• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

DC Movies - To Infinity and Beyond

Christopher said:
I didn't care for the disaster porn there at all, and the film would've certainly been better without it, but it didn't go on remotely as long or go to the same extremes as the MoS sequence. It's not a question of whether such a scene was included at all, but the specifics of how it was executed. There have been a lot of movies with gratuitous, excessive disaster porn, but none that I've seen have taken it to the same lengths as MoS. The reason nobody complains about the sequence in STID is that the MoS sequence was so very much more extreme that the STID version barely registers in comparison.

I suppose it's possible, though, that part of the reason I was so disturbed by MoS's sequence is because I'd already had my fill of such imagery in STID's climax earlier that year.
Click to expand...
I would argue that STID is the worse offender. JJ, Orci, Kurtzman and Lindeof knew what they were going for by flying a ship into the heart of San Francisco. Along with promoting Khan as a terrorist in press interviews before the movie and the content of "topical" subjects inside the film (wars of choice, drone strikes/kill lists, suicide bombings).

MOS scene is 10 minutes long and involves 4 different scenarios. Superman fighting the World Engine in the Indian Ocean, Lois/Hardy/Hamilton flying the plane Zod's ship, Black Zero pancakes Metropolis, Perry White and others try to escape.

The STID scene is 3 minutes for a "genuine" 9/11 recreation. Followed by a 7 minute foot chase, fist fight and mad dash to undo Kirk's death.

I find it equally amusing that Superman is flamed for not rescuing anyone, besides Lois in the assault on Metropolis. But the crew of the Enterprise get a pass for doing nothing to stop Khan from destroying San Francisco or helping the tens of thousands of people dead or dying because of Khan.

What's true of both is that they flash forward and gloss over the aftermath by the end of the film. And it's not like you can say Stat Trek was any less visceral than Superman.

Food for thought. As always.
 
M.A.C.O. said:
I would argue that STID is the worse offender. JJ, Orci, Kurtzman and Lindeof knew what they were going for by flying a ship into the heart of San Francisco. Along with promoting Khan as a terrorist in press interviews before the movie and the content of "topical" subjects inside the film (wars of choice, drone strikes/kill lists, suicide bombings).

MOS scene is 10 minutes long and involves 4 different scenarios. Superman fighting the World Engine in the Indian Ocean, Lois/Hardy/Hamilton flying the plane Zod's ship, Black Zero pancakes Metropolis, Perry White and others try to escape.

The STID scene is 3 minutes for a "genuine" 9/11 recreation. Followed by a 7 minute foot chase, fist fight and mad dash to undo Kirk's death.

I find it equally amusing that Superman is flamed for not rescuing anyone, besides Lois in the assault on Metropolis. But the crew of the Enterprise get a pass for doing nothing to stop Khan from destroying San Francisco or helping the tens of thousands of people dead or dying because of Khan.

What's true of both is that they flash forward and gloss over the aftermath by the end of the film. And it's not like you can say Stat Trek was any less visceral than Superman.

Food for thought. As always.
Click to expand...

Well that's the problem with these "fun" action movies. There is no way to address what we are seeing on screen in a "fun" way, so they just don't address it.
 
That's So Bane said:
In regards to the further discussion going on in the thread I will stick up for Man of Steel. Yes, it was brutal in the damage, but that's hardly a disqualifier in the average action movie and I don't hold Superman responsible for the damage since the whole point of the story is that he's completely new to this and doesn't know exactly how to do it perfectly. But he does still save the entire world even if he can't protect everyone. The movie has a few poor choices at specific points, imo (by far the worst of them being the way the final scene completely and totally ignores the mental, emotional and physical wreckage of the climax), but overall I thought it was a good foundation to build on and an inspiring story of a man learning to believe in himself and trust in others. I think Cavill's character (originally) was almost perfectly encapsulated by Zimmer's theme, with the quiet, extremely hesitant beginnings that grew and grew and gained confidence until finally becoming triumphant, but not without some pain along the way. That may not be what a lot of people wanted out of Superman, but I thought it was a really good character piece regardless, and I've liked it more every time I've rewatched it.
Click to expand...
It’s amazing how so many people ignore the bolded part.
M.A.C.O. said:
That's not a fair representation of Snyder. His movies do have Superman inspiring people.

Colonel Hardy, General Swanwick and Pete Ross in MOS.

Batman and Wonder Woman in BvS/JL. The motivator for those two starting the Justice League. Also sparking Bruce's change of heart. Not only by forming the League but also Bruce buying the Kent family farm back.
Click to expand...
Precisely.
 
M.A.C.O. said:
And it's not like you can say Stat Trek was any less visceral than Superman.
Click to expand...

Yes, I bloody well can. I was there in the theater for both films, and only in MoS was I almost driven to flee from the theater. "Visceral" is subjective by definition, and you don't have any goddamn right to tell me that I did not feel what I felt.
 
Christopher said:
Yes, I bloody well can. I was there in the theater for both films, and only in MoS was I almost driven to flee from the theater. "Visceral" is subjective by definition, and you don't have any goddamn right to tell me that I did not feel what I felt.
Click to expand...
Luckily you are in the minority, and we will not be yelling for censorship the way you are.
 
Christopher said:
Yes, I bloody well can. I was there in the theater for both films, and only in MoS was I almost driven to flee from the theater. "Visceral" is subjective by definition, and you don't have any goddamn right to tell me that I did not feel what I felt.
Click to expand...
I never stated what your feelings or beliefs are. Please refrain from attributing actions, words and ideas I have not expressed or pressed upon yourself or anyone else.

There's no need to ascribe maliciousness to myself or my posts.
 
M.A.C.O. said:
I wonder what your thoughts are on STID's finale. A film released in the same year and the same summer as MOS.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

You never heard a complaint about this scene. The biggest complaints about STID were the rehashed elements of TWOK (which ST09 had used as well) and Carol Marucs/Alice Eve being in her underwear for a scene in the movie and a trailer.

2013 also saw Cobra bombing London (GI Joe Retaliation), Khan bombing London, Thor and Malekith wrecking London, and giant monsters and robots smashing up Hong Kong. 2013 really had it out for London.
Click to expand...
It's star trek. San Francisco gets periodically trashed in star trek. Something bad happens to Pike and something bad happens to San Francisco in every iteration of Trek
 
M.A.C.O. said:
You never heard a complaint about this scene. The biggest complaints about STID were the rehashed elements of TWOK (which ST09 had used as well) and Carol Marucs/Alice Eve being in her underwear for a scene in the movie and
Click to expand...
I did hear complaints. And it's my biggest problem with that film, as well as MOS and a lot of other modern films.

My bigger problem is that one is set in a future where repairs can be made relatively easily. The other not so much.

Both are disaster porn, to my view, and are not additive to the story.
 
Christopher said:
Also, the Metropolis battle in S2 is relevant to the plot, in that the danger to civilians motivates Superman to move the fight to the Fortress.
Click to expand...
What motivates Superman to move to the fight to the Fortress is that that's where the depower-ray is set up. The city fight was one that Superman had always planned to run away from to lure the villains into the depowering trap.
 
Last edited:
M.A.C.O. said:
I never stated what your feelings or beliefs are. Please refrain from attributing actions, words and ideas I have not expressed or pressed upon yourself or anyone else.

There's no need to ascribe maliciousness to myself or my posts.
Click to expand...

Quoted for truth.
 
Back to Superman Returns, the one really good thing (and even that only kind of) in it was Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor, he really channeled and seemed true to Hackman's character but a bit, believably, changed due to time passing and his experiences-but even with him, him ending up doing another real estate plot, kind of, felt really forced and obligatory.
 
Eh, Spacey did a decent impression of Hackman's Luthor, but thats about it. Honestly, the biggest draw for me with Superman Returns is how well Routh did with what he got. Sure, it feels like he barely got any lines as either Superman or Clark, and he got no really good action scenes, but he did well in the situation he was put in and I still wish a good director and writer had made that movie, because I think Routh could have been a genuinely great Superman if he hadn't been saddled with a dull, dreary script. That's why I'm glad he's playing superman again, even if its just in a crossover on TV.

The rest of Superman Returns cast ranged from ok to boring (James Marsden should have just stayed with X-Men, and SR's Louis was more boring and bland then Amy Adams) but Routh really had something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top