I suppose that yes, all that is true. But when you get right down to it, in The Avengers we saw the heroes actively saving innocent people during the crisis quite a bit, and in Man of Steel we didn't see much of it at all. Yes, when you really think about it it makes some sense that it played out that way, but that's what we saw on screen and had an immediate emotional reaction to.
To be honest, I'm glad you acknowledge all of the above, I was worried this might turn into one of those discussions...
The thing is
we see more individual life saving in MoS than in avengers, from his first act at the start of the movie to what motivates his very last act in the final fight...to Smallville to what he can no doubt hear during his world engine kamikaze. And when the life saving gives way to fighting, it's implied that it's because superman can't save the lives any longer. Not sure what I saw in avengers outside of one scene with cap. That being said, I personally don't have any issues with life saving protocols. Never have. I enjoy both films.
I want to ask, because I'm curious: In what way do you think Man of Steel had stronger character development than The Avengers?
In brief, ignoring the fact that Cap never changes. And ignoring that all these other heroes seem to have a character arc restart in all their films, I will put forth the idea that in MOS we are presented with a character that seemingly goes though 3 different stages of being in within the course of the story. At the start he's a drifter with no clear purpose or understanding of his life, meaning or genetic code other than a sense to help and nothing more. We are then given him as a younger boy rebelliously undergoing life lessons under his father's guidance and then at the end of the film we are given an alien that knows and is comfortable with who he is and how he's going to move forward with his life. What's important to note is that these 3 people would(and do) respond very differently to different obstacles when presented before them and for me, that is characterization. The fact that we develop though cause and effect from one to the other is what I would consider
character development.
In avengers, it's a different game. A fun one but lacking in that area and with different goals.
As opposed to a constant stream of grim melodrama and product placement? They used jokes to break the tension and to make the characters feel like actual human beings with emotions.
Here's where we are going to start running around in circles. Please tell me how this two sentences don't apply to avengers...and before you try I will just say I can make a good case for the opposite. I see no point in proceeding further.
Well you'd be wrong. The Avengers is an extremely careful movie with a lot of care and planning put into every little piece of it. Man of Steel is pretty by the numbers.
nah, right off the bat I'd say an non linear narrative isn't by the numbers(and you would agree), I'd also say addressing a moral questions and dilemma's in a superman film isn't by the books(see the themes of genetic predetermination/genocide/value of life). Seems to take alot for Superman to kill by his own hand in this...not so sure about the other film...
I like avengers and I love Whedon(for what that's worth) but that film is alot more "by the numbers" and mindless than MoS.
Example one, a magic staff to the heart followed by bob to the head used as plot devices....in this day and age. But enough of that.
Well, perhaps hate isn't quite the right word. Hate implies a certain amount of emotional investment. I think they think their audience is stupid and only care about them insofar as how much money they can get from them.
Not that I agree, but I'm curious how you know the same can't be applied to producers and filmmakers across the board(seriously how?)
And no I don't agree, I don't see anything in these films that implies any of that. How stupid do the producers of Pacific Rim or This is the end think their audience I wonder, considering those films are
guilty of the same and more.
I don't understand what you mean by that.
Two separate things actually.
1. Green Lantern's box office has some weird relation to it's quality, not sure what but I'm sure there is something there in between the lines. Lone Ranger as well...
2.Secondly I was leading into my subjective breakdown of art. I'll be damned before I will let some critic tell me what kind of comedy is good/bad. It's just not happening and that's because it's art and an individual experience. Plain and simple.
I hate Kevin Hart I love adam Sandler, I know what the consensus of critics say about it right now but that means nothing in the face of my burst out loud laughter and or lack thereof and the same for the many like me. And no one can tell us what's actually funny and what's not. That's how art works imo.
I disagree completely. I really don't understand that mentality at all.
There is an extent to which art is subjective. Art has to touch people on some emotional level, and everyone is different emotionally. Art has to make people think, and everyone is different intellectually. Art has to bring to mind one's ethics, and everyone has differing senses of morality.
Since when?
There is a deaf man down the street, he is given back his hearing for the first time in his 30 years of life, he is then given the most garbage music out right now(let's just say it's Kesha, critics seem to hate her). He has no sense of what is "good or bad music" by our institutions. His experience with the sounds, melodies and energy's of her music is one of passion and enjoyment. In his experience, that's a good piece of art.
Another example, is of the tribal grunts and moans of a small group in some pacific islands. These people and their enjoyment goes beyond the pitch control and musical story telling of 18th century mozart. It's pure and it's intrinsic. The same exact thing applies to visual story telling and film. It's no different, we can constrain our enjoyment of such things to what the establishment has defined as good with its' "composition analysis and balance and squash and stretch animation" or we can just consume and devour art that speaks to us the way we all did when we where young our own people. Stretched across the board, this is why I would argue that there is no good or bad art. And the individual decides.
Moreover, all this talk of story telling and character development means nothing when these same critics give a visual film like Baraka nothing but acclaim. It's not always about meeting the same checks an balances. How dare they say Transformers lacks in character development(not true) when in the same breath they won't say the same about such a film? Pointless.
That's the way I see it.
But there is also an extent to which art is objective. We can, to an extent, gauge how well written, directed, or acted a particular film is. How much technical skill went into making the film. Tommy Wiseau's "The Room" is inarguably a terrible movie for these reasons.
That film is a great experience to someone just as Jackson Pollocks art pieces were great works to someone before the critics stopped calling his art crap and nonsense. There is no gauge, there is just how well things fall into our critical establishment at the time. It's why critics weren't too kind to Kubricks films upon release but sing a different tune now.
Tell a 5 year old 10 bedtimes stories and ask them to rate them, pretty sure this kids experience with story telling appreciation won't simply come down to "how much technical skill went into...."
That's art. The one thing of which an individual's enjoyment is completely defined by they themselves and not some book. It's when we need to form mass consensus on something that we fall into these trappings of defining what's "good" art.
So then, yes, there are people who got genuine enjoyment out of the Transformers films and I can't fault them for that in the slightest.
But I feel confident saying that those movies are stupid. I feel confident saying those movies are racist. I feel confident saying those movies are poorly directed and poorly acted.
And more than that, I feel absolutely confident saying that none of the Transformers films are films that are going to change people's lives. They're not going to leave any kind of significant emotional impact on a member on the audience. At best, people go to them to watch things explode and then they go home and forget about them afterwards. And I think being genuinely memorable is something every good movie should strive for.
Yet you did, and you will continue to, that's just the way it goes.
The biggest fools never lack in confidence(no offense, I'm kidding).
However your confidence is firmly misplaced, any film can make any measure of difference on any individuals life, on any given day, just as any cloud formation can. It's this self important blanket statement making that really sours modern film and art criticism imo. I watched a big bird movie when I was 9 that is still with me today, I can tell you now that it's pretty simple and pretty "stupid"....
As for the racism, please. Such things can be found in any film. As a black man I can argue that the one black character in avengers is a little on the loud and moxy side of things...I personally find the way people pick at TF's comedy to be silly.
wow this went on longer than I expected, sorry about that.
