenty of action/sci-fi/comic book films have glossed over mass destruction and the deaths of thousands, MoS is by no means the first, and no doubt it won't be the last. However, how do you know those things won't be dealt with in the next film?
Marvel have already done the same thing with their films; the consequences of things that happened in Iron Man were felt in IM2. The effects of the events in The Avengers were all over IM3, and The Winter Soldier. I have a feeling that the events at the end of MoS are going to play a big part in character motivations in DoJ. I especially think Batman's involvement, and the inevitable confrontation between the two, will be motivated by his belief that Superman is a threat to Earth, due to the very destruction his battle with the Kryptonians created.
I suppose my main point in all this is that I don't think there's much point in judging Superman from one film alone. If they're trying to create a cinematic universe in the same way that Marvel have, then why not wait and see how things unfold in the next film?
Because I don't judge the success or failure of a movie based on a sequel that may or not be made. I judge it for the thing itself.
Should I still be waiting for the sequel to judge Green Lantern?
Because, again, I judge whether or not I like a movie based on the movie itself. It's an origin story, not an origin trilogy. And I don't think they did a very good job at telling a complete story.
Iron Man told a complete story... we didn't have to wait until Iron Man 2 to decide whether or not we liked Iron Man. And how would that work, would we have had to wait until Iron Man 3 to judge Iron Man?
Personally, unless it is telling a story in parts (like Lord of the Rings, or Kill Bill) a movie should stand on it's own and not rely on a sequel to be complete.
If you mean, judging the character of Superman, I'm not judging the character of Superman, I'm judging the filmmakers for being able to tell a Superman story effectively and clearly.
I've said it before, I think Synder is a tremendously visual director... but when it comes to character and narrative, I think he's like Brett Ratner. Basically capable.
I would rather have less flash, less spectacle and more heart and soul.
So it's the tone of the movie not the content that irks you? Suprising, comic writer Grant Morrisson (JLA, All Star Superman, New 52 Action Comics Superman) implied something similar. Where the level of destruction wasn't what bothered him, more than the film didn't have that triumphant beat he wanted. I posted a link to his end to MOS, where Zod and Supes battle from Earth, to the Moon, to Mars and finally to Pluto. The level of destruction would be akin if not greater to what we saw in MOS, it just wouldn't take place on Earth. The climax of the film would have Supes and Zod running out of power on Pluto and Zod dying from lack of air, while Supes could make it back to Earth.
This ending changes the tone of the movie. You would have to go back and alter previous scenes in order to not have the film end so hackneyed. Most people liked large parts of the film but were not fans of the tone. i can understand this. However that's where I think Snyder wanted his Superman to be. MOS is an action-drama, like TDK trilogy. Avengers, IM 1-3, Capt America 1-2 and Thor 1-2 are action-thrillers. They play it differently despite sharing a genre. The Marvel Studios films have a whimsical and fun charm to them. It's why people like them so much. MOS and TDK are dramas, which don't allow for the playful banter you see in the Marvel movies. Can you imagine Batman shooting the shit with Gordon while the Joker is killing cops and blowing up hospitals? Or Superman cracking wise with Jimmy and Lois, while Zod and his followers are planning worldwide genocide?
The tone and content of the films would have a sheering effect that would rip the films apart.
Best example of this would be Thor TDW. You have a villain, Malekith who has a weapon that nearly fragged the entire universe, but because of the tone of the movie; Malekith and his threat are nerfed (nerf darts). Malekith was bad enough to wage war into the heart of Asgard and kill it's queen and yet he was beaten by Thor, 2 human scientists and 2 brainless interns. It's an issue with most of the Marvel villains really. There menace/level of threat is toned down in order to keep the film light. Hugo Weaving's Nazi Red Skull was almost comical in his movie.
So you're right. Tone and content dictate what kind of movie you have. I just don't see the point of disliking MOS because of it's tone. I mean it's not as dark as say Watchmen, V for Vendetta or TDK. The attack on Metropolis was dispassionate IMO. Zod and his army weren't going around personally frying people. The action was on Superman and the military getting the job done. The faceless mass of people on the ground were just that, faceless. Although I read a rumor that Cyborg will be one of the people who was effected by the attack on Metropolis. The robotic parts grafted on to his body after being crushed in the debris.
Separate names with a comma.