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

[Marvin]

The point is that all of the extra fluff, the swelling music, the over the top fight moves, The Comedian punching a hole in a brick wall like it was nothing, and especially the speeding up and slowing down didn't add anything to the fight. That's what's was extraneous. Yes, we would have gotten the same thing out of the story if the assailant had just walked in, knocked the Comedian out, and threw him out the window, but we also wouldn't have had all of that extra stuff that had nothing to do with the story. Ultimately the fight scene would have been much better and serviced the story much better if it had been a more realistic, brutal beat down, and not the over the top thing that it was.

We wouldn't have gotten the same thing, to suggest such a thing is to discredit visually story telling at it's core imo.

First off, the character drove his fist though dry wall, in what was a well framed shot. Secondly it severed the point of "enhancing our understanding of his strength and power and the amount of force he is willing to use". This is what I consider story telling. Beyond getting form point a of A film to point B.

The music being playing over the action is serves as an erie juxtaposition, creating a uniquely uncomfortable experience...etc
You say these things are fluff but while at the same time completely ignoring what they contribute to the story telling at play.

Here's your analysis of the opening fight:

No, it was my examples of story telling methods and tools on a directorial level that helped dramatize the scene in question. For all the people that suggest the all the director in snyder did was slavishly translate panels, bringing a 4 panel scene to life in cinematic light forever argues against that point.
Next time, if you wanted my analysis of the opening fight suggest that's what you want.

None of that is information that's needed in that fight. We don't need close ups and slow motion to convey power, we don't need silhouettes to convey dominance, that's not information with any thematic or narrative relevance in that scene. What that scene needs to convey is that The Comedian is a middle aged man who knows how to fight who gets murdered for unknown reasons. We need that scene to set a mystery into motion. Everything else is largely aesthetic fluff.

I'm personally curious how much shorter the Avengers finale needed to be convey information that served thematic and narrative relevance, before it became overly aesthetic anyways. Precisely how many blows bane needed to let batman land before conveying that Bruce lost his touch. One might argue one punch at the start of fight...one might argue a simply kick to the knee brace.

Outlining the inconsistency in your premise doesn't serve my point one bit. The scene to me was well a well directed adaptation of what what a home invasion between two near super human men might look like. One of these men being supremely self impressed and assured the other having little to life for and a mal content.
To each his own.

 

[Vid Electricz]

I just didn't read it that way at all and I'm curious about other people's perspectives.

I found the Superman/Zod fight agonizingly dull because not only were the stakes poorly established, but the whole thing was tiring. They hit each other over and over and over, knocking down buildings, killing thousands- and neither of them ever seem to be at a disadvantage, tired or even winded. The whole thing, to me, with the extraneous, over the top destruction and two super guys punching each other again and again was a sickening bore. I never felt like the hero was struggling to overcome insurmountable odds, etc...

I contrast that with the end of Spider-Man: Spidey struggling to save the tram/Mary Jane, succeeding, but then thrashed mercilessly by the Goblin, within an inch of his life, but gaining his second wind and overcoming the odds. There's a sense of the underdog struggling to be a hero that was almost entirely absent from Man of Steel.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

I found the Superman/Zod fight agonizingly dull because not only were the stakes poorly established, but the whole thing was tiring. They hit each other over and over and over, knocking down buildings, killing thousands- and neither of them ever seem to be at a disadvantage, tired or even winded. The whole thing, to me, with the extraneous, over the top destruction and two super guys punching each other again and again was a sickening bore. I never felt like the hero was struggling to overcome insurmountable odds, etc...

I contrast that with the end of Spider-Man: Spidey struggling to save the tram/Mary Jane, succeeding, but then thrashed mercilessly by the Goblin, within an inch of his life, but gaining his second wind and overcoming the odds. There's a sense of the underdog struggling to be a hero that was almost entirely absent from Man of Steel.

I'd argue that Clark was an underdog struggling to be a HUMAN. The fact that he became a hero is remarkable, really.

But yes, I think the final fight in Spider-Man does a great job in showing the hero pulverized and bleeding. I'm not sure they'd portray it like that now.

And Superman was at a disadvantage to Zod, but neither bleed when bashing against each other.

 

[The Question]

We wouldn't have gotten the same thing, to suggest such a thing is to discredit visually story telling at it's core imo.

First off, the character drove his fist though dry wall, in what was a well framed shot. Secondly it severed the point of "enhancing our understanding of his strength and power and the amount of force he is willing to use". This is what I consider story telling. Beyond getting form point a of A film to point B.

The music being playing over the action is serves as an erie juxtaposition, creating a uniquely uncomfortable experience...etc
You say these things are fluff but while at the same time completely ignoring what they contribute to the story telling at play.

But what is that contribution? In what way do we need those things in that scene to tell the story? Why do we need an erie juxtaposition at that moment? What purpose does that serve? Why does our understanding of his strength and power and the amount of force he is willing to use need to be enhanced by him putting his fist through a wall? What is the point of that scene and how are those things necessary to achieve that point?

No, it was my examples of story telling methods and tools on a directorial level that helped dramatize the scene in question. For all the people that suggest the all the director in snyder did was slavishly translate panels, bringing a 4 panel scene to life in cinematic light forever argues against that point.
Next time, if you wanted my analysis of the opening fight suggest that's what you want.

Okay, that's kind of a semantic argument though isn't it?

I'm personally curious how much shorter the Avengers finale needed to be convey information that served thematic and narrative relevance, before it became overly aesthetic anyways.

It didn't. It was just about the right length. Pretty much every moment in that finale conveyed information that served thematic and narrative relevance very effectively.

Precisely how many blows bane needed to let batman land before conveying that Bruce lost his touch. One might argue one punch at the start of fight...one might argue a simply kick to the knee brace.

That fight scene was also an appropriate length. It showed Batman coming into his fight with Bane with confidence, then over the course of the fight every single trick and technique he uses fails and he scrambles to keep up with Bane until the final blow is struck. It conveys it's information and ideas very effectively.

Why are you talking about length and number of blows? That's never been what I've been referring to when talking about extraneous fluff in the Watchmen fight.

Outlining the inconsistency in your premise doesn't serve my point one bit.

Especially because I'm not being inconsistent. The fight scenes from Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises are very effective and serve the point of what their respective scenes and movies are trying to say without a lot of fluff that doesn't mean anything particularly relevant.

The scene to me was well a well directed adaptation of what what a home invasion between two near super human men might look like. One of these men being supremely self impressed and assured the other having little to life for and a mal content.
To each his own.

Here's the thing:

1: Was that the point of the scene? Was the point of the scene to show what a home invasion between two superhuman men might look like? If so, what does that have to do with the rest of the movie and what it's about? What does the movie, as a whole piece, gain from exploring that notion in that scene?

I'd argue that the point of the scene, at least in the comic, is to set the mystery that drives the plot in motion, in which case what you're describing is extraneous fluff.

2: If the narrative point of the scene is to set the mystery in motion, which it undeniably is even if it's in addition to your reading, doesn't displaying "a home invasion between two superhuman men" in all of it's over the top glory give away the ending?

 

[Skrilla31]

None of that is information that's needed in that fight. We don't need close ups and slow motion to convey power, we don't need silhouettes to convey dominance, that's not information with any thematic or narrative relevance in that scene. What that scene needs to convey is that The Comedian is a middle aged man who knows how to fight who gets murdered for unknown reasons. We need that scene to set a mystery into motion. Everything else is largely aesthetic fluff.

But isn't this a movie also about "superheroes"? Is aesthetic fluff not part of the equation? What's a Batman movie if he's not out there punching bad guys in glorious fashion while looking cool doing it?

The scene does convey that these two men can fight. The scene does convey that perhaps The Comedian is past his prime. The scene does convey that he's outmatched. But it also conveys that perhaps these two men aren't just normal men and that perhaps they're capable of things you and I are not. And sure it COULD have been handled a little more subtly but I thought that scene was a great attention grabber to pull the audience right into the story. It's still a very engaging action scene and I don't believe it exists at the expense of anything at all.

 

[Tempest]

I found the Superman/Zod fight agonizingly dull because not only were the stakes poorly established, but the whole thing was tiring. They hit each other over and over and over, knocking down buildings, killing thousands- and neither of them ever seem to be at a disadvantage, tired or even winded. The whole thing, to me, with the extraneous, over the top destruction and two super guys punching each other again and again was a sickening bore. I never felt like the hero was struggling to overcome insurmountable odds, etc...

I contrast that with the end of Spider-Man: Spidey struggling to save the tram/Mary Jane, succeeding, but then thrashed mercilessly by the Goblin, within an inch of his life, but gaining his second wind and overcoming the odds. There's a sense of the underdog struggling to be a hero that was almost entirely absent from Man of Steel.

The stakes were pretty clearly laid out: Distraught over the loss of his planet, his crew, and the future he'd been banking on for over thirty years, he wanted to get his revenge on Clark and the human race by destroying as many people as he could.

I don't know what other stakes you needed to have laid out. It's quite clear what Zod wants to do, and the threat he poses.

Clark is not a trained warrior, he doesn't know much about combat. Zod is at a small disadvantage he overcomes quickly.

And you assume that thousands of people were killed in the battle with no real evidence. The buildings all seemed fairly empty -- there weren't people standing up against the glass looking out at the fight or the destruction, and buildings they crashed through appeared to be empty.

Perhaps you're getting the idea that the buildings were filled with people because of the scenes from the DP?

My guess is that when the alien craft descended, an awful lot of people would have started to try to leave. I know you wouldn't be able to pay me if the aliens who had threatened us landed outside our building. See ya, I'm outta there.

When the beam hit the earth, I'm sure even more buildings evacuated. The DP staff stayed on because they're the press -- that's what they do.

And I don't know why the death toll actually matters. Superman can't and doesn't save everyone in the comics. There are limits to how much he can actually do.

 

[Herolee10]

I also noticed that whenever we got shots showing the streets as Superman was fighting Zod, there were practically emergency and police vehicles spotted at every street shown, even in the portion of Metropolis that wasn't destroyed yet by the world machine

 

[The Question]

But isn't this a movie also about "superheroes"? Is aesthetic fluff not part of the equation?

Not for The Watchmen, that story is absolutely not about superheroes in that way.

What's a Batman movie if he's not out there punching bad guys in glorious fashion while looking cool doing it?

That's not how good fight scenes work. Batman punching bad guys in glorious fashion while looking cool doing it will be a really bad fight scene if it doesn't somehow come from a place of character or story motivation and doesn't somehow express what the movie is about.

If I want a thrill ride, I'll go to Universal Studios. Movies are supposed to be movies.

The scene does convey that these two men can fight. The scene does convey that perhaps The Comedian is past his prime. The scene does convey that he's outmatched. But it also conveys that perhaps these two men aren't just normal men and that perhaps they're capable of things you and I are not. And sure it COULD have been handled a little more subtly but I thought that scene was a great attention grabber to pull the audience right into the story. It's still a very engaging action scene and I don't believe it exists at the expense of anything at all.

But we don't need to know that yet. That doesn't serve the purpose of the scene. A middle aged fighter past his prime being murdered in his apartment by an unknown assailant is the only thing we need to know right there, and it's the only thing we need to pull the audience into the story (because it's a mystery, and mysteries are infinitely more effective at pulling the audience into a story than spectacular action). The over the top fighting and crazy slow motion doesn't add to that, and it does distract from that.

And in the case of his assailant, it gives away the ending of the movie, which is supposed to hinge on a murder mystery plot.

 

[Marvin]

But what is that contribution? In what way do we need those things in that scene to tell the story? Why do we need an erie juxtaposition at that moment? What purpose does that serve? Why does our understanding of his strength and power and the amount of force he is willing to use need to be enhanced by him putting his fist through a wall? What is the point of that scene and how are those things necessary to achieve that point?

You need it if you want to go beyond telling a story and into dramatize it. There is alot to be said for the truth in a scene and I'd argue it's the film makers job to capture that. If the point of a scene is that two hobos who fight over a hot dog there are alot of ways to get through this plot point, however if you are making a documentary about such a thing, it's very possible it can go on for a good while. Now if you are seeking to convey the truth of this scene within the overall story:
"Give me the dog",
"No".
Is one way it would serve the story, another is if you captured the scene so that it may have a chance to speak to individuals in an audience that have had similar experiences in life. Film is about dramatizing not simply telling, that's my opinion on the matter.

How many people have I heard go on about how much longer that Tornado scene needed be before so that we actually felt the drama? Why? I mean it served it's narrative purpose did it not? The answer is very simple, films aren't audiobooks, where exposition and characterization is narrated to you between chapter breaks so as to serve the story. They are dramatizations and often times they seek to convey a relatable truth in a scene. I thought that home invasion was a well directed scene with lots of dramatization and what's more, I thought the comedian was going to win it, I was rooting for the guy with a human face cause I thought he was the good guy and in that short film of a scene I was told a story within a story.

Okay, that's kind of a semantic argument though isn't it?

Just found it odd is all. I'm usually far more aware of the questions I'm called to answer. No big deal.

It didn't. It was just about the right length. Pretty much every moment in that finale conveyed information that served thematic and narrative relevance very effectively.

I think captain America jumping over that bus served no purpose to be honest, among other scenes but I have to ask. Hulk looney tooning Loki? You think is justified by story telling beyond being a sight gag?

That fight scene was also an appropriate length. It showed Batman coming into his fight with Bane with confidence, then over the course of the fight every single trick and technique he uses fails and he scrambles to keep up with Bane until the final blow is struck. It conveys it's information and ideas very effectively.

Could it have been told in half the effort and the story remain the same is the question.

Why are you talking about length and number of blows? That's never been what I've been referring to when talking about extraneous fluff in the Watchmen fight.

I thought you were arguing in the name of efficiency. I figured numbers would help. I guess you are right though.

Especially because I'm not being inconsistent. The fight scenes from Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises are very effective and serve the point of what their respective scenes and movies are trying to say without a lot of fluff that doesn't mean anything particularly relevant.

I saw you as arguing in favor fluff if it's justified by your definition of serving the story. I mean sure the avengers ending is about coming together as a team, but to deny the presence of "fluff". I personally get it.

2: If the narrative point of the scene is to set the mystery in motion, which it undeniably is even if it's in addition to your reading, doesn't displaying "a home invasion between two superhuman men" in all of it's over the top glory give away the ending?

My favorite mysteries give away their endings at the start. After that "smartest man on the cinnder" scene. I clued into Ozy being the culprit when it appeared the attacker was toying and somewhat enjoying the act of putting it to the comedian.

1: Was that the point of the scene? Was the point of the scene to show what a home invasion between two superhuman men might look like? If so, what does that have to do with the rest of the movie and what it's about? What does the movie, as a whole piece, gain from exploring that notion in that scene?

Here's my thing I would argue for films to serve the story but no only that. If you can do the former then the later serves to enhance my experience. I'm not reading a book. Again, it's why I respect bruce lee's contribution to film. It's also why I adore Terry Malick. An experience beyond telling an efficient story.

However I suggest we move on, this isn't the place for Watchmen analysis. Your questions are fun and inquisitive but..

 

[Marvin]

All this talk of narrative purpose begs the question of what the significance of Perry sounding off on the press evacuation served.

Perhaps all the buildings were evacuated, and that was the cue to the audience. That one building Zod brought down was pretty empty.

 

[KillerMcQueen]

All this talk of narrative purpose begs the question of what the significance of Perry sounding off on the press evacuation served.

Perhaps all the buildings were evacuated, and that was the cue to the audience. That one building Zod brought down was pretty empty.

yeah, people seem to overlook that the city was being evacuated.

 

[Skrilla31]

That's not how good fight scenes work. Batman punching bad guys in glorious fashion while looking cool doing it will be a really bad fight scene if it doesn't somehow come from a place of character or story motivation and doesn't somehow express what the movie is about.

If I want a thrill ride, I'll go to Universal Studios. Movies are supposed to be movies.

Well then that's where I'll draw the line then because I couldn't disagree more. I believe there's always room for spectacle in these types of movies whether it serves dramatic purpose or not. That's one of the things that kind of separates these movies from other genres.

Let's take the final moments Burton's Batman for example atop the cathedral. There's really no need for Joker's henchmen to be there. Had Joker taken Vicki Vale to the roof all by his lonesome, nothing is lost or gained. In fact some might even argue that it would have made the scene a bit more eerie and personal. But by having those henchmen there it allows for Batman to punch some nameless bad guys. And whether it serves the dramatic function or not, punching nameless bad guys is one of the things that defines Batman. It's just something that needs to be there. Now if it takes 20 minutes and it robs the movie of some much needed exploration elsewhere... then it becomes a problem.

Now this doesn't go for a movie like Man Of Steel. In that movie the spectacle overstays it's welcome and it does it halfway through the god damn movie. Not only that but it was mindless, exhausting spectacle. It also doesn't work because the final fight kind of aims to achieve a dramatic tension but fails to deliver in every way.

 

[Tempest]

I also noticed that whenever we got shots showing the streets as Superman was fighting Zod, there were practically emergency and police vehicles spotted at every street shown, even in the portion of Metropolis that wasn't destroyed yet by the world machine

And there were police and military around, showing people where to run, and at least trying to help in all the chaos.

All this talk of narrative purpose begs the question of what the significance of Perry sounding off on the press evacuation served.

Perhaps all the buildings were evacuated, and that was the cue to the audience. That one building Zod brought down was pretty empty.

What I don't understand is the sudden need for every detail to be explained and examined in this film. Most people who are here are comic book fans, right? Comic books are not exactly filled with detailed explanations for things. It's a bunch of still drawings, with a few words that are used to tell a story.

If you can gain so much from that, why is it so hard to do the same thing for a film?

We see that Superman and Zod go into buildings that are empty, we see that there are very few people, if any, left in the buildings in the small area they are fighting in, and yet people go on about millions upon millions of people dying.

If I were to give a guess on the death toll, I would put it somewhere between 5k and 7k (and most of those deaths would have occurred within the first few minutes of the attack). There was time for people to evacuate, and people were fleeing the city, probably starting with when the aliens started hovering above the city.

I would be surprised if the number was higher than 8,000. I realize that's a high number, but putting into practical experience what has happened when buildings collapse, and what happened on Sept. 11th, it seems like a more reasonable number. The damage was fairly well contained.

 

[The Question]

You need it if you want to go beyond telling a story and into dramatize it. There is alot to be said for the truth in a scene and I'd argue it's the film makers job to capture that. If the point of a scene is that two hobos who fight over a hot dog there are alot of ways to get through this plot point, however if you are making a documentary about such a thing, it's very possible it can go on for a good while. Now if you are seeking to convey the truth of this scene within the overall story:
"Give me the dog",
"No".
Is one way it would serve the story, another is if you captured the scene so that it may have a chance to speak to individuals in an audience that have had similar experiences in life. Film is about dramatizing not simply telling, that's my opinion on the matter.

Yes, but I'd argue that you have to dramatize the things that are pertinent to the scene and to the story. Dramatizing other things is a distraction. If you're doing a scene about two guys fighting over the dog and the purpose of that scene is to set up that conflict, then you dramatize them fighting over a dog.

I think captain America jumping over that bus served no purpose to be honest, among other scenes but I have to ask. Hulk looney tooning Loki? You think is justified by story telling beyond being a sight gag?

Absolutely.

First and foremost, it's justified by the fact that somebody needed to defeat Loki. Even after closing the portal and blowing up the mothership, somebody had to physically neutralize Loki as a threat. So somebody beating up Loki needed to happen in some way.

The question is, was the way that they did it justified by storytelling? I think the answer to that question is yes.

First of all Bruce Banner, while funny and affable, spent most of the film as a very sad figure. He's obviously burdened by his nature as The Hulk, and many of the people around him distrust him, fear him, or want to exploit him. Nowhere is this more the case than with Loki, who's only ever mocked and degraded Banner every time he's spoken of him and used him as a weapon to further his ends by exploiting him in a way that hits very close to home for him. And now, at the climax of the film, Loki, with all of his bluster and arrogance, is defeated with ease by someone he has mocked the whole film and who has triumphantly conquered his demons, if only for the moment. It's a way of defeating Loki that is deeply emotionally satisfying.

But, I'd go even further than that. Not only is it emotionally satisfying, I think it is very thematically satisfying. I think it's safe to say that the core theme of The Avengers is one of community and teamwork, of people coming together to be better as a group than any one person is alone. Throughout the film, Loki stands in opposition of this notion. He constantly rejects Thor's offers of love and family and belonging to stew in his own self righteous bitterness. He forms alliances on Earth not by working with people, but by dominating them. He expresses the belief that what's best for the world is for one great man, him, to rule everyone else. And he is defeated, effortlessly, not only by someone who he has mocked who has managed to conquer the things Loki mocked him for, but by someone who's personal victory is a direct result of the themes that are central to the film and that Loki stands in opposition of. It's because of Tony Stark accepting Bruce, believing in him, and extending a hand of friendship that Bruce is able to find the confidence to make peace with The Hulk in a time of crisis. Forming a connection with another human being made him a better person, and made him more capable of dealing with a problem. The Hulk throwing Loki around like a ragdoll is a way of saying "Teamwork makes people better, **** you Loki." It ties together the story threads and the theme in a very emotionally satisfying way, so I think it was very justified.

Could it have been told in half the effort and the story remain the same is the question.

I'd have to rewatch the scene, but going from memory I think it was pretty perfectly constructed. Maybe it could have had a few seconds trimmed or added here or there, maybe a little of the choreography or cinematography could have been staged differently, but not to any degree that I think really matters.

I saw you as arguing in favor fluff if it's justified by your definition of serving the story. I mean sure the avengers ending is about coming together as a team, but to deny the presence of "fluff". I personally get it.

There's really not a whole lot in The Avengers finale I would call fluff. Pretty much everything serves some kind of thematic or plot or character purpose, often all three at once. Even most of the jokes I can think of served a purpose beyond being funny, even if it was just to reinforce character and character likability to keep us invested in the action.

My favorite mysteries give away their endings at the start. After that "smartest man on the cinnder" scene. I clued into Ozy being the culprit when it appeared the attacker was toying and somewhat enjoying the act of putting it to the comedian.

There's a way of doing that that's clever and completely blows your mind when you get to the end, and there's a way of doing that that's clumsy and ruins the reveal. I feel like in the film version of The Watchmen it was the later. On the whole they telegraphed that Adrian was the villain in a lot of ways from the very start.

 

[Marvin]

And there were police and military around, showing people where to run, and at least trying to help in all the chaos.

But was there a captain america sparking that order though?
That would have surely put some more minds at ease(no joke).

I would be surprised if the number was higher than 8,000. I realize that's a high number, but putting into practical experience what has happened when buildings collapse, and what happened on Sept. 11th, it seems like a more reasonable number. The damage was fairly well contained.

I've personally put no thought in to actual numbers, seeing as I have no experience with such things but I do know that the first building didn't go down till perry and his immediate group were seemingly out of their building. I assume that 911 didn't play out that way.

 

[The Question]

Well then that's where I'll draw the line then because I couldn't disagree more. I believe there's always room for spectacle in these types of movies whether it serves dramatic purpose or not. That's one of the things that kind of separates these movies from other genres.

Let's take the final moments Burton's Batman for example atop the cathedral. There's really no need for Joker's henchmen to be there. Had Joker taken Vicki Vale to the roof all by his lonesome, nothing is lost or gained. In fact some might even argue that it would have made the scene a bit more eerie and personal. But by having those henchmen there it allows for Batman to punch some nameless bad guys. And whether it serves the dramatic function or not, punching nameless bad guys is one of the things that defines Batman. It's just something that needs to be there. Now if it takes 20 minutes and it robs the movie of some much needed exploration elsewhere... then it becomes a problem.

I'd argue that the goons being there was justified because A) within the movie's logic, there's no good reason why they wouldn't be there, and B) they served to ratchet to the excitement and tension in regards to the most important question: is Batman going to save Vickie?

I mean, notice in the Nolan Batman films. In the climaxes of all three Batman dispatches of the henchmen very very quickly (or in the case of Rises has a lot of help) to get to the main antagonist right away. It's because, in those cases, the henchmen don't add a whole lot to the climaxes of the film but they're a practical thing Batman has to get through within the logic of the film, so the movies address them but don't spend a whole lot of time on them.

Now this doesn't go for a movie like Man Of Steel. In that movie the spectacle overstays it's welcome and it does it halfway through the god damn movie. Not only that but it was mindless, exhausting spectacle. It also doesn't work because the final fight kind of aims to achieve a dramatic tension but fails to deliver in every way.

I could not agree with you more there.

 

[PacificBoy]

I also noticed that whenever we got shots showing the streets as Superman was fighting Zod, there were practically emergency and police vehicles spotted at every street shown, even in the portion of Metropolis that wasn't destroyed yet by the world machine

Were there police, emergency services and the like shown during the Superman-Zod fight? I honestly didn't notice any! Knowing that would have tempered my perception of the fight. Hmm, a rewatch is required.

 

[The Question]

Honestly, it looked to me like the streets in the non-destroyed parts of Metropolis had normal New York traffic. I found that super distracting.

 

[Smashlilman]

Honestly, it looked to me like the streets in the non-destroyed parts of Metropolis had normal New York traffic. I found that super distracting.

It wasn't normal traffic. It was a massive Traffic Jam. None of the cars where moving. Nearly everyone in the none destoryed parts of the city hit there car and tried to leave the city at the same time.

 

[PacificBoy]

From memory, I recall only a couple of scenes cutting to the civilians during the fight. One featured the Daily Planet crew, one with the crowd of people looking up as a building collapsed, one with people scrambling for cover as Zod and Superman crashed onto the streets.

 

[Liam_H]

There were a couple of moments during the final battle where we see people that are just standing in the streets looking up at them. Not running, scared that a building might collapse on them just watching.

 

[The Question]

It wasn't normal traffic. It was a massive Traffic Jam. None of the cars where moving. Nearly everyone one in the none destoryed parts of the city hit there car and tried to leave the city at the same time.

Massive traffic jams aren't abnormal in Manhattan. They happen with some frequency. The city is not well designed for having a car in.


I'm not saying that's not what they were going for, it probably ways, I'm just saying I didn't think it was clear enough.

 

[Smallville13]

One thing I've noticed with Zack Snyder is he seems to be very good at aping other director's process and style. Watchmen very much looked like a David Fincher movie to me with it's lighting and digital feel. I'd provide plenty of comparison shots but that'd take time. Man of Steel if anything was Snyder doing a Terrence Mallick impression, but come the second half of the film, Snyder's signature is everywhere. Which leads to what I think Snyder's own style when you strip everything away is that cold, antiseptic, empty green screen look in 300 and Sucker Punch.

 

[Herolee10]

Were there police, emergency services and the like shown during the Superman-Zod fight? I honestly didn't notice any! Knowing that would have tempered my perception of the fight. Hmm, a rewatch is required.

Yep; especially during the moments where Superman and Zod collided to each other against a building. If you look closely, you can see the police sirens and people running away in the streets while the building breaks apart.

You can also see them when Zod is like twirling Superman around by his cape.

There were a couple of moments during the final battle where we see people that are just standing in the streets looking up at them. Not running, scared that a building might collapse on them just watching.

Yeah, those were some very odd shots indeed. I'm like thinking, are people that stupid where they just stand there with an helpless look on their faces? I mean how are we supposed to feel sorry for them if they're so stupid where they don't even try to hide for safety during that chaos?

 

[Liam_H]

That's why there is a fair amount of people that would have got caught in the rubble that came falling down.