‘Superman & Batman’ movie will follow ‘Man of Steel’
- Thread starter JoeZhang
- Start date
Except that in that case, what ensued was a sequence of vignettes in which Superman saved people with faces from specific situations, which is exactly what was missing from MoS.
Sure, what Superman did in MoS was important in-story, but for storytelling purposes, the heaping helping of destructo-porn badly needed to be broken up by some more personal-level story beats.
Last edited:
When one man dies, it is a tragedy. When one million dies, it is a statistic.
I don't think Stalin had superhero film in mind when he said this, but for the audience, it's often easier to relate to an individual person in a film than a mass disaster. For example, most people enjoyed the first season of 24, with its smaller, more personal stakes, than season 6, where a nuke went off in downtown LA.
I don't think Stalin had superhero film in mind when he said this, but for the audience, it's often easier to relate to an individual person in a film than a mass disaster. For example, most people enjoyed the first season of 24, with its smaller, more personal stakes, than season 6, where a nuke went off in downtown LA.
No, the difference was that Superman wnet back in time and prevented the earthquake in Calif. and saved Lois' life in the process. MOS had no magical solution and I'm sure that's what the writers wanted, something that has meaning not a magical solution to the problem.
^No, the rescue sequence happened before he turned back time. The reset button on Lois is NOT what we're talking about. And the movie implies that the only thing he undid was Lois's fate...when Jimmy interrupts Superman and Lois, he describes the aftermath of the situation from which Superman rescued him at the dam. Lois also describes having to dodge telephone poles and whatnot. The earthquake still happened.
And that's not even what's important...the important thing is what the filmmakers chose to show the character doing onscreen, and that was saving specific people from specific situations, in addition to preventing the greater catastrophe.
And that's not even what's important...the important thing is what the filmmakers chose to show the character doing onscreen, and that was saving specific people from specific situations, in addition to preventing the greater catastrophe.
The first part of Man of Steel is literally Clark rescuing people with faces form specific situations.
It's what makes Lois track him down in the first place.
Which the later part of the movie could have used some of to break up the heaping helpings of destructo-porn.
No, we've specifically been talking about the "third act" of the film for some time now.
They better not. Just because her backstory got kind of convoluted in the comics doesn't mean they haven't found a way to streamline it for the movies. We've gotten plenty of adaptations of WW that have kept the Greek Gods and Themyscira and been great. The Greek Gods and Themyscira are one of the big defining elements of the character, so if you're going to get rid of them you might as well not use her and just create your own original character.
No, despite the dialogue in the movie the earthquake never happened. The whole ending makes no sense since it was the original ending to the second movie. But if the quake happened Lois' car would've been covered. The movie has a magical solution that MOS doesn't have.
That's your interpretation, I'll believe the dialogue. The time travel aspect simply wasn't handled sensibly, but we can infer that Superman was supposed to have done something to prevent the fissure that swallowed Lois's car. Lois and Jimmy both remembered the quake.
And that's all beside the point...reset button afterwards or no, the point that's relevant to the discussion of MoS is that the Donner movie took time to show Superman rescuing people once he'd dealt with the main catastrophe by repairing the faultline.
And that's all beside the point...reset button afterwards or no, the point that's relevant to the discussion of MoS is that the Donner movie took time to show Superman rescuing people once he'd dealt with the main catastrophe by repairing the faultline.
It's a moot point though, if you can go back in time and prevent them from being danger in the place, there's no need to save them from the earthquake. This was the problem with the Silver Age Superman, he was just too powerful.
And by taking out the world engine Superman saved teh planet and Metropolis, there's no getting around that fact.
We talk about Metropolis, what about Smallville? The 7 Eleven, The IHOP, That bank, Sears, The train yard, little critters in the corn fields. 
And now we're just arguing in circles. I think I'll let Christopher answer this one (again):
And once again, it is not a documentary. A writer chose to have this second world engine on the other side of the planet. If someone had wanted, the script did not need to have this "second" machine for Superman to fight. Or, for that matter, there could have been several smaller machines around the world over other cities that Superman could have had to stop--that might have been an interesting choice having Superman need to save other cities rather than Metropolis.
The argument is not what Superman had to do in the context of the final product, it is why the creators of the story chose to have it play out that way--and no defender of the movie has provided a good story telling reason for that.
Didn't Zod & Co. Need one at one place and the other on the opposite side to transform The Earth into Krypton? That makes some sense to me. 
ETA: Turning the sun red didn't come into play which is odd or did I forget something?
ETA: Turning the sun red didn't come into play which is odd or did I forget something?
Didn't Zod & Co. Need one at one place and the other on the opposite side to transform The Earth into Krypton? That makes some sense to me.
ETA: Turning the sun red didn't come into play which is odd or did I forget something?
Only because a writer decided that--there is no scientific or real world basis for that decision.
Didn't Zod & Co. Need one at one place and the other on the opposite side to transform The Earth into Krypton? That makes some sense to me.
ETA: Turning the sun red didn't come into play which is odd or did I forget something?
Only because a writer decided that--there is no scientific or real world basis for that decision.
Turning the sun red wouldn't do anything but make the Kryptonian's normal. It's the Earth's atmosphere and topography that Zod wanted to change.
Also, Zod would need Trilithium if he wanted to decay a sun. HA!
I thought it was rather obvious they placed the other bit on the other side of the planet to emphasize he's saving the entire world and not just one city...
