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

[Marvin]

I think The Avengers' tone shifted a lot. I mean, this is a movie that had the Schwarma scene and Agent Coulson's death, it had a a lot of emotional highs and lows. But it worked because every time the shifted into a different tone, it wasn't disregarding the previous one, it built off of it. We're sad when Coulson dies, so we're happy when The Avengers start kicking Loki's ass. We see the damage and the threat to innocent lives that the invasion poses, so we cheer when The Avengers stop it and we get a kind of emotional release from the Schawrma scene, which is funny, but funny in a way that acknowledges (and is really entirely about) how physically and emotionally drained these characters are after the battle.

The tone changes a lot, but I wouldn't call it inconsistent because it's an organic progression that keeps the audience invested.

I'm finding that I simply don't subscribe to this idea that the audience's experience(on a whole or or within the individual) can be as generalized in such ways, it's just too specific. Especially from my experience coming of out theaters and conversing with my peers(Prim for example). I think it's a fools errand or stuff better left to phd's. Still, it does seem to make sense at times.

Anyways, I think Nolan/Goyer wanted to capture the success they (think) they had with begins and didn't take into account that the were dealing with a character that has a very different relationship with the audience and a different expectation due to his inherent scale.
For example, the dark toned terror attack on the city of Gotham(begins, not the two sequels), countless casualties abound, we are faced with a doomsday weapon that needs to be turned off(after being turned on) and a terrorist that needs to be given a good thrashing and killed. We then **** into the hero having a reflectfull chat with a close female in their life and about their life, and the films end with the hero having an assertive yet "open for business" chat with the local law/gov't liaison (gordon in begins). Of course MOS ended with what could very well be the beginning scene of the sequel and not just him flying away from lennix.

I'm missing a few things but I think unlike with the other cbm's these producers were trying to capture what worked with their other hit within the beats. I think it's working for most people(especially if you ask the Studio Heads what they think of the films success). After the mess that was GreenLantern I can see why they wanted to play it "safe" in this way.

 

[Marvin]

Now that you said it, yeah, the movie worked for me precisely the manner you described. The Schwarma scene is amazing because it was brilliantly set up by the movie. Man of Steel had "welcome to the planet" as an amazing line to end the movie on -- but I thought it wasn't an amazing scene because it wasn't brilliantly set up in the movie.

That's the problem though. Did this scene work for anyone? How many people?
I do recall many people thought it was well done, does that mean it in fact was brilliantly set up in the film for them?

we'll go around in subjective circles for days when we start tying to suggest what worked and didn't for anyone but ourselves.

I liked the line btw, that was almost the point of the film for me and a nice little play on words. Alot more thought out then middle eastern food.

 

[PacificBoy]

You see, I didn't even catch that. Now, the question is, is that because I, personally, wasn't paying attention, or is it because the film makers didn't do their job of getting me emotionally hooked so that line would resonate?

I think it's the later, but it's very much worth discussing.

Similarly, I didn't connect to Kal-El (note that I didn't call him Superman) and thus the movie. But evidently there are many who got invested. It's absolutely fascinating, this gamut of gut responses to the movie.

I think this is due to Clark being the principal reason to follow, like and be emotionally involved with in the movie.

 

[PacificBoy]

That's the problem though. Did this scene work for anyone? How many people?
I do recall many people thought it was well done, does that mean it in fact was brilliantly set up in the film for them?

we'll go around in subjective circles for days when we start tying to suggest what worked and didn't for anyone but ourselves.

I liked the line btw, that was almost the point of the film for me and a nice little play on words. Alot more thought out then middle eastern food.

Oh, sorry if it came across that I'm stating as fact. I thought it was clear it's my viewpoint, it "worked for me".

And yeah, it's a great little line.

 

[The Question]

I'm finding that I simply don't subscribe to this idea that the audience's experience(on a whole or or within the individual) can be as generalized in such ways, it's just too specific. Especially from my experience coming of out theaters and conversing with my peers(Prim for example). I think it's a fools errand or stuff better left to phd's. Still, it does seem to make sense at times.

Similarly, I didn't connect to to Kal-El (note that I didn't call him Superman) and thus the movie. But evidently there are many who got invested. It's absolutely fascinating, this gamut of gut responses to the movie.

I think there is an extent to which the ways people engage in media on an emotional level are universal. Joseph Campbell's Mono-Myth wouldn't be a thing if that weren't the case. So, the question that the mixed reaction toward Man of Steel raises, in my mind anyway, is how exactly people are approaching the movie differently, what it is they're getting out of the movie that they deem satisfactory, and how that reflects on our current cultural trends of how we consume and produce and think about art.

 

[Deserana]

Just watching Max Landis 40 minute Superman pitch and he is coming up with some great stuff.

I especially think if the people in MoS2 are like "**** Superman he led those people here and destroyed the city" that would be a very intriguing way to go. Especially if Bruce is fixing Metropolis with Luthor and then, as Batman (who has already established himself as a hero among the people of Gotham) gets his ass beaten by Superman which then further gives the people of Metropolis and now Gotham the feeling that Superman is bad news. It could be part of Luthor's grand plan.

I still think the fact the damage isn't addressed in MoS is a flaw. It will help if it is addressed in MoS2 but it would still mean for me the finale of MoS doesn't really hold up and produce on its themes and devastation.

Imagine if this MoS2 never happened we would be left with a film that doesn't ever acknowledge its devastation or its continuing themes. It needs to stand as an individual and for me MoS doesn't really do that but I'm still excited like heck for MoS2.

 

[PacificBoy]

I think there is an extent to which the ways people engage in media on an emotional level are universal. Joseph Campbell's Mono-Myth wouldn't be a thing if that weren't the case. So, the question that the mixed reaction toward Man of Steel raises, in my mind anyway, is how exactly people are approaching the movie differently, what it is they're getting out of the movie that they deem satisfactory, and how that reflects on our current cultural trends of how we consume and produce and think about art.

I'm probably talking out of my arse here but the varying expectations play a major part in the mixed reaction, I feel, and also cos MoS strives to be more than just a CBM, i.e. a soulful CBM (whether it succeeds or not is another discussion). So as a filmic experience, there are many things to balance (story, plot, character, spectacle) and camps of audiences to please.

From reviews, hype, media, with The Avengers, most simply expected to be taken on a fun romp. With Man of Steel, the expectations are higher, and varied, more so than your average CBM. You expect a good time, a retelling (and a fresh and updated take at that) of the Superman story, big action like never before.

 

[Vid Electricz]

I think there is an extent to which the ways people engage in media on an emotional level are universal. Joseph Campbell's Mono-Myth wouldn't be a thing if that weren't the case. So, the question that the mixed reaction toward Man of Steel raises, in my mind anyway, is how exactly people are approaching the movie differently, what it is they're getting out of the movie that they deem satisfactory, and how that reflects on our current cultural trends of how we consume and produce and think about art.

Yes, it is very interesting. Not to get to deep into it- I have noticed a trend with these types of movies (comic book adaptations/action flicks) where not only is the importance placed on the action sequences or the spectacle as it were, opposed to the characters, but the fans are increasingly satiated by verisimilitude to the aesthetics of the source material.

Given the overabundance of these types of films (we're oversaturated with them) and the studio's recognition that they can churn out billions regardless of the "quality", we're given lower quality, made by committee products (TASM, MOS), which seem to hit all the aesthetic checkmarks that one would expect of these characters while shortchanging the actual story. I am also sure that there is something to do with pandering to the audience and dumbing down the material whilst providing the illusion of a more "mature", "substantive" experience... I am sure you've got an interesting take on this-What do you think?

 

[PacificBoy]

Just watching Max Landis 40 minute Superman pitch and he is coming up with some great stuff.

I especially think if the people in MoS2 are like "**** Superman he led those people here and destroyed the city" that would be a very intriguing way to go. Especially if Bruce is fixing Metropolis with Luthor and then, as Batman (who has already established himself as a hero among the people of Gotham) gets his ass beaten by Superman which then further gives the people of Metropolis and now Gotham the feeling that Superman is bad news. It could be part of Luthor's grand plan.

I liked the Supes and Bats interaction from Landis' pitch. Would love to see a similar dynamic in the Superman-Batman movie over a versus angle.

 

[Marvin]

Imagine if this MoS2 never happened we would be left with a film that doesn't ever acknowledge its devastation or its continuing themes. It needs to stand as an individual and for me MoS doesn't really do that but I'm still excited like heck for MoS2.

as much as I may agree with you that films should stand on their own, and as much as I believe mos does, I don't think in this day and age of serialized film that films necessarily have to.

If that were not the case, and I mean literally, then LOTR wouldn't be winning the oscars it won for it may be a well put together story, it's very much segmented. But that's another thing. I'm actually referring to how the audience has been conditioned to expect sequels to continue things explicitly in this age. Just as many have been conditioned to expect stingers.

As much as I enjoy ASM. I think that film is designed with a direct sequel in mind. Yes most plotlines are closed(just like in MOS) but that is not a story ending the way Shawshank is a story ending, especially that gwen stacey business. This is an episode of something.

Fine with me, but I'm the guy that reads Game of Thones books one at a time lol.

 

[Vid Electricz]

as much as I may agree with you that films should stand on their own, and as much as I believe mos does, I don't think in this day and age of serialized film that films necessarily have to.

If that were not the case, and I mean literally, then LOTR wouldn't be winning the oscars it won for it may be a well put together story, it's very much segmented. But that's another thing. I'm actually referring to how the audience has been conditioned to expect sequels to continue things explicitly in this age. Just as many have been conditioned to expect stingers.

As much as I enjoy ASM. I think that film is designed with a direct sequel in mind. Yes most plotlines are closed(just like in MOS) but that is not a story ending the way Shawshank is a story ending, especially that gwen stacey business. This is an episode of something.

Fine with me, but I'm the guy that reads Game of Thones books one at a time lol.

Serialized or not, each film needs to have (and indeed, each LOTR film does) it's own complete, satisfying story/character arc, even within the structure of the larger muli-film series.

This is where I suspect a lot of people felt let down by The Amazing Spider-Man and Man of Steel.

 

[The Question]

Even in a serialized work, having a sense of closure and completion in each installment is important. Every episode of even the most serialized TV show, ever chapter of a book, every book or film in a long running series, has to have an arc. Even if most of them end on a "too be continued" there has to be some sense of resolution for the audience. That's part of why Thor was by far the weakest of the Phase 1 Marvel movies, it felt the least self contained.

 

[Marvin]

The last 12 mins MOS vs the ending of the matrix reloaded.

I think even the most jaded towards mos' handling of closure can see what I'm getting at here.

 

[The Question]

The last 12 mins MOS vs the ending of the matrix reloaded.

I think even the most jaded towards mos' handling of closure can see what I'm getting at here.

That Matrix: Reloaded was a worse film than Man of Steel?

Yeah, probably. I only ever saw it once and I don't remember it very well. But I do remember finding the ending deeply unsatisfying, and to a much greater extent than my problems with the Man of Steel ending.

So, yes, wether or not Man of Steel ended with an appropriate sense of closure for everything that came before, it certainly didn't end on a horribly executed cliffhanger ending.

 

[Deserana]

as much as I may agree with you that films should stand on their own, and as much as I believe mos does, I don't think in this day and age of serialized film that films necessarily have to.

If that were not the case, and I mean literally, then LOTR wouldn't be winning the oscars it won for it may be a well put together story, it's very much segmented. But that's another thing. I'm actually referring to how the audience has been conditioned to expect sequels to continue things explicitly in this age. Just as many have been conditioned to expect stingers.

As much as I enjoy ASM. I think that film is designed with a direct sequel in mind. Yes most plotlines are closed(just like in MOS) but that is not a story ending the way Shawshank is a story ending, especially that gwen stacey business. This is an episode of something.

Fine with me, but I'm the guy that reads Game of Thones books one at a time lol.

I didn't want complete closure but just something to wrap up MoS as its own film. Of course you can leave threads, or at least parts of storyline hanging for a sequel but you also need to address the themes you have presented.

For example around 6 characters in the film talk about how the world may react to someone like Superman existing. They have monlogues and entire scenes dedicated to this. Now I'm okay with leaving the bulk of this for sequels but you at least need to touch on it in the film it is brought up in.

MoS doesn't. Just one little tiny moment where we see Superman emerging from the hall after killing Zod and seeing people standing/cowering and running in fear just at the mere sight of him, or people applauding him or maybe both touches on this. We at least have a baseline.

If a scene like that happened we could look at the main question posed in MoS (How would the world react to Superman?) and at least begin to answer it with specific evidence from the film. It wouldn't answer the entire thing and would leave plenty more to look into in the future but it at least touches on the theme. At the moment in MoS you simply can not do that. If I ask to say how the world reacted based on evidence from the film you cant. You can only presume it.

 

[Marvin]

That Matrix: Reloaded was a worse film than Man of Steel?

Yeah, probably. I only ever saw it once and I don't remember it very well. But I do remember finding the ending deeply unsatisfying, and to a much greater extent than my problems with the Man of Steel ending.

So, yes, wether or not Man of Steel ended with an appropriate sense of closure for everything that came before, it certainly didn't end on a horribly executed cliffhanger ending.

I'm just glad I get that cliffhanger bar of measure out when I did. This might have turned into a different thread. This is the place where people have said this is no city left.

 

[Marvin]

I didn't want complete closure but just something to wrap up MoS as its own film. Of course you can leave threads, or at least parts of storyline hanging for a sequel but you also need to address the themes you have presented.

For example around 6 characters in the film talk about how the world may react to someone like Superman existing. They have monlogues and entire scenes dedicated to this. Now I'm okay with leaving the bulk of this for sequels but you at least need to touch on it in the film it is brought up in.

MoS doesn't. Just one little tiny moment where we see Superman emerging from the hall after killing Zod and seeing people standing/cowering and running in fear just at the mere sight of him, or people applauding him or maybe both touches on this. We at least have a baseline.

If a scene like that happened we could look at the main question posed in MoS (How would the world react to Superman?) and at least begin to answer it with specific evidence from the film. It wouldn't answer the entire thing and would leave plenty more to look into in the future but it at least touches on the theme. At the moment in MoS you simply can not do that. If I ask to say how the world reacted based on evidence from the film you cant. You can only presume it.

define people.
I mean would one be able to argue that Lois is one tiny person?
I suppose it's not the same as a small group of people, granted.

 

[Deserana]

define people.
I mean would one be able to argue that Lois is one tiny person?
I suppose it's not the same as a small group of people, granted.

Just a big group of people outside. I know much of the city would be evacuated but I'm sure if a load of people saw two guys fall into a big hall they'd run toward it. Or heck it could just be people running around the street.

Just enough people that you could use that would give an idea as to what the general feeling is. Much like in TDK when you had the Dent press conference and people were shouting "he should turn himself in" and "no more dead police" etc from that small moment we can presume this is how a lot of Gotham are thinking. Same with BB with the dinner table scene you have some saying he should be in a "straight jacket" whilst others say "at least he is getting something done" from that he can guess Gotham's view is mixed. We don't get any hint in TDK.

The Metropolis battle is not even mentioned after the Zod snap.

 

[Vid Electricz]

Just a big group of people outside. I know much of the city would be evacuated but I'm sure if a load of people saw two guys fall into a big hall they'd run toward it. Or heck it could just be people running around the street.

Just enough people that you could use that would give an idea as to what the general feeling is. Much like in TDK when you had the Dent press conference and people were shouting "he should turn himself in" and "no more dead police" etc from that small moment we can presume this is how a lot of Gotham are thinking. Same with BB with the dinner table scene you have some saying he should be in a "straight jacket" whilst others say "at least he is getting something done" from that he can guess Gotham's view is mixed. We don't get any hint in TDK.

The Metropolis battle is not even mentioned after the Zod snap.

What about the Dinner scene with Harvey and the Russian ballerina?

But yes, those other scenes you mentioned, though short and succinct provided the perfect context for how the public is reacting to the Batman. MoS on the other hand kept posing the question "IS THE WORLD READY?" over and over again with not even an attempt at showing us whether it is or not.

 

[Deserana]

What about the Dinner scene with Harvey and the Russian ballerina?

But yes, those other scenes you mentioned, though short and succinct provided the perfect context for how the public is reacting to the Batman. MoS on the other hand kept posing the question "IS THE WORLD READY?" over and over again with not even an attempt at showing us whether it is or not.

Oh damn I meant to say MoS then not TDK we get lots in TDK.

But yes I completely agree. I love MoS and will buy it on the first day out however it really does just leave it hanging.

 

[Marvin]

Just a big group of people outside. I know much of the city would be evacuated but I'm sure if a load of people saw two guys fall into a big hall they'd run toward it. Or heck it could just be people running around the street.

Just enough people that you could use that would give an idea as to what the general feeling is. Much like in TDK when you had the Dent press conference and people were shouting "he should turn himself in" and "no more dead police" etc from that small moment we can presume this is how a lot of Gotham are thinking. Same with BB with the dinner table scene you have some saying he should be in a "straight jacket" whilst others say "at least he is getting something done" from that he can guess Gotham's view is mixed. We don't get any hint in TDK.

The Metropolis battle is not even mentioned after the Zod snap.

The theme was never explicitly about the world though. And let's just assume it was, a group of (14?) people wouldn't satisfy that. It was about how people would react to finding out about this special person. Technically speaking we got that. And not just in Lois either.

I understand what you are asking for, I'd love a press conference as well or whatever, but suggesting the film is failing in it's expectations vs yours aren't one in the same.

Like with more things MOS, it seems to not simply be a matter of if things are present, but depending on the individual, it's to the degree at which.

 

[PacificBoy]

I like that how in a first contact movie, Lois is essentially Clark's first contact to humanity. While they aren't sufficiently fleshed out for me, I do like the themes and storylines introduced in MoS.

 

[BH/HHH]

According to the ever unreliable cosmic book news

Last Saturday at Comic-Con following the Warner Bros. panel, attendees were graced with a surprise visit by Man of Steel director Zack Snyder and Harry Lennix announcing the next Superman movie.

Lennix read text from Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns graphic novel, and then a Superman/Batman logo was revealed to a stunned audience.

The audience quickly erupted with cheers of enthusiasm as Snyder revealed that the new Batman will be a part of the sequel to Man of Steel.

Our DC Entertainment source who provided us with first draft script details for Man of Steel, which included mention of LexCorps in the Metropolis skyline as well as the bus scene with Lana Lang witnessing a young Clark Kent using his super powers, has sent over some information on the upcoming as-of-yet untitled Superman/Batman movie.

Our DC Entertainment source also previously provided us with information on the Batman reboot, which was said to be in part based on the popular Batman Arkham video game franchise. That now looks to be adapted into the recently announced Batman: Arkham Assault animated movie slated for 2014.

We're told Warner Bros. didn't go forward with the Arkham adaptation because they want to get both Batman and Superman out into the cinema quickly. Also, that Snyder and Goyer plot-wise initially didn't have Batman vs. Superman, but since WB wanted to move things along they essentially are combining two films in one, with the movie having been in pre-production for a couple months (merchandising underway as well etc.). We're told, "Snyder is really loving building the DC Cinematic Universe."

Regarding the new Batman, Tyler Hoechlin (Teen Wolf, Lincoln Heights, 7th Heaven, Road To Perdition) is being heavily considered for the part and will be getting a screen test alongside Henry Cavill. Warner Bros. and Snyder are looking at somebody to play the new Batman with a reputation similar to Cavill's, when Cavill was testing for Superman. It's also said that better known actors could also be testing for the role. As filming is expected to begin in early 2014, screen tests should be happening soon.

Cosmic Book News is also told that the Superman/Batman movie will features villains (in the plural), with it currently thought that the Joker and Lex Luthor team up; however, the source said the villains are only known by a select few, but Luthor is all but guaranteed.

Regarding the plot of the film:

"The sequel is set a year after Man of Steel, and the world is still getting used to having this powerful god on the planet who isn't fully trusted by everybody. Batman certainly doesn't trust Superman. Superman doesn't trust Batman; either of which causes the two to clash when they initially meet. They do however pair up to defeat the villains (not 100% confirmed who the villains are). COULD be Luthor and Joker, but only a select few really know that. Luthor is definitely in the sequel and he doesn't like Superman, believing him a threat to the planet."

Previous to Comic-Con there was also rumor of a Justice League movie and a film for The Flash; however, Snyder only announced Superman/Batman.

We've been told there is a lot in the works being built up to Justice League, which will take place after Superman/Batman with The Flash possibly spinning out of that (the previous rumor said Flash before JL). Also, expect a lot of Easter Eggs to the Justice League members in Superman/Batman with characters like Wonder Woman, The Flash and Green Lantern getting referenced.

Our DC Entertainment Source also says it looks as if the Justice League movie will feature the DC Comics New 52 characters, which could mean no Martian Manhunter, but Cyborg.

 

[The Batman]

Listening to Max Landis's pitch on the Death/Return of Superman.

Damn, I wish Landis were writing these films and not Goyer. You can tell he's a guy who is truly a fan of Superman and wouldn't complain about "Giving him stuff to do because he's so powerful."

 

[BH/HHH]

I hate Landis, wouldn't want him anywhere near a Superman film