All Things Superman: An Open Discussion (Spoilers) - - - - - - - - - - Part 90

[Mad Love]

Yeah. I just wish that after Zod's death and all that drama and destruction we wouldn't have jumped straight to the "I think he's kind of hot" scene.

Definitely. It's because Snyder added Zod's death scene. The rhythm of the movie would be very different without it.

Zod's death scene also meant Snyder added their one on one battle. Imagine if both were cut out. The Smallville battle would have been the central battle and the destruction of the world engines would have been lesser bookend battles. Having all the Kryptonians sucked up would have ended the movie on a lighter note. Snyder didn't think about how adding Zod's death and his fight with Superman changed the flow.

2 things would have dramatically changed the tone of the movie. Using brighter color filters and cutting out the Zod fight and death, which wasn't even originally intended. Nolan definitely made a bad decision by not setting his foot down and allowing Snyder to change that bit of story especially when the rest of the script didn't adjust to it.

 

[jmc]

bigger problems? to your eyes and some critics... maybe.

To many people. Don't make out like this film is a great piece of cinema.

 

[Iron Patriot]

Absolutely. It baffles me that the filmmakers would not insert a scene such as this after the destruction that was shown. How can you have destruction on that level and have zero acknowledgement of it after it is done? This was my biggest beef with the movie. Makes no sense to me.

Here's a question: Where was Metropolis' emergency response personnel? In Avengers, the cops and firefighters were helping evacuate the civilians alongside the superheroes, but I don't remember seeing a single uniform in Metropolis. Even the military just disappeared after their failed assault on Black Zero... Superman was busy with Zod, so he didn't have time to save people, but it seems really strange that nobody on the ground ever tried to get people out of harm's way.

 

[Iron_Madrigal]

Here's a question: Where was Metropolis' emergency response personnel? In Avengers, the cops and firefighters were helping evacuate the civilians alongside the superheroes, but I don't remember seeing a single uniform in Metropolis. Even the military just disappeared after their failed assault on Black Zero... Superman was busy with Zod, so he didn't have time to save people, but it seems really strange that nobody on the ground ever tried to get people out of harm's way.

Snyder only cares about action and what looks cool. Nolan at least had the intelligent to temper Goyer's writing.

 

[Rowsdower!]

To many people. Don't make out like this film is a great piece of cinema.

And yet to some of us, it is. It's all subjective. You might think it's terrible, and so might some critics, fans, etc., but a lot of people really liked it. Does that mean it's a great film? I don't know, but for me, I'm going to judge the movie by my own enjoyment of it. And for me, I was engaged the entire time, loving almost everything I saw. I thought the characters were great, the story was really good, the music was fantastic... for me, it was the Superman movie I've been waiting for forever. I think that constitutes a great film.

 

[Boy Scout]

Snyder only cares about action and what looks cool. Nolan at least had the intelligent to temper Goyer's writing.

How is that Snyder's fault? Goyer's the one who didn't put it in the script.

 

[Iron_Madrigal]

How is that Snyder's fault? Goyer's the one who didn't put it in the script.

A more proactive director who understood the character and the consequences of such great destruction could have suggested to the writer to change or add things. Instead it seems Snyder was too focused on having Goyer change it so Superman kills Zod at the end, instead of adding some humanity and compassion to the film.

(I actually don't mind the Zod neck breaking, it's the haphazard destruction that Superman causes that I dislike, and how it's not acknowledge by the character or the film)

 

[Boy Scout]

A more proactive director who understood the character and the consequences of such great destruction could have suggested to the writer to change or add things.

Or maybe the writer should've just done a better job of that in the first place.

Instead it seems Snyder was too focused on having Goyer change it so Superman kills Zod at the end, instead of adding some humanity and compassion to the film.

**** him for that. But from what I understand, it wasn't that hard to convince Goyer. So **** him too.

 

[Iron_Madrigal]

Or maybe the writer should've just done a better job of that in the first place.



**** him for that. But from what I understand, it wasn't that hard to convince Goyer. So **** him too.

I mean, I totally agree. Goyer has some good ideas, but I think he's not good at executing them. It like he gets too focused on the main theme and setting it up with tons of exposition that he forgets about the little things. It seems like the characters only exist as archetypes, not real, fleshed out personalities. Like everything Pa Kent says relates to the main theme that it all seems forced. He's like a robot.

And Goyer's dialogue IS TERRIBLE. What did Lois say? "Once you're done measuring *****" or something?

 

[Boy Scout]

I mean, I totally agree.

I see what you're saying, as well. But I think Snyder is the type of director who is only as good as the script he's working with.

Goyer has some good ideas, but I think he's not good at executing them.

Yes.

Like everything Pa Kent says relates to the main theme that it all seems forced. He's like a robot.

I think that was just Costner's performance.

And Goyer's dialogue IS TERRIBLE.

Some of it was pretty cringe-worthy, yeah.

What did Lois say? "Once you're done measuring *****" or something?

I actually liked that line! It sounded exactly like something Lois would say. t:

 

[Iron_Madrigal]

Yeah, that was kinda' my original point- A better director would have caught a lot of those flaws in the script and fixed them. Snyder is more of a stylistic director, and so I don't think he really cared or noticed.

 

[Boy Scout]

True. I don't disagree with you, I don't think, I just don't think we should only blame Snyder for the film's issues.

 

[Visualiza]

And yet to some of us, it is. It's all subjective. You might think it's terrible, and so might some critics, fans, etc., but a lot of people really liked it. Does that mean it's a great film? I don't know, but for me, I'm going to judge the movie by my own enjoyment of it. And for me, I was engaged the entire time, loving almost everything I saw. I thought the characters were great, the story was really good, the music was fantastic... for me, it was the Superman movie I've been waiting for forever. I think that constitutes a great film.

I think the difference is that to a lot of people, 'what I like = great', when that isn't necessarily true. Consider this mentality in other areas, such as your favorite junk food that isn't particularly nutritious, or your favorite sweater that doesn't keep you warm. Seems especially bad with this community in general, as if it's about ego rather than subject matter. This is one area where I think people are usually more civil when discussing other things. I can think of countless times when discussing music with others, where they'll admit to a particular artist being their favorite, while also admitting that they aren't necessarily the most talented or the best in their respective genre. Around here; however, 'my favorite movie = best movie ever, no questions asked' seems to be a commonly adopted mentality.

The trend here seems to be that if the movie is entertaining, then it must be superlative. There is indeed a difference, and I think falling back on 'it's all opinion/subjective' is skirting the issue. It's becoming the de facto method of refusing to justify or so much as discuss one's point of view. If we're here to discuss, then discuss.

 

[BlueLantern]

Filmmaking is always a collaborative effort. I think pretty much all of them involved need to be responsible for the product put on screen and not just the writer. Granted, it's his ideas that are ultimately brought on screen, but its such an often situation that very little of what's written shows up so heyho.

 

[jmc]

And yet to some of us, it is. It's all subjective. You might think it's terrible, and so might some critics, fans, etc., but a lot of people really liked it. Does that mean it's a great film? I don't know, but for me, I'm going to judge the movie by my own enjoyment of it. And for me, I was engaged the entire time, loving almost everything I saw. I thought the characters were great, the story was really good, the music was fantastic... for me, it was the Superman movie I've been waiting for forever. I think that constitutes a great film.

I never said it was terrible, there are moments I did enjoy, but objectively from a story telling and film making perspective it's all over the place. I can understand people getting enjoyment out of it, but this film is not a great piece of cinema by any means.

 

[sf2]

I never said it was terrible, there are moments I did enjoy, but objectively from a story telling and film making perspective it's all over the place. I can understand people getting enjoyment out of it, but this film is not a great piece of cinema by any means.

how is a great piece of cinema by any means?

spidey? ironman? Pirates? transformers?

got a formula???
then they should go with the mold to create any movies! shouldn't they?

 

[jmc]

how is a great piece of cinema by any means?

spidey? ironman? Pirates? transformers?

got a formula???
then they should go with the mold to create any movies! shouldn't they?

I have no idea WTF you just wrote.

 

[BlueLantern]

Nobody ever does.

 

[sabetoonth]

I believe that he is asking for an example of great cinema, apparently specifically from the Superhero genre.

Me? This s no stupendously unflawed film I'll never see anything wrog with. But I do like it, I'd watch it again and again because it was netertaining and it held my attention the entire time I was in the theater. But its no masterpiece film.

 

[sf2]

I have no idea WTF you just wrote.

oops. didn't read your sign. so you are a true fan and the rest loving the movie are fanboys? power to you.

 

[tomoe]

So I have a question about scripts. When it comes to fight scenes, does a script describe the action in detail- every move the characters make? Or does it just say Zod fights Superman and leave it up to the director to choreograph it all?

 

[jmc]

oops. didn't read your sign. so you are a true fan and the rest loving the movie are fanboys? power to you.

I've got no issue with fans liking movies I don't, what I don't like are fans making piss weak excuses defending poorly executed films.

 

[BlueLantern]

Amen.

 

[jmc]

So I have a question about scripts. When it comes to fight scenes, does a script describe the action in detail- every move the characters make? Or does it just say Zod fights Superman and leave it up to the director to choreograph it all?

From what I understand that's very much a case by case situation, some scripts will go into great detail, others will be left up to the director and FX teams.

 

[Herolee10]

I think it's been said a thousand times already that while it's agreeable that MOS did have its flaws, it's still nowhere near as bad as some blatantly criticize it to be. I just think that the reason why the backlash on this film is so harsh from some is because they were expecting way too much out of this due to Nolan being involved and thinking that this was going to be some game changer like TDK was.

Some people here make this film out to be as bad as a Transformers or Green Lantern film. I mean it's like you guys only come here to point out all of the bad things when the film as just as many good things imho.