All Things Superman: An Open Discussion (Spoilers) - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 93

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is Here

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is Here

[KRYPTON INC.]

I just want to throw this out there to both MOS fans, and detractors and those in between. Snyder and Goyer are coming back, that's a fate accompli. How much if any of the critism do you all think will really be taken in digested and acted upon by this crew? I was quite pleased with what I got in MOS. I really liked the pacing actually. It complimented the overall serious tone by making things brisk and getting down to the nitty gritty. I don't think character or inherent drama was harmed by this approach. But that's me. And the hard hitting action was overwhelming but I think that was the point for a film about arguably the most powerful of all the iconic mainstream superheros.

Yet I know in the fan community, despite financial rewards from the GA that there is disappointment. Loud and vocal I might add. Is this going to affect what the sequel will be like? The answer could go either way. I think there may be some irony with the given answer.

What was a huge complaint about Snyder's style post DAWN OF THE DEAD? It was the over use of slow mo and the artificial green screen environments in his follow up films. Was what he did with MOS with it's emphasis on speed, both in specific action sequences and the overall pace of the narrative a reaction on his part to all that criticism? Do you all think the vocal group a detractors will have an effect? And will they even like it if they get what they want? Will the GA want what the genre fans are asking for?

[The Question]

Originally Posted by Shikamaru

He will have a co-writer for WF.

Snyder.

The guy who wrote Sucker Punch and managed to make one of the most beautiful and thoughtful superhero comics ever written sound kind of stupid and juvenile?


Man this movie is gonna blow.

[herolee10]

And another thing, is it possible to make Batman relevant and a badass in a film with Superman without making Superman look bad?

[Marvin]

Originally Posted by The Question

But if the movie makes it necessary for the audience to do that then the movie missed something.

In an age when every second critics suggests michael bay thinks his audience to be stupid.
I think not.

Different contexts. A seasoned urban commando leading a rebel assault against enemy occupiers is different then a newbie superhero suddenly finding himself waist deep in 9/11 imagery. Especially because the battle of gotham had nowhere near the level of destruction that the end fight in MoS had.

A seasoned commando? Batman invaded a city full of innocent people with an atomic bomb on the loose. In the midst of all this, people were dying(good and bad). He should not only know better(batman wouldn't follow a micheal bay battle plan) but he should be visually upset about this situation, instead he spends his time yelling threats at the bad guy.
A newbie superhero facing armageddon with stakes bane could only dream of. I think if batman can be assertive in his situation, this superman has a little room to be business first in his. That being said, his concern was clearly shown after zods threats.

That's not how movies work. Just the tiniest thing can completely change a scene or even a whole film. One line of dialogue, one properly framed shot, one musical cue, one little anything can be that extra nugget of information that completely changes how an audience reacts to a scene. A movie is made up of thousands of tiny things coming together in subtle ways, not big interchangeable components.

There are alot of tine things that come together to convey who he is, you are implying that we forget all of that in the absence of a line utterance?

I agree that a small thing perhaps can change alot. If superman made a might fight joke the way any of the avengers did during their calamity in the thrid act, I can see why people would think he's just as bad as they are, but the lack of such a line doesn't say all that much imo. It's a safe assumption that superman could have have as well been thinking all of these things.

Here's a thought, what is there to say to a man that just gave Zod's speech? "Please the people?"
Not sure that would do much given what zod was all about not but 4 hours earlier, but then again, maybe we should re-watch the final plea deal superman gives the man at the end there.

[ConnorKon-El]

I for one liked Watchmen *more the director's cut* but whatever.

[Shikamaru]

Originally Posted by herolee10

And another thing, is it possible to make Batman relevant and a badass in a film with Superman without making Superman look bad?

Yes.

[herolee10]

Originally Posted by Shikamaru

Yes.

I sure as hell hope that they take this route. If Goyer and Snyder want to prove to their detractors that they're better writers than what most give them credit for, they need to avoid falling into the standard cliches and easy routes that end up damaging the film more than helping it.

We're not asking for a perfect script, but at least give us a great/excellent one.

And I hope that they officially clarify on what this film is considered as, whether it's officially a MOS 2 but with Batman, or an entirely different film, ala World's Finest.

This almost feels like the situation with X-Men: Days of Future's Past, where some were disappointed that they weren't going to continue with the main story line established at the end of First Class, and instead, do a severe time jump, in more ways than one, thus preventing people from seeing the needed and necessary evolution and development that needed to be explored for the characters.

[The Question]

Originally Posted by KRYPTON INC.

What was a huge complaint about Snyder's style post DAWN OF THE DEAD? It was the over use of slow mo and the artificial green screen environments in his follow up films. Was what he did with MOS with it's emphasis on speed, both in specific action sequences and the overall pace of the narrative a reaction on his part to all that criticism?

While the over use of slow motion is obnoxious (and mercifully absent from Man of Steel), Snyder's biggest problem as far as I'm concerned is that his decision making process for how he films his scenes and how he puts his movies together is based around what would be the most "cool" and "badass" instead of what would tell the best story. He films very pretty shots, but I don't get the feeling he speaks the language of cinema very well.

That being said the pace of Man of Steel was awful. They needed to take their time with the character building moments, but they breezed past them far too fast for anyone to get invested. And then they lingered on the action scenes to an almost fetishistic degree.

Originally Posted by KRYPTON INC.

Do you all think the vocal group a detractors will have an effect?

Probably not. I doubt Snyder and Goyer have the skill to pull off what the fans want properly.

Originally Posted by KRYPTON INC.

And will they even like it if they get what they want?

Probably. Contrary to internet belief it's actually very rare for people to hate on movies just because they want to hate on them. They usually have actual reasons for not liking something.

Originally Posted by KRYPTON INC.

Will the GA want what the genre fans are asking for?

The thing about the general audience is that while they like, or at least tolerate, completely ****ing terrible movies, they also actually like good movies too. They just don't know that it's something they're missing.

[The Question]

Originally Posted by Marvin

In an age when every second critics suggests michael bay thinks his audience to be stupid.
I think not.

I don't understand what that has to do with anything.

Originally Posted by Marvin

A seasoned commando? Batman invaded a city full of innocent people with an atomic bomb on the loose. In the midst of all this, people were dying(good and bad). He should not only know better(batman wouldn't follow a micheal bay battle plan) but he should be visually upset about this situation, instead he spends his time yelling threats at the bad guy.

Yeah, but none of that disproves my point that Batman is a seasoned veteran at that point while Superman in Man of Steel isn't. Also he wasn't seeing first hand dozens of buildings imploding all around him. They're different contexts.

Originally Posted by Marvin

A newbie superhero facing armageddon with stakes bane could only dream of. I think if batman can be assertive in his situation, this superman has a little room to be business first in his. That being said, his concern was clearly shown after zods threats.

But the problem is that it wasn't shown during the threat. And there's no reason not to show it during the threat.

Originally Posted by Marvin

There are alot of tine things that come together to convey who he is, you are implying that we forget all of that in the absence of a line utterance?

No. I'm not implying that forgetting has anything to do with this. I'm saying that in that scene Superman acts like he doesn't care about the destruction going on around him and that's weird and one line of dialogue and one reaction shot would have fixed that.

Originally Posted by Marvin

I agree that a small thing perhaps can change alot. If superman made a might fight joke the way any of the avengers did during their calamity in the thrid act, I can see why people would think he's just as bad as they are, but the lack of such a line doesn't say all that much imo. It's a safe assumption that superman could have have as well been thinking all of these things.

The Avengers weren't bad at all. In fact, they acknowledged and reacted to potential civilian casualties, which Superman didn't do at all. And yes, I know, The Avengers had more of an opportunity to save civilians, but my point is that there were moments on screen that showed that they were thinking about it. Even if Superman didn't have the opportunity to personally save innocent people, it's weird that it doesn't seem to be something that's crossing his mind at that moment.

It's not that we forget that he was established as a good guy already. It's that we expect an established good guy to continue to act like a good guy in such a situation. It's really weird when someone established to care about innocent lives doesn't react to dozens of buildings imploding all around him.

Yes, we are able to remember to earlier in the film and fill in the gaps and assume that he's thinking about that stuff, but the fact that he isn't reacting like a person who cares is a flaw in the filmmaking. Especially because such reactions wouldn't have been detrimental to the film, so there's no reason for the filmmakers to choose not to include them.

Originally Posted by Marvin

Here's a thought, what is there to say to a man that just gave Zod's speech? "Please the people?"
Not sure that would do much given what zod was all about not but 4 hours earlier, but then again, maybe we should re-watch the final plea deal superman gives the man at the end there.

It wouldn't do much. But we're not talking about what would logically have the most practical outcome in that situation. We're talking about Superman's reaction. Sure, practically, in the context of the events of the film, Superman pleading for people's lives wouldn't have done anything. But it would have been a natural reaction from Superman in that situation and it would have demonstrated to the audience that both Superman and the filmmakers still care.


Ultimately, that's the problem with the last fight sequence. It's not just that Superman doesn't seem to care about the death toll around him. It's that the movie doesn't seem to care. It's showing us the spectacle of this big badass fight scene, but we know from relatively recent history that there are probably people in those buildings and the movie doesn't seem to care because it's too focused on the punching. That's what makes people uncomfortable.

[Deserana]

Originally Posted by Marvin

Last I heard Goyer was responsible for the begins script, which in many circles is considered gold, in the realm of cbm scripts.

He was but I also think BB suffers from similar script issues to MoS it is just that it is presented much better on screen.

One of the things I noticed in both films is that there seems to be a character who we have never seen before who annoyingly wonders in half way through the film and delivers a plot point from out of nowhere that sets up the third act. It just doesn't work for me and gives the feeling that the third acts are part of a completely different films than what comes before. The films take complete U-turns after those points.

Originally Posted by The Question

The guy who wrote Sucker Punch and managed to make one of the most beautiful and thoughtful superhero comics ever written sound kind of stupid and juvenile?

Not seen Sucker Punch (though only heard bad things) but I thought Watchmen was actually pretty good.

[Shikamaru]

Originally Posted by herolee10

I sure as hell hope that they take this route. If Goyer and Snyder want to prove to their detractors that they're better writers than what most give them credit for, they need to avoid falling into the standard cliches and easy routes that end up damaging the film more than helping it.

We're not asking for a perfect script, but at least give us a great/excellent one.

And I hope that they officially clarify on what this film is considered as, whether it's officially a MOS 2 but with Batman, or an entirely different film, ala World's Finest.

This almost feels like the situation with X-Men: Days of Future's Past, where some were disappointed that they weren't going to continue with the main story line established at the end of First Class, and instead, do a severe time jump, in more ways than one, thus preventing people from seeing the needed and necessary evolution and development that needed to be explored for the characters.

I wouldn't be worried. If there is one thing I am not worried about when it comes to this movie, it is the way in which the characters are characterized and adapted. Goyer and Snyder are both giant comic book nerds. Until I see any news that I would consider to be a red flag, I have faith they will portray the characters as accurately as possible. I thought Superman himself in MOS was great. He was very much like John Byrne's Superman to me, which I loved. He was a larger-than-life God but at the same time, they established that he was human on the inside before he was a Kryptonian. As for Batman, I'm looking forward to finally seeing Batman in all his might and glory. All the live-action versions of Batman have been watered down so far nor have they had a more comic book costume or any fantastic action scenes. With Snyder, we might finally get the world's greatest detective in a black-and-grey suit in fantastic fight scenes and all that other great stuff. We might even get the definitive Batman actor similar to Reeve/RDJ. Even if the story sucks monkey diarrhea, at least there is that to look forward to.

I'm pretty sure it is meant to be a WF film as opposed to MOS 2. They had the Superman/Batman logo together at Comic Con and Goyer even said that "Superman vs. Batman" and "Batman vs. Superman" are currently being thrown around as title ideas. It may be a sequel to MOS though in the same way Iron Man 3 is a sequel to Avengers. One is an Avengers movie and the other is an Iron Man movie but the events in Avengers played a major part in Iron Man 3.

To be honest, I still think this is too rushed. MOS was more of a setup film and Clark just got at the DP. Lex Luthor still has to be introduced. Batman has yet to be introduced in his own movie. This seems a lot more like a business decision than a creative/storytelling decision. Now, does this mean this is a bad idea? No. Is the movie doomed to be bad? No. Does it necessarily mean that the story will feel forced due to it being released this early? No. At the same time though, this was by no means a good idea.

[TheFlamingCoco]

Originally Posted by The Question

I don't understand what that has to do with anything.



Yeah, but none of that disproves my point that Batman is a seasoned veteran at that point while Superman in Man of Steel isn't. Also he wasn't seeing first hand dozens of buildings imploding all around him. They're different contexts.



But the problem is that it wasn't shown during the threat. And there's no reason not to show it during the threat.



No. I'm not implying that forgetting has anything to do with this. I'm saying that in that scene Superman acts like he doesn't care about the destruction going on around him and that's weird and one line of dialogue and one reaction shot would have fixed that.



The Avengers weren't bad at all. In fact, they acknowledged and reacted to potential civilian casualties, which Superman didn't do at all. And yes, I know, The Avengers had more of an opportunity to save civilians, but my point is that there were moments on screen that showed that they were thinking about it. Even if Superman didn't have the opportunity to personally save innocent people, it's weird that it doesn't seem to be something that's crossing his mind at that moment.

It's not that we forget that he was established as a good guy already. It's that we expect an established good guy to continue to act like a good guy in such a situation. It's really weird when someone established to care about innocent lives doesn't react to dozens of buildings imploding all around him.

Yes, we are able to remember to earlier in the film and fill in the gaps and assume that he's thinking about that stuff, but the fact that he isn't reacting like a person who cares is a flaw in the filmmaking. Especially because such reactions wouldn't have been detrimental to the film, so there's no reason for the filmmakers to choose not to include them.



It wouldn't do much. But we're not talking about what would logically have the most practical outcome in that situation. We're talking about Superman's reaction. Sure, practically, in the context of the events of the film, Superman pleading for people's lives wouldn't have done anything. But it would have been a natural reaction from Superman in that situation and it would have demonstrated to the audience that both Superman and the filmmakers still care.


Ultimately, that's the problem with the last fight sequence. It's not just that Superman doesn't seem to care about the death toll around him. It's that the movie doesn't seem to care. It's showing us the spectacle of this big badass fight scene, but we know from relatively recent history that there are probably people in those buildings and the movie doesn't seem to care because it's too focused on the punching. That's what makes people uncomfortable.

Realistically, people will be in the buildings, EVEN if the World Engine was initiated. But realistically, Batman wouldn't shoot through the windows of buildings, KNOWING that no one will ever go near them.

Sense we don't really see anybody in the buildings, what law states that they have to be there?

However, that is a good overall points and demonstrates the critical flaw in the battle scenes, in particular the last one.

We didn't need much, just a few moments when Supes seems to care.

Without such moments, the battle feels like it was thrown in for the heck of it, rather than resolve emotional and suspense-oriented tension.

My 2cents worth.

[herolee10]

Originally Posted by Shikamaru

I wouldn't be worried. If there is one thing I am not worried about when it comes to this movie, it is the way in which the characters are characterized and adapted. Goyer and Snyder are both giant comic book nerds. Until I see any news that I would consider to be a red flag, I have faith they will portray the characters as accurately as possible. I thought Superman himself in MOS was great. He was very much like John Byrne's Superman to me, which I loved. He was a larger-than-life God but at the same time, they established that he was human on the inside before he was a Kryptonian. As for Batman, I'm looking forward to finally seeing Batman in all his might and glory. All the live-action versions of Batman have been watered down so far nor have they had a more comic book costume or any fantastic action scenes. With Snyder, we might finally get the world's greatest detective in a black-and-grey suit in fantastic fight scenes and all that other great stuff. We might even get the definitive Batman actor similar to Reeve/RDJ. Even if the story sucks monkey diarrhea, at least there is that to look forward to.

I'm pretty sure it is meant to be a WF film as opposed to MOS 2. They had the Superman/Batman logo together at Comic Con and Goyer even said that "Superman vs. Batman" and "Batman vs. Superman" are currently being thrown around as title ideas. It may be a sequel to MOS though in the same way Iron Man 3 is a sequel to Avengers. One is an Avengers movie and the other is an Iron Man movie but the events in Avengers played a major part in Iron Man 3.

To be honest, I still think this is too rushed. MOS was more of a setup film and Clark just got at the DP. Lex Luthor still has to be introduced. Batman has yet to be introduced in his own movie. This seems a lot more like a business decision than a creative/storytelling decision. Now, does this mean this is a bad idea? No. Is the movie doomed to be bad? No. Does it necessarily mean that the story will feel forced due to it being released this early? No. At the same time though, this was by no means a good idea.

From what I've seen, a lot of people saying that this feels rushed.

Simply put, Clark just became Superman at the very end of the film and even if people say that they could simply do a time jump in between MOS and this new film, it robs Superman fans the development that should have been devoted to the character on screen and show how he became established.

And in regards to being comic book nerds, well truth be told, I'm more worried that Snyder and Goyer have more love towards someone like Batman as opposed to someone like Superman.

Snyder may have gone on the record of saying on how Superman is the granddaddy of all superheroes, but considering on how he's pretty much LIED about a lot of things regarding the film, ala, saying that Superman needed more films before teaming up with anyone, etc., I really don't trust him or Goyer to do Superman justice when Batman is involved.

If Batman isn't in the picture, then yeah, I think that they'd do goodness towards Superman, but when Batman is in the picture, everything could go out the window.

And even though "Iron Man 3" takes place after the Avengers, and is influenced by its events, it's still considered the third chapter of the solo Iron Man franchise, ala his own trilogy.

Superman doesn't even have that anymore now that they've potentially wasted it on this.

Until some real hard evidence comes up saying otherwise, it feels like the only real fans that will be rewarded by this experience are Batman fans since I can't see them making Batman look bad.

[Deserana]

Seeing as its Snyder and Goyer and their approach seems to be "awesome" over complex story I do however hope we get a live action Batman who lives up to his "World's Greatest Detective" name.

This aspect however I'm not convinced we'll get here...

[Serpico Jones]

I love the director's cut of Watchmen. I also loved Snyder's Dawn of the Dead remake.

[John-An]

Goyer and Snyder could do a great job (Goyer's BB , TDK, TDKR and MOS it's masterpiece) and Snyder directing (300, watchmen, MOS) maybe Nolan and JOna Nolan are going to take a look and pulish Goyer's work...

[PacificBoy]

Originally Posted by Deserana

Seeing as its Snyder and Goyer and their approach seems to be "awesome" over complex story I do however hope we get a live action Batman who lives up to his "World's Greatest Detective" name.

This aspect however I'm not convinced we'll get here...

I think pacing would be a similar concern in World's Finest, because there are so many awesome moments needed.

Batman will have his individual badass and awesome moment, so will Superman. Then the inevitable tangle moment between the two. Not to forget setting the villain up awesomely to show how much of a threat he is to these two. And of course the big climatic battle.

It's gonna be a 3-hour action trailer if fine storytelling is absent.

[Deserana]

Originally Posted by juansuperiron20

Goyer and Snyder could do a great job (Goyer's BB , TDK, TDKR and MOS it's masterpiece) and Snyder directing (300, watchmen, MOS) maybe Nolan and JOna Nolan are going to take a look and pulish Goyer's work...

Goyer only done the story to TDK and TDKR. Which goes a long to peoples theories that he can do story but just cant write as many would say BB is the weakest.

[Deserana]

Originally Posted by PacificBoy

I think pacing would be a similar concern in World's Finest, because there are so many awesome moments needed.

Batman will have his individual badass and awesome moment, so will Superman. Then the inevitable tangle moment between the two. Not to forget setting the villain up awesomely to show how much of a threat he is to these two. And of course the big climatic battle.

It's gonna be a 3-hour trailer if fine storytelling is absent.

True. Screw MoS and TDKR this film is already the one that deserves the Director's cut the most

[Smallville13]

Even if MOS3 did go back to being a pure Superman solo film, I'm still disappointed that we're not going to get a finite piece on the Superman mythology and an actual ending. Instead we're entering MCU serialization territory, where just like RDJ; Amy Adams, Lawrence Fishbourne, and whoever are just going to be whored out until they're too old. Instead of story pieces that have a resounding stamp on the character and finality to them we're just going to perpetual DCU filims forever that just keep returning to the 'quo' like a sitcom. This disappoints me no end.

[The Question]

Originally Posted by PacificBoy

I think pacing would be a similar concern in World's Finest, because there are so many awesome moments needed.

That's completely the wrong way to think about making a movie. You can't approach it with an "awesome moment" quota that needs to be filled. You have to approach it with the intent of telling the best story possible, with strong themes and characters that work together to build a narrative. When you're doing that with two superheroes the awesome moments just kind of happen naturally.

[herolee10]

Originally Posted by Smallville13

Even if MOS3 did go back to being a pure Superman solo film, I'm still disappointed that we're not going to get a finite piece on the Superman mythology and an actual ending. Instead we're entering MCU serialization territory, where just like RDJ; Amy Adams, Lawrence Fishbourne, and whoever are just going to be whored out until they're too old. Instead of story pieces that have a resounding stamp on the character and finality to them we're just going to perpetual DCU filims forever that just keep returning to the 'quo' like a sitcom. This disappoints me no end.

Well, you never know. I mean, Marvel Studios is a company that needs to make comic book films, whereas for Warner Bros., comic book films aren't their main priority.

In any case, I think a lot of us need to hear more about this film in order to make sense of it.

I don't even know what to think about the film right now. Batman just being here can either help or ruin so many things. In many ways, he's like a potential double edge sword to Superman.

[The Question]

Originally Posted by Smallville13

Even if MOS3 did go back to being a pure Superman solo film, I'm still disappointed that we're not going to get a finite piece on the Superman mythology and an actual ending. Instead we're entering MCU serialization territory, where just like RDJ; Amy Adams, Lawrence Fishbourne, and whoever are just going to be whored out until they're too old. Instead of story pieces that have a resounding stamp on the character and finality to them we're just going to perpetual DCU filims forever that just keep returning to the 'quo' like a sitcom. This disappoints me no end.

Except without that wacky approach Marvel took of doing it well.