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

[John-An]

What does it being an origin movie have to do with the dialogue?

the origin movie thing was to take the topic of the things that were told... Backstory and this for the dialoges have to do with the direction that the movie is going forward... But again the dialogues were pretty good... I never felt an agh moment from the dialogue as in other comic book movies (even in STM I had 2 or 3) like as if you were watching a... mmm I don´t know a Superman that really could live in our world...

 

[The Question]

I compared Dent's supporting role to that of Batman(not superman).

That assumes he's going to be in a supporting role. Which I sincerely doubt.

I'm not sure what you explained about lois and how she works especially in relation to love triangles with batman, but Bruce Timm would probably have a thing or two to say about that.

That was a TV show, not a movie. A big part about what I said, which is this BTW:

Spoiler

Also, the love triangle aspect is a huge problem too. There's no guarantee they'll do it, sure, but it is a possibility, and I think that speaks to a huge thing that people fail to get about Superman. Superman isn't about Superman. Superman is about Lois and Superman. Superman is, in a lot of ways, a love story. In Action Comics #1, Superman is not the main character. Lois Lane is. The entire story is told from her POV. We meet Clark when she does and we meet Superman as she does. From the very start, the whole Superman mythology was the story of Superman as told by Lois Lane. The worst periods of Superman's history are when they forgot this, when they turned Lois into a buffoonish character who was the butt of a near endless stream of sexist jokes, instead of Clark's clever, cynical, sassy partner and an intellectual equal to the Man of Steel. The Post-Crisis Superman comics were kind of a mixed bag for a lot of people, but I think it's inarguable that an enormous improvement was when Lois became aware of his secret identity and then the two got married, and the two of them finally became full partners in all respects (which, BTW, was the original intention of Seigel and Schuster, they wanted to do a story where Lois uncovered the secret in 1941 or 42, they even wrote and drew it, but DC editorial shot it down). Their relationship is a vital defining aspect of the Superman mythos. I always say that if you're not writing a Superman story that Lois is in at least a little bit like a 1940s screwball romantic comedy, then you're writing it wrong.

As it stands in this franchise, their relationship barely exists, it's barely been explored. And if they go the love triangle rout with Batman instead of actually developing their relationship in a meaningful way then that is utter testicles.

is that Superman and Lois' relationship hasn't been established and explored enough yet. It had been in the TV show by the time they did that cross over.

 

[Marvin]

That assumes he's going to be in a supporting role. Which I sincerely doubt.

It assumes the film is a Superman sequel, just as Snyder as said. Like I said it's about what you want to believe at this point.

That was a TV show, not a movie. A big part about what I said, which is this BTW:

Worlds Finest was an animated movie. Just as many of Timms other works were. Granted it wasn't entirely stand alone, but hey neither will this movie be. It however won't need to introduce superman and his origin and it won't have to do that for batman or lex either.

is that Superman and Lois' relationship hasn't been established and explored enough yet. It had been in the TV show by the time they did that cross over.

Things are different, for one superman and lois weren't partners in that plot as they are in MOS. To be honest I don't think the romance needs to happen, just saying it's on the table. I personally have no interest in bruce wayne chasing women whatsoever.

 

[MrMaooz]

Nope. This isn't a Man of Steel sequel anymore. It's a Superman/Batman movie.

I have no freaking clue at this point lol. Hearing differen things everywhere.

 

[MrMaooz]

Hungarian MOS Blu Ray Covers

 

[DigificWriter]

I went and saw the movie this afternoon and, even though I'm not that big of a fan of Superman in general, I loved it, and actually think it surpasses Thor and The Dark Knight Rises in terms of narrative quality.

The cast was phenomenal from top to bottom, with standout performances coming from Henry Cavill(who was born to play the role role ClArk Kent/Superman, IMO), Russell Crowe, Diane Lane, Amy Adams, Christopher Meloni, and Harry Lennix.

The other thing I enjoyed about the movie has to do with what it means for a wider live-action DCU. As good Marvel's MCU has been, it took them 5 movies to accomplish something that DC did with one film.

Like I said, I think the film is as good as/better than Thor and TDKR, and cannot wait to see.

 

[Loki882]

Lets not get carried away Digific Writer. I love MOS, but it is too early to tell if the DCCU will work like the MCU. Marvel made Thor, CA, and TA work, WB hasn't even made WF yet. There is still no hint of a WW movie anytime soon and certainly not Aquaman, Flash, etc. I have confidence in Snyder, but lets wait and see.

 

[Liam_H]

Yea I have no idea how DC accomplished in one film what Marvel took five to do. Are you saying that because they jumped right in with Batman/Superman in the next movie cause that still remains to be seen. Not to mention the fact other DC characters that have yet to be done.

 

[Loki882]

I agree with Liam_H. When they make a WW movie (let alone Flash, Aquaman, MM, etc), then we'll talsk about comparing them to Marvel.

 

[Smallville13]

If it's the death and destruction specifically that bothered you then I assume you mean like avengers(which also did a tonal shift at the end), you are in the camp that wanted a from of memorial or someone acknowledging it and that would have been the fix?
no lead in just a question.

I think the death and destruction was too much. I think a reduced amount would have still been effective like having a small area start to get demolished and people fleeing like when the beam first started drilling. It crossed the line when it cut to just swathes and swathes of buildings being demolished and no doubt thousands, if not millions, dying.

The Avengers whilst not having that much destruction, and having a much more lighter comedic tone, still managed to acknowledge the tragedy in a TV coverage montage, that addressed the lives lost, and how people felt about the heroes.

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.

This is exactly it. You've hit it right on the head. And it is very much Zack Snyder's biggest flaw. There are moments in his films that I think are some of the best scenes put to film, for example in Watchmen, the Times are a-changin' opening, Dr Manhattans backstory, and Rorschach's death. And in Man of Steel, the first Clark flashback, final flashback with the cape followed by 'Welcome to the Planet'. But his biggest failure is yoking these scenes into a coherent singular film. There is an art to how the pacing of a film ebbs and flows, and I'm just not sure Snyder is ever going to get this right, if he can't find it now.

If you listen to the latest Nerdist podcast, Joss Whedon talks about how he is obsessed with structure. How he must be aware of what the audience is feeling at any given moment during the film, and know the right time for a laugh or a serious scene.

We really should have known that if this was going to be a drama with superhero elements (like Christopher Nolan's films) then Darren Aronofsky would have been the man for the job. When Zack Snyder was hired we should have known this would be very much a comicbooky film. But the teaser and Comic-con trailer fooled us.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

Nothing wrong with a comic book film being comic booky.

I will admit that when I first saw that epic 3-minute trailer, my mind started racing thinking this might actually be the next step in the evolution of superhero movies - an artsy effort that might even secure the nomination for Best Picture that TDK never achieved.

Ultimately, it turned out to be just another case of Snyder's skill at making awesome trailers that are arguably more powerful than the movies they're meant to promote. I still love MOS, but I'm not going to pretend it's a groundbreaking work of cinematic art.

 

[Loki882]

It doesn't have to be, its just the best Superman movie ever made, imo. Also, I was happy with the destruction. You have an alien invasion bent on genocide and godlike beings clashing, I WANT the destruction to be massive because that is what would actually happen. Also, Smallville13, you're exaggerating the damage. A few square blocks of the city were demolished and a few buildings were damaged or destroyed during the Superman/Zod fight (one that we know for sure was empty). 98% of Metropolis emerged from the battle without a scratch. Millions of people didn't die. We saw one empty building and the DP being evacuated, so the death toll was likely lower than it would be normally. In addition, the damage in TA was massive. A large part of NYC was heavily damaged. It's just that the damage was spread out over a large area (in MOS, a small part of Metropolis was utterly decimated), so it LOOKS less destructive in TA. The ACTUAL damage was about the same, if not more.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Until it is totally verified by either the creators or in the follow up film, why does everyone seem to think that Zod and Supes fight was the cause of the deaths of "millions" when the Black Zero attack is clearly shown in MOS to be responsible for the lion's share, if not the enturety of casualties in Metropolis?

Also a question: I have heard comments, totally in jest by friend and family about the battle of NYC in AVENGERS saying things like "Man, the heroes are doing more damage than the invaders. " And while Cap is shown in two scenes looking out for civilians, Iron Man is causing air skiffs to collide into buildings, Clint and Tasha use a QuinJet gattling gun which blasts in to buildings willy nilly and of ciurse whenever a Leviathen is taken out there is crazy collateral damage. Now this has been debated and brought up before and I don't want to relitegate it all over again. I just want to ask, if the 2 scenes with Cap and the short scenes of news reports were cut for whatever reason, do you think it would really affect the movie at all? People joke about the destruction the heroes caused in the course of the battle but it did not stop them from enjoying the movie and making it a hit.
I think the GA did'nt find anything to object to about the end of MOA either. The focus on theoretical casualties seems to come from the fanboy and pro film critics section and no where else. Because much like AVENGERS it did'nt stop audiences from handing their money over. I don't think their criticisms of MOS relly overlap to muchwith genre fans/pro critics outside of maybe the end battle being over the top, and even that's going to depend on the personal preference of each individual viewer.

Again my point is'nt that AVENGERS got a pass but MOS is unfairly being held to a higher standard. My point is that the average viewer does'nt care about these issues or even notice them and when they do they laugh it off (No one brings up Bats using the Batpod guns to clear a path through a bunch of parked cars or pancake a cop car because they no it has nothing to do with the thrust of the narrative at that moment).

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Please excuse the spelling. On my crappy Android phone now.

 

[Loki882]

Hulk crashes through a building (which we know is full of people since we see them jumping out of his way). IM is firing off rockets and missiles all over the place. Thor uses the ESB as a massive conducting rod, doing severe damage. Thor and Hulk take down one Leviathian, which utterly demolishes Grand Central Station when it crashes (it was full of people since we see them or hear them screaming). Another Leviathian crashes onto the roof of a building. IM is having the Chitauri chase him through tunnels and around buildings so that when they crash, the damaged or destroy those places. And many more. Yet somehow Superman is the one who isn't concerned with collateral damage, when Zod did the vast majority of the damage BEFORE he got there.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Did the non genre fan viewer care about any of that? Answer: NO.

 

[Loki882]

Not in my theatre either of the two times that I saw the movie (they didn't mind Superman killing Zod either for that matter).

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

I feel that some micharacterize the ZOD fight at the end because OTHER things in the film dismayed them. Having seen MOS 6 times I know when a s2atment is accurate about the final fight and when it comes out of the individual head cannon of a critic. Until I see Snyder or Goyer address these issues directly or things are made explicit in the sequel I am gonna keep on thinking as I do.

 

[Liam_H]

Cause GA perception of Superman is that he's a lame and boring boy scout. Him killing Zod makes him edgy and cool.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

I was so hoping that the death of Zod at Supes hand was a crazed internet rumor and that's it. Superman's code of non killing from the books is very important to me. Really. But I surprised myself in being ok with it when I saw it. It worked for me and gave this film a gravitas even TDK did'nt have (Yep, I typed that.). It also worjed in a most tragic way towards showing the consequences of Clark's quest to find himself, and it illustrates the way heroism demands sacrifice. In effect, Superman had to sacrifice Krypton (it's past, present and future) to save humanity. That's powerful stuff.

 

[Marvin]

I think the death and destruction was too much. I think a reduced amount would have still been effective like having a small area start to get demolished and people fleeing like when the beam first started drilling. It crossed the line when it cut to just swathes and swathes of buildings being demolished and no doubt thousands, if not millions, dying.

Lives lost.

I assume you know a few if not a lot of millions of lives were lost on Krypton too. I also assume you didn't want or need it somberly addressed in such a way. What is it about a block of supposedly populated buildings of individuals that is the difference?

It can't be the simple difference between human and alien, I refuse to believe the audience is that self important(half our heroes these days are aliens), more to the point there wouldn't be any uproar about Superman killing an alien if that were the case.

Curious what the line is you are referring to, it seems to be sheer numbers...

 

[Marvin]

Until it is totally verified by either the creators or in the follow up film, why does everyone seem to think that Zod and Supes fight was the cause of the deaths of "millions" when the Black Zero attack is clearly shown in MOS to be responsible for the lion's share, if not the enturety of casualties in Metropolis?

Also a question: I have heard comments, totally in jest by friend and family about the battle of NYC in AVENGERS saying things like "Man, the heroes are doing more damage than the invaders. " And while Cap is shown in two scenes looking out for civilians, Iron Man is causing air skiffs to collide into buildings, Clint and Tasha use a QuinJet gattling gun which blasts in to buildings willy nilly and of ciurse whenever a Leviathen is taken out there is crazy collateral damage. Now this has been debated and brought up before and I don't want to relitegate it all over again. I just want to ask, if the 2 scenes with Cap and the short scenes of news reports were cut for whatever reason, do you think it would really affect the movie at all? People joke about the destruction the heroes caused in the course of the battle but it did not stop them from enjoying the movie and making it a hit.
I think the GA did'nt find anything to object to about the end of MOA either. The focus on theoretical casualties seems to come from the fanboy and pro film critics section and no where else. Because much like AVENGERS it did'nt stop audiences from handing their money over. I don't think their criticisms of MOS relly overlap to muchwith genre fans/pro critics outside of maybe the end battle being over the top, and even that's going to depend on the personal preference of each individual viewer.

Again my point is'nt that AVENGERS got a pass but MOS is unfairly being held to a higher standard. My point is that the average viewer does'nt care about these issues or even notice them and when they do they laugh it off (No one brings up Bats using the Batpod guns to clear a path through a bunch of parked cars or pancake a cop car because they no it has nothing to do with the thrust of the narrative at that moment).

I was thinking about what if the film avoided the whole world engine sequence and cut right to Zod and Superman's fight. Looking at the techincal damage/lives lost during that(very hard to say what that was, that one building was shown to be empty)..would we be hearing as many people say superman and zod were recklessly destroying metropolis in their battle like no one else or would the fight itself have just been viewed as it was, a matter of fact city fight(far less damaging than the stuff in TF3 and Avengers).

 

[Marvin]

Cause GA perception of Superman is that he's a lame and boring boy scout. Him killing Zod makes him edgy and cool.

It's in his reaction, or rather execution. Ironman and Wolverine(and batman apparently) kill and act a certain way, a boy scout kills and in turn acts a certain way(begging and pleading and crying).

If they wanted to make him "edgy and cool" they should re-edit that scene and give him a cigar and a half naked woman to make out with. As in other edgy and cool superhero films. The act of killing itself can be done by anyone and still be still have a boyscout, for example a death bed execution.

 

[DigificWriter]

Yea I have no idea how DC accomplished in one film what Marvel took five to do. Are you saying that because they jumped right in with Batman/Superman in the next movie cause that still remains to be seen. Not to mention the fact other DC characters that have yet to be done.

It wasn't until The Avengers that Marvel's universe felt like a fully formed reality. Even with Coulson and Fury serving as connective tissue, it felt to me that each movie took place in its own little self-contained pocket reality. Conversely, it felt to me like MoS created a universe and reality that you can do anything in without having to explain it or offer justification for doing it.

 

[PacificBoy]

It wasn't until The Avengers that Marvel's universe felt like a fully formed reality. Even with Coulson and Fury serving as connective tissue, it felt to me that each movie took place in its own little self-contained pocket reality. Conversely, it felt to me like MoS created a universe and reality that you can do anything in without having to explain it or offer justification for doing it.

Is it because MoS took on a somber and hence more 'realistic' tone, similar to Nolan's Batverse?