You know, I guess I would have liked to see Superman safe a couple people from falling debris, only to show Zod kill a dozen bystanders with his heat vision. Basically, every time Superman would safe someone, he'd condemn someone else to death, because he took his focus off Zod.
Superman heard the scream of help and he sprinted down and caught the falling debris just in time to save a family.*When he was about to say "you are safe", general Zod dove into him and blew him away...The debris fell and crushed on the family...*Superman was in shock and with his x-ray; he saw all the family member were dead including a kid. The image was getting blurry as tears began to fill up his eyes.*General Zod gave him another blow in the face, sending him across buildings and plummet into the debris.*Superman pulled himself up, injured and in daze.*He saw people dead, injured, crying and running for shelter.*He looked up and saw general Zod hovering in the air; shooting heat eye-beams, destroying missiles and fighting jet planes.His emotion gradually changed from terror to anger and determination. He knew General Zod must be stopped at all cost.He Propelled himself up and caught General Zod…Cut into the final fight scene.
Do u think it would make an outcry by the fans that not only superman failed to save the people but directly causing their death. Can they take the cruel fact?
Superman heard the scream of help and he sprinted down and caught the falling debris just in time to save a family.*When he was about to say "you are safe", general Zod dove into him and blew him away...The debris fell and crushed on the family...*Superman was in shock and with his x-ray; he saw all the family member were dead including a kid. The image was getting blurry as tears began to fill up his eyes.*General Zod gave him another blow in the face, sending him across buildings and plummet into the debris.*Superman pulled himself up, injured and in daze.*He saw people dead, injured, crying and running for shelter.*He looked up and saw general Zod hovering in the air; shooting heat eye-beams, destroying missiles and fighting jet planes.His emotion gradually changed from terror to anger and determination. He knew General Zod must be stopped at all cost.He Propelled himself up and caught General Zod Cut into the final fight scene.
I don't think you've read my post correctly.I'm not talking about seeing it graphically (and yes people clearly do die) but my point is there is as much validity to believe there aren't people in the buildings as there is to believe people are because we don't see it. As I also said Perry clearly evacuated the DP building is it so hard to believe others did the same? If this happened in real life plenty of people would get out of the buildings they are in.
And the world engine was lifting hundreds of cars and buses into the air at once, and them smashing them into the ground hard enough to completely crush them. Between that, and the falling skyscrapers, people in the streets weren't any safer than the people in the buildings. Perry and the others certainly didn't, and even when they finally got Jenny out of the rubble, the buildings next to them were completely gone.
BUT people died because Superman couldnt take the fight out of the city. and Zod was so desperate that he could trick him into space or out in the open. the only reason why they fight in the city is because the writter decided to fight in the city.
Ignoring the fact that almost every comic book film presents a scenario in which the hero should have taken the fight out of the city(including batman), And that in city fighting has happened in a good amount of superman serials in other media. Why or how is it a problem now?
I mean I guess Snyder could have looked at superman II for inspiration as to how to take the fight out of the city but..this isn't the 80's and that sort of thing might not be as wildly forgiven as it once was(or is in DBZ).
I personally see your point, but it raises an giant issue for me. That is, why deprive the audience and the superman fans in particular the chance to see their giant metropolis fight? I mean would you honestly argue that you would have rather seen a fight in the dessert(I think Michael Bay learned this error the hard way). Would you rather see a harness driven, cgi doubled, weightless fight in space?
Could one actually attempt to argue that the third act of avengers would be that much better had that portal opened up over the Grand Canyon and the fight ensued there because it would mean the writiers saved more lives?
It seems people are asking for a certain level of non scale with Superman. A scale that is currently found in other cinema and it seems these people defend this decision by citing what they've seen of the character in the past. I personally blame the way Donner handles such situations for somewhat institutionalizing the idea that superman fights his fights a certain way and that the situation is never fully out of his control(seasoned or not). Or a Lois & Clark type of scale which is the by product of budget....
What a shame that Snyder and Co. didn't take this into account when they decided to reinvigorate the franchise in the year 2013.
The bigger shame I find is just how many examples of superman fighting in this precise way we have all in fact seen in various forms of budget free modern media throughout the years.
*cue the many dozens of clips from STAS and Doomsday that will be ignored, and countless comic books.
Oh well, maybe Snyder will learn a lesson from all of this. Fans are cited as saying they want more "cartoony, theme park like action"(true story) and not as dramatically staged realistic stuff from their comic book adaptations. All that praise for the real world, real consequence in post 9/11 world TDK trilogy got be damned. Also, people don't want to see the hero kill, stakes or no stakes, heroes killing whether it's canon or not is out of character, traumatic to kids in the audience, and just not what real heroes do.
(sarcasm smiley).
On a another note, I do wonder how all the kids sitting in the first row with George Clooney dolls in their hands felt about
Or this level of physical brutality...
Or how the victims of homeland terror felt about the 3 straight terrorist plots against an American city, that themselves yielded a probably just as many casualties as 9/11 and also explored the cause and effect of "bad guy holding a governing body hostage" and various weapons of varying mass destruction laid about the city...
One of which ending in a shot such as this
How did the victims of American Terror feel about Ironman 3 for that matter...
I can't speak for them, others here might be able to though.
I personally don't mind, but then again I'm not the one complaining. I just think there is double standard against this film and I'm enjoying finding out way it is so.
And the world engine was lifting hundreds of cars and buses into the air at once, and them smashing them into the ground hard enough to completely crush them. Between that, and the falling skyscrapers, people in the streets weren't any safer than the people in the buildings. Perry and the others certainly didn't, and even when they finally got Jenny out of the rubble, the buildings next to them were completely gone.
I completely agree, the problem is that would be a nearly impossible thing to do because our world and the people that live in it in this time (and I mean this reality that I exist in even as I'm typing this) is a very different place now, sadly.
In several interviews that I've seen done with Snyder it's very evident and he even says it in almost every one of them that they (meaning cast, crew, producers, the writer and himself as well) simply wanted to approach this movie as though everything that came before - 75+ years of lore and canon of all kinds - never existed.
So going on that they literally had to do everything new and fresh because if that's the intention overall then anytime you deviate from that viewpoint there's gonna be someone standing there saying "Oh you just copied <whatever>... you have no creativity, you're a hack" and words to that effect.
If I had to pick a moment where I had the strongest connection to STM from my viewing of MoS it would be the end portion when Kal/Clark says he wishes his Dad had lived to see "it" finally happen (meaning him becoming Superman, basically) and Martha says "He saw it, Clark, believe me" then the cut to young Kal/Clark playing in the grass with the dog, wearing that cape, then the music kicks in, etc. geez man, break my heart why don't ya...
I'm not talking about copying the storytelling, but the sense of diversity in terms of setpieces. I think if MOS2 has more "real-world" locations, it would be cool to see. It'd be nice to have a shot of Superman hovering the Pyramids or something like that. We got a hint of that with Superman flying over Zebras in africa and over the sea. There should have been more shots like that.
Maybe for the sequel they can have more of a panaromic feel to it.
When Superman DID interact with our world (such as the great shot of him hovering above the military, it looked the best.)
And natural colors for the sequel. If I had the studios insist on ONE thing, that would be it
As dated as Superman:TM was, I felt like it did its best at capturing scale (except for the flying scene with Lane. That could have been a cool first person POV shot of them flying around the city) with the technology it was given.
Do u think it would make an outcry by the fans that not only superman failed to save the people but directly causing their death. Can they take the cruel fact?
All the outcry so far is over stuff we don't see but assume (people in the buildings as the buildings fall or get pummeled by the gravity wave or Zod/Kal fighting) so it's logical to conclude that if people are as pissed as they already are on the stuff they can't see, they'd probably be even more pissed about something they could.
In your scene example, it wouldn't bother me at all because I know (again) that this iteration of Superman has literally (again) been on the job for a few hours at most. His inexperience, lack of battle training, lack of fighting to any degree whatsoever in his entire lifetime means mistakes are going to be made, there's just no getting around that one incredibly significant aspect of this telling of the Superman tale.
It cannot be denied or dismissed at all but a lot of people do seem to do that very thing: he doesn't have decades of experience doing what he is forced into doing, his first fight he holds his own but does get hammered pretty hard a few times (by a GIRL, no less), and then he's forced into taking Zod's life (who was basically asking for it so, it's a good death from his perspective I'd say).
I tend to follow the Vulcan philosophy (which of course is fictional but it's still worthy) that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Now, ramp that up a bit and I say this:
If every single human being in Metropolis had to die in MoS in order to save the rest of the planet and human race, I don't have a problem with it. There's a bigger context going on, this isn't just a small fight anymore, this is for the human race, the planet, and the kitchen sink too.
Do u think it would make an outcry by the fans that not only superman failed to save the people but directly causing their death. Can they take that kinda scene? Seeing people dying in front of superman eyes.
Just got back from my 2nd viewing, this time in 3D. Wow, I loved it even more, so much of the story details that I missed from my first viewing, seemed to flow a lot better too, just because I knew what to expect this time.
Batman Begins is my all time favourite CBM, but this is damn close to the top now!
But thousands of people are still a lot. My issue was that Snyder was so busy trashing Metropolis as if it were a Lego set that he seemed to forget that it was likely killing thousands of people in the process, since there's no reference to the loss of life in the movie.
I still liked the movie (I've seen it twice), but I can see why others are bothered or turned off by it.
They could have even included a scene at the end where Superman was helping with the rebuilding of the city. Something like that could have been brilliant.
There's nothing saying that thousands died. Nothing. Thousands could have, or it could have been hundreds, or nobody died. You're just guessing. The movie didn't make any concrete statements one way or the other.
30 mins in and I had tears coming down my face and was ready to call it my favorite ever film. Then the messiness came in. Just the jumping. Lois here, Lois there. I was surprised how quickly Clark was in the suit. It didn't feel like he earned it yet. And there was still more flashbacks after that too.
And then the big action sequences just follow each other in the second half. It definitely felt uneven, but damn if I didn't enjoy every second of it. I think I understand where the disconnect comes from too. This feels very much, unapologetically a genre film. It's for us.
Henry was amazing. The cinematography was amazing. The music was amazing. It's too early for me to rate it yet I can't wait to see it again in a bigger cinema. Very very happy.
There's nothing saying that thousands died. Nothing. Thousands could have, or it could have been hundreds, or nobody died. You're just guessing. The movie didn't make any concrete statements one way or the other.
But thousands of people are still a lot. My issue was that Snyder was so busy trashing Metropolis as if it were a Lego set that he seemed to forget that it was likely killing thousands of people in the process, since there's no reference to the loss of life in the movie.
I still liked the movie (I've seen it twice), but I can see why others are bothered or turned off by it.
They could have even included a scene at the end where Superman was helping with the rebuilding of the city. Something like that could have been brilliant.
It is my hope that the buildings we saw destroyed during the Superman/Zod fight were evacuated. There is some credence to this theory too, since we saw people running away from the area where Black Zero was decimating Metropolis and we see Supes and Zod inside several buildings during the fight, all of which appear to be empty. Granted, it's not completely realistic to think that everyone got out but... we are dealing with a movie about two aliens with super powers fighting each other. As much as they attempt to ground Superman in reality, there are always going to be aspects of the character and the story that feel like a comic book.
Anyway, I can understand why those scenes bother people (particularly those that were in NYC during 9/11). Snyder might do better next time around to avoid such wanton destruction. However, as for Superman "luring Zod away from the city" like in Superman II... that scene always bothered me because it looks like Superman just punks out (and people in the movie even say this)... and there's no guarantee that they would just follow him anyway. I really don't think this new Zod would have, since he had just threatened to kill EVERY human being on the planet.
And the world engine was lifting hundreds of cars and buses into the air at once, and them smashing them into the ground hard enough to completely crush them. Between that, and the falling skyscrapers, people in the streets weren't any safer than the people in the buildings. Perry and the others certainly didn't, and even when they finally got Jenny out of the rubble, the buildings next to them were completely gone.
I never said people didn't die, I simply pointed out that those saying thousands of people died even though we didn't see any bodies can't argue with those that say thousands of people didn't cause again we didn't see anybody. Its fine to believe what you want to believe is all I'm saying but people shouldn't be saying you are wrong if you believe one or the other. That was all I was saying I wasn't arguing for one or the other.
Also I never said they were safer if thet got out of the building either that was because people were saying that Superman is careless smashing Zod into buildings yada yads but if they're empty then it doesn't really matter, people are safe but obviously its gonna cost money to fix.
It's a very frustrating movie for me. Cause I loved so much. Yet so much felt missing; rushed and messy. Individual moments had me almost in tears, yet the whole left me empty.
All the outcry so far is over stuff we don't see but assume (people in the buildings as the buildings fall or get pummeled by the gravity wave or Zod/Kal fighting) so it's logical to conclude that if people are as pissed as they already are on the stuff they can't see, they'd probably be even more pissed about something they could.
In your scene example, it wouldn't bother me at all because I know (again) that this iteration of Superman has literally (again) been on the job for a few hours at most. His inexperience, lack of battle training, lack of fighting to any degree whatsoever in his entire lifetime means mistakes are going to be made, there's just no getting around that one incredibly significant aspect of this telling of the Superman tale.
It cannot be denied or dismissed at all but a lot of people do seem to do that very thing: he doesn't have decades of experience doing what he is forced into doing, his first fight he holds his own but does get hammered pretty hard a few times (by a GIRL, no less), and then he's forced into taking Zod's life (who was basically asking for it so, it's a good death from his perspective I'd say).
I tend to follow the Vulcan philosophy (which of course is fictional but it's still worthy) that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Now, ramp that up a bit and I say this:
If every single human being in Metropolis had to die in MoS in order to save the rest of the planet and human race, I don't have a problem with it. There's a bigger context going on, this isn't just a small fight anymore, this is for the human race, the planet, and the kitchen sink too.
Question: Who was the glasses kid contact that Lois had in Alaska? The one who ousted her on the news. Was he a reference to the comics? Or a made-up character like Jenny?
Also the little bit of staff interaction in the end between Lois, Lombard and Jenny, right before Perry introduced Clark was nice. Definitely a nice teaser for the sequel.
Anyway, I can understand why those scenes bother people (particularly those that were in NYC during 9/11). Snyder might do better next time around to avoid such wanton destruction. However, as for Superman "luring Zod away from the city" like in Superman II... that scene always bothered me because it looks like Superman just punks out (and people in the movie even say this)... and there's no guarantee that they would just follow him anyway. I really don't think this new Zod would have, since he had just threatened to kill EVERY human being on the planet.
To be fair, that film sets up an entirely different motivation for Zod I think.
That being said, it's pretty convenient that the super villain just stops what he's doing and decides to play along. Moreover it truly does raise the GIANT issue of why on earth would a benevolent superman indulge in such wanton destruction(well he saved every I guess) if he hand a much more non violent plan to begin with.
meh,
again I'm not complaining about either, some it seems are.
It's a very frustrating movie for me. Cause I loved so much. Yet so much felt missing; rushed and messy. Individual moments had me almost in tears, yet the whole left me empty.
I agree with this to an extent (not the empty feeling). Yes, it was messy and uneven. But there was so much in there for me to hold onto and love, and that's enough for me.
Looks like Margot Kidder loved MOS, I wonder if Donner has seen it.
What did Margot Kidder think of "Man of Steel" and Amy Adams' take on Lois Lane? [via watoday.com.au]
"I thought [Man of Steel] was wonderful and I thought that young Amy Adams was just terrific. I wanted a lot more of her, I wish they had more scenes for her."At the source link, the actress also recounts making "Superman" and "Superman II" and how the Richard Donner cut of "Superman II" is far superior to the theatrical cut.
Question: Who was the glasses kid contact that Lois had in Alaska? The one who ousted her on the news. Was he a reference to the comics? Or a made-up character like Jenny?
From what I recall, he was supposedly some online blogger who is known for posting news about alien info and such and has come under verbal attack from Lois in the past since she didn't originally see him as being very professional or competent when it came to journalism. He seems to have been a made up character.
A lot of this has to do with tone. When the movie is campy you don't take the violence as seriously. When it's serious you take the destruction more seriously. Then toss in the sound. Lets say there's some things being smashed. If there's an upbeat soundtrack playing you feel one way. Now take that same image and have a more serious soundtrack playing as well as incredibly loud sounds of explosions. You feel another way.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
