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

[Smallville13]

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...

Krypton dying is a part of Superman. Since we don't have an actual number, I'll just say 'a lot' of people dying on Earth during his big debut is not.

Look dude if you're gonna be like that there's no point having this argument. You were okay that a tragedy 100X 9/11 was just not given any sense of closure. That's fine. There's people here that feel differently. And we've tried to explain that the reason this is being treated differently than The Avengers or even the JL cartoons, is because a very grounded reality is portrayed in the first half of the film, therefore the tragedy brings more attention to the lives lost. The first half betrays the second. The Avengers and the cartoons are more light humorous fare all the way through.

To clarify again, the destruction is not my problem with the film. It not meaning anything, nor leading to anything meaningful in the film, is. Instead it's just CGI disaster porn, with alot of innocents dying. I know people will argue 'it shows how big the stakes are', and that's fine, but the swathes of buildings collapsing is just over the top. The stakes were already raised. The rest was just exploitive. It's just something I would never have in a Superman film. Period.

I'm disappointed that everyone latched on to that comment in my post, instead of what I think I touched on replying to PacificBoy which I think is far more 'onto something' and profound.

 

[PacificBoy]

Again my point is'nt that AVENGERS got a pass but MOS is unfairly being held to a higher standard.

Unfairly perhaps, but MoS is held to a higher standard because it takes itself seriously and aims higher; it aspires to be a little bit more than your average CBM.

I mean, I think the world of The Avengers but the story is as basic as they come -- a ragtag band of heroes putting aside their differences to save the day, heroically.

MoS is much more ambitious -- a hero's journey, an adoption story, a first contact narrative, a story about outsiders. And all the while attempting to add something fresh and relevant to the Superman mythology.

Check this article out:

http://screenrant.com/man-of-steel-workouts-adoption-new-suit/

 

[The Question]

Look dude if you're gonna be like that there's no point having this argument. You were okay that a tragedy 100X 9/11 was just not given any sense of closure. That's fine. There's people here that feel differently. And we've tried to explain that the reason this is being treated differently than The Avengers or even the JL cartoons, is because a very grounded reality is portrayed in the first half of the film, therefore the tragedy brings more attention to the lives lost. The first half betrays the second. The Avengers and the cartoons are more light humorous fare all the way through.

I'd argue that even though The Avengers has a lighter tone all the way through, they still address the human tragedy in their story better than Man of Steel does. They actually show civilians in danger and The Avengers protecting them throughout the big climax and throughout the film as a whole (the scene in Germany, while a little cheesy, still does a lot to put a human face on the damage Loki is doing), and at the end they reflect on the effect the invasion had on the world in a very bittersweet kind of way.

Basically they did all of the things Man of Steel needed to do, and needed to do more than The Avengers did because of Man of Steel's darker tone.

It's like Man of Steel was playing pretend at being grown up and The Avengers were more grown up without even trying to be.

Again my point is'nt that AVENGERS got a pass but MOS is unfairly being held to a higher standard.

Me, personally, I'm holding them to the same standard. I think The Avengers did better by that standard, is all. It did all of the things Man of Steel needed to do to have a more genuine and human emotional core and to not feel cold and emotionally apathetic.


And this isn't a fanboy dick measuring thing for me. I love Marvel and DC equally. I love Superman and The Avengers equally. In fact, I might even love Superman more than I love any of the Avengers, either on their own or collectively as a group. I wanted Man of Steel to be great, you have no idea how much I wanted that. This is a "compare and contrast two films, one of which was effective and one of which wasn't, and see what was done right and what was done wrong" thing.

 

[Marvin]

Krypton dying is a part of Superman. Since we don't have an actual number, I'll just say 'a lot' of people dying on Earth during his big debut is not.

Look dude if you're gonna be like that there's no point having this argument. You were okay that a tragedy 100X 9/11 was just not given any sense of closure. That's fine. There's people here that feel differently. And we've tried to explain that the reason this is being treated differently than The Avengers or even the JL cartoons, is because a very grounded reality is portrayed in the first half of the film, therefore the tragedy brings more attention to the lives lost. The first half betrays the second. The Avengers and the cartoons are more light humorous fare all the way through.

To clarify again, the destruction is not my problem with the film. It not meaning anything, nor leading to anything meaningful in the film, is. Instead it's just CGI disaster porn, with alot of innocents dying. I know people will argue 'it shows how big the stakes are', and that's fine, but the swathes of buildings collapsing is just over the top. The stakes were already raised. The rest was just exploitive. It's just something I would never have in a Superman film. Period.

I'm disappointed that everyone latched on to that comment in my post, instead of what I think I touched on replying to PacificBoy which I think is far more 'onto something' and profound.

I respect where you are coming from but at the same time I also tend to receive these sorts of things(stories and creative decisions) with a level of fair and balanced rhetoric. It just seems with the two things I highlighted in your post that the creators of the film simply had no chance with your particular kind of audience in the first place. It's why I asked the questions I did, as a creator myself I wanted to know what motivated your experience.
Thanks for sharing.

I would go on to ask, what are you willing to accept under the blanket of "is part of superman". City wide destruction like in his celebrated source material for example..etc.

You suggest the first half betrays the second. I personally feel it serves it. Jon Kent was thematically pushing to his son's significance on the the planet to great lengths and big bold things happening to the planet after the fact make it all worth it for me(personally). I also think if there were 20 jokes in 20 minutes in the last half then I would agree about a betrayal of the other half.

to each is own.

 

[king666]

Hungarian MOS Blu Ray Covers

double-disc - long version

I hope we get those deleted scenes.

 

[PacificBoy]

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.

But the decision to have Superman kill Zod is about making this incarnation of Superman edgy (read: fresh) and cool (read: relevant). Because Superman is the ultimate boy scout and a kill by him is not a kill by just anyone. Not saying he shouldn't kill, mind you. However, making him kill is not a light decision, and that's what makes any version of him taking a life an edgier one.

In Goyer's words (from this article http://www.empireonline.com/features/man-of-steel-secrets/p5)

I’ve seen the film about four times now and everyone always gasps when it happens – they don’t see it coming – and I think it makes some people feel uncomfortable, whereas other people say ‘Right on!’ but that was the point. Hopefully what we have done with the end of this film is we’ve got the the mainstream audience, not the geek audience, to question it all. Hopefully we’ve redefined Superman

 

[The Question]

The problem with Superman killing Zod for me is that up until that point, the movie didn't establish that the Clark of this movie had a strong opinion about killing someone in a fight, so it kind of came out of nowhere and din't really built off of anything that came before it.

 

[Loki882]

Please, Pacific Boy, just stop saying that, because it isn't true. They wanted to have Superman make a difficult ethical choice which could lead to new storytelling possibilities. If they wanted to make him "dark and edgy" Then they wouldn't of had him try EVERYTHING short of killing to stop Zod, then break down emotionally after he was forced to do so.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Hopefully we’ve redefined Superman

If anything I'd say what they've done is undefined him.

I mean, they changed something about the character, but they didn't redefine it... They just left it there, undefined, and then said 'oh we'll define it in the sequel'.

Which I'll believe when I see, especially now it's Batman vs Superman.

 

[Loki882]

So what if there was no build up. Superman tried everything non-lethal to stop Zod. Sometimes, death is sudden and brutal with no buildup, it happens.

 

[PacificBoy]

Please, Pacific Boy, just stop saying that, because it isn't true. They wanted to have Superman make a difficult ethical choice which could lead to new storytelling possibilities. If they wanted to make him "dark and edgy" Then they wouldn't of had him try EVERYTHING short of killing to stop Zod, then break down emotionally after he was forced to do so.

I'm not saying that it isn't a storytelling decision, but isn't the "difficult ethical choice" here, the taking of a life, an edgy one, by Superman's mythological standards?

Even Zack Snyder says that's cool (from the same article)

But again you’ll always have this thing in the back of your mind. This little thing of… ‘How far can you push him? If he sees Lois get hurt or he sees something like his mother get killed… you just made Superman really mad. A Superman that we know is capable of some really horrible stuff if he wants to do it. That’s the thing that’s cool about him I think, in some ways, the idea that he has the frailties of a human emotionally but you don’t wanna get that guy mad…

 

[The Question]

So what if there was no build up. Superman tried everything non-lethal to stop Zod. Sometimes, death is sudden and brutal with no buildup, it happens.

No, that's not what I meant. I'm not talking about a build up in terms of slowly making us aware that Zod is about to die. My point is that there was no build up in the sense that they did not establish that killing Zod was something Superman would have a problem with. There was no build up in that they didn't make it a thing in the story that Superman would want to avoid killing Zod as much as possible and would be freaked out when he finally had to. They played it up as a moral dilemma but they never actually established what Superman's morals were before that point. It was out of nowhere thematically.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

So what if there was no build up. Superman tried everything non-lethal to stop Zod. Sometimes, death is sudden and brutal with no buildup, it happens.

Because if they really wanted to have it 'redefine' Superman, it might have been better to make it clear they were forcing him to break his one rule.

It would have been a stronger moment.

I wouldn't have liked it any better, but it'd have held more weight for the audience I think.

A lot of the people I know who've seen it look confused when I say I didn't like the ending because Superman killed Zod... Cause they don't know enough about the character to know he has a no kill policy in the majority of comics stories.

If they actually presented it in the film, then people would know how big a moment that was.

As it is, a lot of people just didn't bat an eye.

 

[king666]

If anything I'd say what they've done is undefined him.

I mean, they changed something about the character, but they didn't redefine it... They just left it there, undefined, and then said 'oh we'll define it in the sequel'.

Which I'll believe when I see, especially now it's Batman vs Superman.

Yep. I wanted MOS2 because I wanted to see them going "full-Superman". "Batman vs. Superman" makes things more difficult.

They should let Cavill do his thing. Dude is charming as ****.

 

[DigificWriter]

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

Not really. What made MoS feel like it established a fully realized universe had less to do with the tone of things and more to do with the scope of things. After seeing MoS, I can easily imagine the stories of characters like Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Hawkman, Batman, and Aquaman happening in the reality the movie created. Such wasn't the case with Marvel's movies.

 

[Marvin]

But the decision to have Superman kill Zod is about making this incarnation of Superman edgy (read: fresh) and cool (read: relevant). Because Superman is the ultimate boy scout and a kill by him is not a kill by just anyone. Not saying he shouldn't kill, mind you. However, making him kill is not a light decision, and that's what makes any version of him taking a life an edgier one.

In Goyer's words (from this article http://www.empireonline.com/features/man-of-steel-secrets/p5)

I’ve seen the film about four times now and everyone always gasps when it happens – they don’t see it coming – and I think it makes some people feel uncomfortable, whereas other people say ‘Right on!’ but that was the point. Hopefully what we have done with the end of this film is we’ve got the the mainstream audience, not the geek audience, to question it all. Hopefully we’ve redefined Superman

My mistake for not understanding that when you said edgy and cool you mean fresh and relevant. Sometimes I jump to conclusions.

How much more Fresh and Relevant his this creative decision to have superman kill made him than it did back when he first did this on screen in 1980 I wonder.

 

[Vid Electricz]

It's like Man of Steel was playing pretend at being grown up and The Avengers were more grown up without even trying to be.

This is exactly how I feel. This is also the difference between The Amazing Spider-Man and the Sam Raimi Spider-Man.

Man of Steel and TASM put on the illusion that they're "darker", "more realistic" and "mature", but come up short when it comes down to it. Like a child trying to dress in adult clothing so that they're taken seriously.

 

[Marvin]

If anything I'd say what they've done is undefined him.

I mean, they changed something about the character, but they didn't redefine it... They just left it there, undefined, and then said 'oh we'll define it in the sequel'.

Which I'll believe when I see, especially now it's Batman vs Superman.

I think undefined is how I would describe how Tony Stark feels about such things. Though I can see your point. I do however now know what stakes it would take for him to go there, the film clearly laid that out.

I also think in contrast with the batman films that do take time to develop this "no guns/no killing" thing with batman and how he feels about it, there is a huge dropping of the ball in all three of those films finales(especially the last with the guns). One that has been given a "pass". MoS seems to be handling the theme in a very different way, like many other stories(see game of thrones), one that will be explored over an expanded narrative.

 

[PacificBoy]

Not really. What made MoS feel like it established a fully realized universe had less to do with the tone of things and more to do with the scope of things. After seeing MoS, I can easily imagine the stories of characters like Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Hawkman, Batman, and Aquaman happening in the reality the movie created. Such wasn't the case with Marvel's movies.

Ah, the scope. Ok, thanks, I got it. Yeah, I can see superheroes coming forward, the Justice League forming after this world threat, after Superman's huge reveal to the world.

A Batman can definitely exist in this continuity. A bit harder to picture a Wonder Woman and Green Lantern because their backstories and worlds are more fantastical in nature, given the tone of MoS. Will be interesting to see, though.

 

[Smallville13]

I respect where you are coming from but at the same time I also tend to receive these sorts of things(stories and creative decisions) with a level of fair and balanced rhetoric. It just seems with the two things I highlighted in your post that the creators of the film simply had no chance with your particular kind of audience in the first place. It's why I asked the questions I did, as a creator myself I wanted to know what motivated your experience.
Thanks for sharing.

I would go on to ask, what are you willing to accept under the blanket of "is part of superman". City wide destruction like in his celebrated source material for example..etc.

You suggest the first half betrays the second. I personally feel it serves it. Jon Kent was thematically pushing to his son's significance on the the planet to great lengths and big bold things happening to the planet after the fact make it all worth it for me(personally). I also think if there were 20 jokes in 20 minutes in the last half then I would agree about a betrayal of the other half.

to each is own.

The truth is I don't think it connected for whatever audience they were aiming it for then either. I was reading through a non-superhero forum before and looking at the ratings it was getting from an unsullied comics-wise but still 'nerdy' community and it was pretty harsh. Reddit turned on the film pretty quick too. And it's 'rotten' on RT.

I'm well aware that city destruction has been apart of Superman before, heck there were lesser writers having it happen in his comic serial every month. If anything this is actually a lesson in what works and what doesn't between two mediums. But it all comes down to the tone that Zack went for in MOS. If this was a much more colorful, fun, light film that was clearly just a fantasy playground reality then the death and destruction would not have seemed so bleak and over-the-top.

I just think that when they got the shot of the beam just sending swathes of buildings crumbling from ILM or wherever, Zack should've recognized 'whoa, too far for a Superman film this is supposed to be about hope, there's no way he can bring hope to this now'. But they just dug that hole deeper (quite literally).

 

[PacificBoy]

My mistake for not understanding that when you said edgy and cool you mean fresh and relevant. Sometimes I jump to conclusions.

How much more Fresh and Relevant his this creative decision to have superman kill made him than it did back when he first did this on screen in 1980 I wonder.

No worries, think it was Liam who first said it was edgy and cool.

Yeah, Lester's theatrical cut more than insinuated Zod and co got killed. But doubt the scrutiny -- and judgement -- is anything like today's standards. Don't think the terms "fresh", "relevant", "edgy" and "cool" even came into the critique.

 

[Marvin]

The truth is I don't think it connected for whatever audience they were aiming it for then either. I was reading through a non-superhero forum before and looking at the ratings it was getting from an unsullied comics-wise but still 'nerdy' community and it was pretty harsh. Reddit turned on the film pretty quick too. And it's 'rotten' on RT.

The internet is known for turning on films. I mean how long before TDKR was out did they turn on that. It happens.
As for rotten tomatoes, that place isn't the most fair and balanced place these days, way too many films ending up under 30's for example. Even when fair it's a small consensus when compared to the more larger one that is the General audience(score).

I'm well aware that city destruction has been apart of Superman before, heck there were lesser writers having it happen in his comic serial every month. If anything this is actually a lesson in what works and what doesn't between two mediums. But it all comes down to the tone that Zack went for in MOS. If this was a much more colorful, fun, light film that was clearly just a fantasy playground reality then the death and destruction would not have seemed so bleak and over-the-top.

We can claim lessons have been learned where we will. For example MoS success vs the Previous films success(one that was criticized on action). It would be opportunistic for me to take that opportunity to claim that a lesson about too much story or something...City destruction has been in good superman stories and bad superman stories, unlike the jesus story, this stuff is part of the character just as punching bad guys in the face is, just like planets full of life exploding is.

I just think that when they got the shot of the beam just sending swathes of buildings crumbling from ILM or wherever, Zack should've recognized 'whoa, too far for a Superman film this is supposed to be about hope, there's no way he can bring hope to this now'. But they just dug that hole deeper (quite literally).

Different superman stories are about different things. For example Kingdomcome is about hope, no one told Alex Ross to stop painting or Mark Waid(imagine that) to stop writing, when they wiped out kansas or the near the full population of superheroes.
And before we start debating how that story was executed, understand that I'm addressing your point about when ILM should have stopped with the beam because a superman is about hope and people dying at that supposed rate has no place in a story that absolutely has to be about hope.

 

[Marvin]

No worries, think it was Liam who first said it was edgy and cool.

Yeah, Lester's theatrical cut more than insinuated Zod and co got killed. But doubt the scrutiny -- and judgement -- is anything like today's standards. Don't think the terms "fresh", "relevant", "edgy" and "cool" even came into the critique.

My bad, I thought that was your initial post, you kinda jumped in there lol.

and yes, if superman killing is seen as this bold/daring or desperate move why didn't anyone say it when it first happened in this movies. This goes back to what I was saying about how this film's reception just doensn't seem all that fair and balanced across the board.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

This is exactly how I feel. This is also the difference between The Amazing Spider-Man and the Sam Raimi Spider-Man.

Man of Steel and TASM put on the illusion that they're "darker", "more realistic" and "mature", but come up short when it comes down to it. Like a child trying to dress in adult clothing so that they're taken seriously.

It's funny, but I honestly feel like if the film had the EXACT same script, but was made by anyone other than Zack Snyder, it would give off similar vibes to me.

I feel like MOS and TASM have some of the same flaws, and some of the same strengths, though TASM is more conventional and less uneven, whereas MOS has a pretty disjointed tone but has a sense of genuine boldness to it.

I feel like these guys COULD learn from their mistakes, but they should recognize those mistakes and grow as storytellers (talking mainly about Snyder/Goyer here).

 

[PacificBoy]

My bad, I thought that was your initial post, you kinda jumped in there lol.

That I did, that I did, haha.

and yes, if superman killing is seen as this bold/daring or desperate move why didn't anyone say it when it first happened in this movies. This goes back to what I was saying about how this film's reception just doensn't seem all that fair and balanced across the board.

It was a very different time though where comics and geek in general were the outsiders. I don't think mainstream were bothered that Superman had (or might have). It just wasn't an issue, or much of a talking point.

Like you said, a lot of this fine scrutiny is down to the democratizing impact of the internet, and that geek is now pop culture. Maybe MoS isn't given a fair crack of the whip, but that's because it's Superman; the expectations are that much higher, rightly or wrongly. And like I said earlier, the expectations are higher still as this story aspires to something more.

I read this Stallone interview the other day from Comic-Con, and he expressed his amazement at how much the mainstream movie scene is centered on San Diego.

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/stallone-schwarzenegger-comic-con-054845474.html