View Single Post
Old 09-23-2013, 04:41 PM   #74
The Question
Objectivism doesn't work.
The Question's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hub City
Posts: 40,519
Default Re: David S. Goyer IS the Script Writer! - Part 1

Originally Posted by The Guard View Post
Because that's what Superman is, how he's always been portrayed, and no other interpretation or structuring of the character's learning curve regarding reckless behavior or power usage could possibly be valid.
That's a pretty cheap debate tactic.

No one here is saying that all possible approaches besides their ideal are completely invalid. They're saying that they didn't think the approach the movie took was very good.

Originally Posted by The Guard View Post
I guess since it has been done in other films, and since it could have been done, the film not doing it here is a failure somehow.
That's not why people don't like the way the movie did it. You know that's not why. People here have given some very detailed explanations as to why they don't like how the film handled the end fight scene. They're all on this thread for you to read and comment on. It's fine if you disagree with them, but please actually engage with the arguments people are making. It's just polite.

Originally Posted by The Guard View Post
That, or people really just cannot use their imaginations, or really need the obvious pointed out to them. To me, the fact that Superman was saving lives by stopping Zod was obvious. The destruction was obvious. The threat was obvious. The likely loss of life was obvious. And I think Superman mourned all of it after killing Zod.
Stories need to actually dramatize their content to have a meaningful emotional connection with the audience. Yes, it's obvious that people are dying by the thousands, but if the movie doesn't actually dramatize that then at best it feels false and hollow and and worst it feels cynical, disrespectful, and cold.

You say that you assume that Superman mourned all of it after killing Zod. But the movie doesn't show us this. We cut from Zod's death to Superman smiling and laughing in a conversation with his mother, and the next time we see Metropolis it looks like nothing ever happened. You can see why that feels really weird and makes people uncomfortable, right? You can see why that feels like the movie is completely disregarding the very serious and very obvious implications of what happened, right?

It all boils down to the old adage of "show, don't tell." The saying's as old as dirt that in a story, you have to show your audience what's happening and what it means, not just tell them about it. Having all of that destruction without dramatizing the seriousness and implications of it is telling, not through words per-se but through a very basic visual shorthand. We see all of this destruction and we're supposed to feel that there are serious stakes and these are serious things, but they don't show us the emotional and psychological toll it takes on our characters, nor does it show us the effect these events are having on the lives of the people of Metropolis. They give us images of buildings falling down and basically tell us to feel sad about it. And, sure, on an intellectual level we know it's sad, but we don't feel it in our gut the way we're supposed to, the way a movie is supposed to make us feel.

I really don't think it's a failure on the part of the audience if the filmmakers don't ground the events of their climax emotionally, and instead just throw images at us and expect us to feel things. That doesn't seem, to me, to be very effective storytelling.

I know it's probably been posted here a million times, but this article speaks to that point near perfectly, and sums up my feelings about the film pretty well:

Originally Posted by The Guard View Post
But I guess he needs to think everything is his fault or something at the end of the movie.
No one here is advocating for that. You're making another strawman argument.

Originally Posted by smallville fan View Post
I think most of us are forgetting that all of this will be addressed in the sequel and that Man of Steel was probably made with the intention of sequels. David Goyer himself said at SDCC this year that the sequel will address the consequences of the first movie. So there's no need to really rant about how the intense death toll was handled in the movie when we have the entire sequel to deal with that. I think in the long run the destruction would end up serving the purpose of making Lex Luthor a more compelling character and a much stronger antagonist to Superman in his smear campaign against him.
I don't think that's an excuse. If you leave something absolutely vital out of your movie and then say "we'll get to it in the sequel," you still have a movie with a huge missing piece. Film series are fine, but each installment has to be self contained to an extent. The plot doesn't necessarily have to be wrapped up in each film but they still have to address things, especially things of this magnitude. Making it the focus of the next film doesn't change the fact that we cut from a destroyed metropolis to Superman smiling and joking with his mom and then cut to Metropolis where everything looks fine and like it's business as usual. Even if they pick it up in the next film, the fact that it's not addressed at all in the first one is a flaw with that movie.

I apologize for continually making this comparison, but The Avengers didn't save addressing the destruction in their climax for the sequel and it only made the film stronger.

The world does not work the way you think it does:

Last edited by The Question; 09-23-2013 at 06:07 PM.
The Question is offline