BvS All Things Superman and Batman: An Open Discussion - - - - - - - - - Part 18

[TheFlamingCoco]

I like the article as a whole, but disagree with number 5. Without the ramifications of the destruction being addressed, it feels like destruction for the sake of destruction. The dark tone doesn't help. It's supposed to make audiences uncomfortable, but without it being built upon in any way- it kind of lacks meaning. The sequel will REALLY have to carry elements of MOS to flesh out certain areas.

"Man of Steel doesn’t take itself too seriously as a blockbuster movie. It’s just a movie, with care given to dialogue and direction that we would have been able to respect just fine in other genres."



That whole sentence just feels wrong. Special care..to long speeches, corny lines, and wild direction that'd we be okay with other movies having. :/

But I'll take an article defending MOS.

I feel like it's beaten into the ground BECAUSE it's a Superman movie.

I do think that the character interaction and much of the acting is subtle, while the corny one-liners and gaps in logic are obvious.

Thus, the good elements are ignored and the weak elements are the only ones being noticed.

I like this article from screenrant as well http://screenrant.com/man-of-steel-superman-best-superhero-movies-2013/

 

[X Knight]

I have not heard that rumor of this being split into 2 films.......

 

[The Question]

The problem is that the articles wasn't directed at you.

Unfortunately we don't live in a universe where every analysis of art can't be directed upon every individual that receives it. Funny enough this is my perceived flaw in film criticism.

The writer wasn't dismissing your arguments/qualms. He didn't make the argument that people don't like it because of this that and the next thing. He/she made the argument that "some" people might not. I suppose he could have been more upfront about that, but why break with traditions. I'm sure if you broach your concerns to this individual, he will happily respond with something more catered to your experience, till then, this is all one can ask of these people.

I find #7 especially rings true, in my experience with detractors. That is, with some of them.

My problem with it isn't personal. I didn't get confused and think he was talking directly to me. My problem is that he's making a generalization about everyone who didn't like the movie. You say that he's only saying "some," but it sounds a hell of a lot more like "most" to me. The entire framing of his argument is that the "real" reasons for the backlash the movie has received are the reasons he list. It's in the title, "10 Real Reasons Why Man Of Steel Was A Failure." The implication is that, regardless of what their arguments are, these are the underlying reasons why so many people didn't like the film. His closing comments are pretty explicit about this:

"Watch it again. It’s a creative, skillful, incredibly caring take on Superman and, more than that, a good film.

We don’t just want references to what we already know, do we? What do we really expect here? Are we fans of movies as they are or fans of expectations?

Think about it. Hating on this movie doesn’t help anyone.

I for one think that time will ultimately be kind to Man of Steel, but let’s be better than that. Instead of merely getting used to a movie, let’s be better movie fans."

Emphasis mine.

This isn't someone saying that these are some irrational arguments he's encountered in some people who disagreed with him about the film, this is someone saying that these are the underlying reasons for why people dislike the movie, and that the movie would be better received if we were less irrational and better at being fans of movies. It's defensive and it's dismissive, not only of me but of everyone who didn't care for the movie and had actual reasons for why they didn't that go beyond personal biases and a desire for things to always be the same, and it basically shuts down any thoughtful and respectful discussion and debate about art. To me, that's what constitutes being a bad movie fan.

@the Question
I see your point. That same tactic has been used my many who dislike the movie to make those who liked it feel uneducated in the world of film, so it was a breath of fresh air for me I guess.

Responding to people who are ****** to people who disagree with them and shut down honest discussion by being ****** to people who disagree with you and shutting down honest discussion really only compounds the fact that we're having a ****** non-discussion.

 

[X Knight]

I like the article as a whole, but disagree with number 5. Without the ramifications of the destruction being addressed, it feels like destruction for the sake of destruction. The dark tone doesn't help. It's supposed to make audiences uncomfortable, but without it being built upon in any way- it kind of lacks meaning. The sequel will REALLY have to carry elements of MOS to flesh out certain areas.

I agree with this.

the aftermath of the battles and destruction HAVE to be addressed in MOS. The public's reaction to Superman MUST be addressed.

MOS was about Superman making his debut on the world stage. Now, the sequel must address the world's reaction to Superman's existence and presence.

perhaps that's where Bats, WW, and most likely Lex will come into play. different perspectives from 3 different characters about what it means to have this "Superman" living amongst us.

 

[Airwings]

Dream? Yeah right, that's the script. You only tell it's a dream to avoid legal trouble

I really don't want the script to be like that. The film will suck then

 

[TheNextNolan22]

No, it'll be 10x better.

 

[Rowsdower!]

How did I know The Question was going to show up and attempt to refute every point made in that article?

 

[The Question]

How did I know The Question was going to show up and attempt to refute every point made in that article?

I didn't really do that, though. I mentioned two points made in that article to use as examples, but my wider point (as I've already said) is that the article comes off to me as a cheap way of closing off a genuine and respectful conversation in which people disagree about stuff.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

My problem with it isn't personal. I didn't get confused and think he was talking directly to me. My problem is that he's making a generalization about everyone who didn't like the movie. You say that he's only saying "some," but it sounds a hell of a lot more like "most" to me. The entire framing of his argument is that the "real" reasons for the backlash the movie has received are the reasons he list. It's in the title, "10 Real Reasons Why Man Of Steel Was A Failure." The implication is that, regardless of what their arguments are, these are the underlying reasons why so many people didn't like the film. His closing comments are pretty explicit about this:

"Watch it again. It’s a creative, skillful, incredibly caring take on Superman and, more than that, a good film.

We don’t just want references to what we already know, do we? What do we really expect here? Are we fans of movies as they are or fans of expectations?

Think about it. Hating on this movie doesn’t help anyone.

I for one think that time will ultimately be kind to Man of Steel, but let’s be better than that. Instead of merely getting used to a movie, let’s be better movie fans."

Emphasis mine.

This isn't someone saying that these are some irrational arguments he's encountered in some people who disagreed with him about the film, this is someone saying that these are the underlying reasons for why people dislike the movie, and that the movie would be better received if we were less irrational and better at being fans of movies. It's defensive and it's dismissive, not only of me but of everyone who didn't care for the movie and had actual reasons for why they didn't that go beyond personal biases and a desire for things to always be the same, and it basically shuts down any thoughtful and respectful discussion and debate about art. To me, that's what constitutes being a bad movie fan.



Responding to people who are ****** to people who disagree with them and shut down honest discussion by being ****** to people who disagree with you and shutting down honest discussion really only compounds the fact that we're having a ****** non-discussion.

TBH, there were quite a few people who had unrealistic expectations OR wanted to hate the film, either for not being a Donner clone or for being a Zack Snyder film.

Yeah, I always hate the "if you don't like it, it's because you're not smart enough" defense. Because then, it becomes personal and less intellectual.

 

[SilentWarriorZ]

I liked the movie cause I felt MOS close to me like many of the scenes shown in movie like him getting bullied , having lost his loved one , wandering in solace , finding solitude , helping the needy , struggle for success , act to be responsible , having Faith in Humanity , searching for Hope etc .
MOS defined a superman living within every human

 

[Marvin]

This isn't someone saying that these are some irrational arguments he's encountered in some people who disagreed with him about the film, this is someone saying that these are the underlying reasons for why people dislike the movie, and that the movie would be better received if we were less irrational and better at being fans of movies. It's defensive and it's dismissive, not only of me but of everyone who didn't care for the movie and had actual reasons for why they didn't that go beyond personal biases and a desire for things to always be the same, and it basically shuts down any thoughtful and respectful discussion and debate about art. To me, that's what constitutes being a bad movie fan.

It's a slippery slope. The world of film analysis, and analysis of that analysis is filled with generalizations(as annoying at they may be). Imagine my chagrin when I read reviews saying "the film has no solid emotional scenes and we are left..."
The way you phrased your initial response was very much like you were replying to a post directed at you...
Even if he meant to say 'most', unless he says you specifically seems likes a pointless venture to feel dismissed I think.

"Are we fans of movies as they are or fans of expectations?" There are a crap ton of people this applies to. This article might not apply to you, but it sure as hell does to them.

I'm pretty sure if you wanted to get in a discussion with Ian, he's oblige, the dude is cited as a librarian.

 

[The Question]

TBH, there were quite a few people who had unrealistic expectations OR wanted to hate the film, either for not being a Donner clone or for being a Zack Snyder film.

I really don't see much evidence that either of those things are the case. What were people's unrealistic expectations?

Yeah, I always hate the "if you don't like it, it's because you're not smart enough" defense. Because then, it becomes personal and less intellectual.

I absolutely agree.

 

[BH/HHH]

Interesting points:

http://whatculture.com/film/10-real-reasons-man-steel-failure.php

Don't let the title fool you, it's meant to be ironic.

That was a great article

 

[Airwings]

No, it'll be 10x better.

Are you sure?
Batman is a deserter. Superman and Wonder Woman just disappear.
And then Justice League will be: Shazam, Martian Manhunter, Green Arrow, Batwoman, Robin and Zatanna.

 

[Mysteryman]

I have not heard that rumor of this being split into 2 films.......

I always thought the JL would be introduced in the third film .
I dont think that they are splitting anything.
I highly doubt that they ever intended to introduce the JL in this movie.

 

[X Knight]

they're setting the stage for the JL, for sure.

 

[Mysteryman]

So, whats the source for this split film rumor?

 

[Rowsdower!]

So, whats the source for this split film rumor?

I think someone posted it on Nuke the Fridge, but I may be wrong.

 

[The Batman]

Yeah, probably goes without saying but I really don't agree with any of this. And even based on the perspective of liking the film, I really don't think this is a good article. Making the argument that people didn't like a movie because it was too creative and too well made for mainstream audiences and that people just don't get it comes off to me as defensive and condescending.

I didn't dislike some of Snyder's cinematography because it was stylized and unique and I can't handle something that isn't homogenized with every other blockbuster superhero flick, I disliked it because I think Snyder made a lot of poor choices in filming certain scenes in effective ways that conveyed the information and tone of what was going on that were distracting when they needed to be immersive. I didn't dislike the film because it used drama to convey it's themes and tone instead of tongue in cheek buffoonery, I disliked it because the drama felt flat and insincere, propped up by cliches and stock characters with no personalization or genuine human warmth to make it really connect on an emotional level. Agree with me or don't, but those are my reasons.

Articles like this employ a debate tactic wherein they ignore the actual complaints made by people who disagree with them and instead invent "real" underlying reasons for the opinions of others that make the people on the other side look dim and overly emotional and make themselves look smarter by comparison. It's something that a lot of people do in these kinds of discussions, hell it's something I've done in the past which I very deeply regret, but ultimately it's cheap and it's rude and it's an insult to the notion of a free exchange of ideas.

You liked the movie. I didn't. If you want to talk about it, then let's talk about it. But if we're just going to make stuff up to dismiss any idea that the other person is trying to put forward, then what's the point?

This.

They moment he tried to imply that people didn't like it "because it was more than just a superhero movie", is the moment where I felt the urge to stop reading.

Did the writer of this article not watch "The Dark Knight", or see the reaction to it? A big reason why a lot of people, particularly critics, love that film is because it was presented as "more than just a superhero movie".

This is the problem with a lot of MOS defenders. They continually build straw man arguments because they seemingly don't want to acknowledge that...a lot of people just didn't dig the film, or they did, but they didn't love it as much as TDK or Avengers.

 

[Lily Adler]

OH HELL NAW, they better not pull a HP on us.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

Normally, I wouldn't be happy with a LOWER budget, but in this case, I am.
The Superman/Batman film is reported to have a 131 million dollar budget.

http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2014/01/01/michigan-film-industry-prepping-for-batman-superman-movie/

This means there'll probably be more in-camera FX, and probably more time spent on story and character

 

[Goshdarn Batman]

OH HELL NAW, they better not pull a HP on us.

Hewlett-Packard?

 

[Lily Adler]

Shaddup.

 

[TheIrishAvenger]

edit

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

After re-watching MOS again yesterday, I think I've finally come full circle on the direction of the sequel. When I first heard that Batman would be appearing, I had mixed feelings about it, since I was looking forward to a solo Superman sequel first. Slowly I started to warm to the idea, but after this latest viewing, I think I'm really starting to look forward to the future of the DC Cinematic Universe.

Though the Easter eggs were of a blink-and-you'll miss them quality, the fact that they had both a Wayne Enterprises satellite and a tiny "Keep Calm and Call Batman" sign in the background of the final battle with Zod is enough to indicate that Bruce Wayne and Batman exist in this universe, and that the latter has been around for a long time.

The destruction of Metropolis in MOS was controversial, to say the least, but I think that if the writers play their cards right they could really turn this into a positive plot point in the sequel. Not only is it a great way for Lex Luthor to look like the hero and depict Superman as an alien threat to humanity, but it also provides a good reason for Batman to be suspicious of Superman and for him to come out of retirement (if that's the case for this "tired, weary" version of the Dark Knight).

Finally, the fact that MOS was at its core a science fiction film with many fantastical elements -- yet one which still managed to cling to a sense of gritty "realism" -- means that we have a suitable platform to establish some of the more out-there elements of the DC Universe such as Themiscyra in Batman vs. Superman, while still maintaining the darker, more serious tone that distinguishes the DC Cinematic Universe from the Marvel one.