BvS All Things Superman and Batman: An Open Discussion - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 28

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]472303[/split]

 

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]472235[/split]

 

[Poni_Boy]

ILM did a ridiculously good job with recreating a good portion of New York for The Avengers. I really hope WB will be able to get them too because I honestly had no idea that a ton of those scenes in the final battle in The Avengers was done in sets with green screen I was shocked.

Also, Marvel had a ton of second unit people filming NYC stock footage for weeks. That way when it was digitally recreated for the battle scene the composites were based on fresh real world aesthetics.

Personally I found 90% of the final battle in MOS unwatchable. It was a video game blur of random building #10 falling against random building #14. That's a problem with conception, not execution. Whoever creates Metropolis needs to spend some time in New York or Chicago and map the city out similarly so it looks inhabited. If you want your audience to become familiar with and eventually care about a fictitious city you're putting on screen it has to *feel* real. Give it landmarks and character that's memorable, and spend some time glossing over it all. Hell, I remember details about Vice City more than I do this version of Metropolis.

 

[BH/HHH]

Worst thinh about Avengers city was it looked like a set, MOS Metropolis looked like a real city

 

[Herolee10]

See, the thing is, I have a hard time trying to understand on why people had issues with the amount of destruction presented in "Man of Steel".

It wouldn't be realistic, imho, to think that an invading Alien race with two weapons of mass destruction could create anything less of the chaos that we saw in the film.

I mean, it happens all the time within the comics, and in other mediums... and yet people had issues with MOS because of the destruction?

What do they honestly expect to happen when you have two super powered beings going at it within a city a like Metropolis?

 

[craigdbfan]

I have zero problems with the amount of destruction in either of the films but The Avengers definitely conceived it better. Poni_Boy is right about that. Again, I really liked Man of Steel along with the last scene but it could have looked better with more meticulous planning.

Also, Marvel had a ton of second unit people filming NYC stock footage for weeks. That way when it was digitally recreated for the battle scene the composites were based on fresh real world aesthetics.

Personally I found 90% of the final battle in MOS unwatchable. It was a video game blur of random building #10 falling against random building #14. That's a problem with conception, not execution. Whoever creates Metropolis needs to spend some time in New York or Chicago and map the city out similarly so it looks inhabited. If you want your audience to become familiar with and eventually care about a fictitious city you're putting on screen it has to *feel* real. Give it landmarks and character that's memorable, and spend some time glossing over it all. Hell, I remember details about Vice City more than I do this version of Metropolis.

You described it perfectly actually. That was my problem with that last sequence in MOS.

Worst thinh about Avengers city was it looked like a set, MOS Metropolis looked like a real city

That's not true at all. Like at all.

Like Poni_Boy pointed out the work in making New York as real as possible totally added to how well conceived the whole thing was as opposed to Chicago (Metropolis) in Man of Steel.

I mean just look at this:



None of that looked like a set to me once it was done.

 

[J.Howlett]

See, the thing is, I have a hard time trying to understand on why people had issues with the amount of destruction presented in "Man of Steel".

It wouldn't be realistic, imho, to think that an invading Alien race with two weapons of mass destruction could create anything less of the chaos that we saw in the film.

I mean, it happens all the time within the comics, and in other mediums... and yet people had issues with MOS because of the destruction?

What do they honestly expect to happen when you have two super powered beings going at it within a city a like Metropolis?

Completely agree with you.

 

[Herolee10]

I have zero problems with the amount of destruction in either of the films but The Avengers definitely conceived it better. Poni_Boy is right about that. Again, I really liked Man of Steel along with the last scene but it could have looked better with more meticulous planning.

You described it perfectly actually. That was my problem with that last sequence in MOS.

That's not true at all. Like at all.

Like Poni_Boy pointed out the work in making New York as real as possible totally added to how well conceived the whole thing was as opposed to Chicago (Metropolis) in Man of Steel.

I mean just look at this:



None of that looked like a set to me once it was done.

Gotta admit, ILM did a great job in recreating New York for the Green Screen background, especially after looking at the BTS special.

When it comes to "MOS", I definitely think though that Snyder did a great job with the shots of the people in Metropolis looking at Black Zero as it was lowering into the city....now those were some epic and chilling shots...where I personally felt came off really realistic.

And he also did a great job with the shots of people running away from being blasted by the Gravity beam or being caught in the crossfire by the oncoming missiles from the fighter jets.

Be that as it may, like everyone else has said...when it came to the pure CGI aspects of Metropolis...yeah, it needed to be better constructed. Truth be told, I think the only reasons why I was able to get through it were mainly because of Zimmer's music, along with the intensity that Cavil and Shannon were conveying in their performances.

Also, I think another problem is that MOS didn't really present an opportunity where audiences could see what Metropolis was like as a city. It just came off as a random city...no real distinct life of its own. I mean it's one thing if you just present a city like New York or Chicago, where most people would know about them..but it's another thing when you present a fictitious city.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

^ True. Also I think the color grading had a lot to do with things. Nothing looks really real when everything is washed out.

 

[Herolee10]

^ True. Also I think the color grading had a lot to do with things. Nothing looks really real when everything is washed out.

Well some have suggested that the reasons for washing out the colors like that was to better mask some of the spotty CGI that was going on in that scene.

Personally, I wasn't a fan of the shot where we saw a close up of a CGI version of Zod's eye as he was twirling Superman around by his cape..

 

[BH/HHH]

Not true at all? Come on some of the set stuff in Avengers is clearly a set, its clear as day. Also I never said all of it just some of it.

Man of Steel definitely did the alien race invading better than Avengers. It looked more real and with that felt more real. It wasn't contained destruction like the Avengers was. Also I love the Avengers movie so I'm not saying its bad just as far as alien invasions go MOS was leaps and bounds better. At least in my opinion.

 

[BH/HHH]

See, the thing is, I have a hard time trying to understand on why people had issues with the amount of destruction presented in "Man of Steel".

It wouldn't be realistic, imho, to think that an invading Alien race with two weapons of mass destruction could create anything less of the chaos that we saw in the film.

I mean, it happens all the time within the comics, and in other mediums... and yet people had issues with MOS because of the destruction?

What do they honestly expect to happen when you have two super powered beings going at it within a city a like Metropolis?

Also go back and read Superman comics from the last twenty years plus the film matched the comic books to a T in the destruction department. This is what I keep saying about todays world, we can't just seem to enjoy something without picking it apart, oh people would have died etc is a god damn movie at the end of the day. Its not real life.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

^ Nobody cares that people die in pretty much any big blockbuster involving disasters..unless it involves Superman.

 

[Poni_Boy]

See, the thing is, I have a hard time trying to understand on why people had issues with the amount of destruction presented in "Man of Steel".

It wouldn't be realistic, imho, to think that an invading Alien race with two weapons of mass destruction could create anything less of the chaos that we saw in the film.

I mean, it happens all the time within the comics, and in other mediums... and yet people had issues with MOS because of the destruction?

What do they honestly expect to happen when you have two super powered beings going at it within a city a like Metropolis?

See, this is the where the divergence between fan and critic come in. Bear with me, I'm not being pedantic:

The majority of fans I've seen defending things about MOS that others are much more critical of seem to rely on either "but that's like in the comics" or "Superman HAD to do [so and so] or else [so and so]." These arguments are irrelevant because they render the movie in real world terms like Monday morning quarterbacking a news bulletin. It's not real. It's a movie. People wrote the script. Others visualized and created the effects. Most fans couldn't give a fig about the minute details of translating a fantastical story like this to the screen like depth of frame and hyper realistic environments as long as it hearkens back to what they liked about the comics. But even critics who are uber familiar with comics can't disregard lackadaisical execution. Pointing out that the digital creation of Metropolis didn't get as much attention as the digital recreation of Manhattan in Avengers isn't an opinion, it's fact. It simply wasn't. Look at all the work that went into both and you can see it. We have featurettes, B-roll, BTS pics/video, a ton of interviews and set visits to use. Watch the movies frame by frame and you can see it. If you "liked" one more than the other, that's great. If it didn't bother you at all, that's great too, but it's irrelevant on a technical level. It's like bringing a mutt to a dog show and saying you like the mutt more than any of the pedigree dogs there. That's great, but Fluffy doesn't hold up to the rest on a technical level.

Same goes for when Supes killed Zod. All these "what could he have done instead?" arguments are irrelevant. The entire film was written and shot so that scene (which is not real) would play out exactly as it did. If you read some of the reviews that are very critical of that scene you'll more than likely see that the reviewer also didn't like the build up throughout the film that led to it. But fans seem to have a hard time seeing that. It's "they hate superman." No, superman isn't real. They didn't like how Goyer, Snyder, etc wrote the character's build up to that scene/the fallout/epilogue/etc. And it's super easy to pick a dozen screenplays to compare it to.

The thing is, SO many movies come out nowadays. More than ever in the history of cinema. We literally have hundreds of movies released every year. So comparing the flaws of them is easier because we see them back to back to back. It's not like when 1989 Batman came out that there was literally nothing to compare it against for several years before and after.

Long (sorry) story short, if you want to understand and carry a discussion about the good, bad and ugly of any of these movies *without* it leading to Marvel vs DC/them vs us bull***t you have to try to look past the fan perspective. I've yet to meet any people in the movie industry (aside from a few blowhards) who take negative comments about their work badly, as long as the negativity is reinforced with an educated technical critique. MOS cost about $400 to produce, market and distribute. Don't shortchange all those thousands of people involved in putting it out to the masses by relegating their contributions to "whatever it happens in the comics."

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

See, this is the where the divergence between fan and critic come in. Bear with me, I'm not being pedantic:

The majority of fans I've seen defending things about MOS that others are much more critical of seem to rely on either "but that's like in the comics" or "Superman HAD to do [so and so] or else [so and so]." These arguments are irrelevant because they render the movie in real world terms like Monday morning quarterbacking a news bulletin. It's not real. It's a movie. People wrote the script. Others visualized and created the effects. Most fans couldn't give a fig about the minute details of translating a fantastical story like this to the screen like depth of frame and hyper realistic environments as long as it hearkens back to what they liked about the comics. But even critics who are uber familiar with comics can't disregard lackadaisical execution. Pointing out that the digital creation of Metropolis didn't get as much attention as the digital recreation of Manhattan in Avengers isn't an opinion, it's fact. It simply wasn't. Look at all the work that went into both and you can see it. We have featurettes, B-roll, BTS pics/video, a ton of interviews and set visits to use. Watch the movies frame by frame and you can see it. If you "liked" one more than the other, that's great. If it didn't bother you at all, that's great too, but it's irrelevant on a technical level. It's like bringing a mutt to a dog show and saying you like the mutt more than any of the pedigree dogs there. That's great, but Fluffy doesn't hold up to the rest on a technical level.

Same goes for when Supes killed Zod. All these "what could he have done instead?" arguments are irrelevant. The entire film was written and shot so that scene (which is not real) would play out exactly as it did. If you read some of the reviews that are very critical of that scene you'll more than likely see that the reviewer also didn't like the build up throughout the film that led to it. But fans seem to have a hard time seeing that. It's "they hate superman." No, superman isn't real. They didn't like how Goyer, Snyder, etc wrote the character's build up to that scene/the fallout/epilogue/etc. And it's super easy to pick a dozen screenplays to compare it to.

The thing is, SO many movies come out nowadays. More than ever in the history of cinema. We literally have hundreds of movies released every year. So comparing the flaws of them is easier because we see them back to back to back. It's not like when 1989 Batman came out that there was literally nothing to compare it against for several years before and after.

Long (sorry) story short, if you want to understand and carry a good discussion about the good, bad and ugly of any of these movies you have to try to look past the fan perspective. I've yet to meet any people in the movie industry (aside from a few blowhards) who take negative comments about their work badly, as long as the negativity is reinforced with an educated technical critique. MOS cost about $400 to produce, market and distribute. Don't shortchange all those thousands of people involved in putting it out to the masses by relegating their contributions to "whatever it happens in the comics."

This. If the internal logic of MOS were more flexible, Superman wouldn't have had to kill Zod, and Metropolis would be less smashed up.

PS. I know about the original PZ ending. I think that would have been a better way to go for an origin story.

 

[Mike22]

See, the thing is, I have a hard time trying to understand on why people had issues with the amount of destruction presented in "Man of Steel".

It wouldn't be realistic, imho, to think that an invading Alien race with two weapons of mass destruction could create anything less of the chaos that we saw in the film.

I mean, it happens all the time within the comics, and in other mediums... and yet people had issues with MOS because of the destruction?

What do they honestly expect to happen when you have two super powered beings going at it within a city a like Metropolis?

I agree, but the criticism isn't completely without reason.
I enjoyed MOS, a lot, but not as much as anticipated.
While what we saw on screen was no doubt beautiful and spectacular SFX-wise, it just lacked, for a lack of better word, personality, if that makes any sense.
This was set up to be a massive invasion, buildings had to not just fall, but crumble, and they surely did. However, the real spirit of the movie should have had a better written script/fight where people get to see more of Superman's character, and not just punching the crap out of villains (which was awesome).
First mistake, too damn dark in the final scenes. This is Superman, it should have been filmed in broad daylight with the sun shinning high and bright, this ain't Batman.
Second mistake, the final fight should have been constructed from the very beginning to showcase not only Superman's physical powers, but his heart as well, as in showing more care for those around him while Zod was knocked down, even if for a second or two, just to show some real proper concern for his surroundings.
Bringing us to the next point, the fight itself. A gigantic mistake in having them punch the hell out of each other and they barely feeling the effect of the impacts, it should have been like two humans fighting in a city made of cardboard, the surroundings would feel the impact of their confrontation, but so would both of them, giving Supes a chance and opportunity to perform a save or two while Zod regroups.
They should have had Zod actively trying to kill humans and Superman's tireless fight to prevent him, even if it meant super speeding between Zod and the victims. Just weak example really, but you get the point.

Not just punch, punch, punch, building falling here and there and snap goes the neck.

 

[Poni_Boy]

TPS. I know about the original PZ ending. I think that would have been a better way to go for an origin story.

Absolutely. Same here. While I would prefer if Superman didn't kill anyone, I can definitely see a situation written where he does and it universally works. The thing is, for an origin story, the character now has a precedent. He can/will kill the bad guy because the writers made it the status quo. People can argue till they're blue in the face about "the sequel will address it" but that, in itself, means the movie failed to tell a cohesive story. Imagine if we were three movies in before he was written to kill Zod. It would have been a much more profound cinematic moment. And on top of that, the epilogue offered no catharsis. Cut scene cut scene all is well. End credits. I mean, how can anyone not see why that was so negatively received from a critical perspective when we've had SO many movies in the past few years that showed a similar situation that was executed with much more finesse?

 

[Herolee10]

I agree, but the criticism isn't completely without reason.
I enjoyed MOS, a lot, but not as much as anticipated.
While what we saw on screen was no doubt beautiful and spectacular SFX-wise, it just lacked, for a lack of better word, personality, if that makes any sense.
This was set up to be a massive invasion, buildings had to not just fall, but crumble, and they surely did. However, the real spirit of the movie should have had a better written script/fight where people get to see more of Superman's character, and not just punching the crap out of villains (which was awesome).
First mistake, too damn dark in the final scenes. This is Superman, it should have been filmed in broad daylight with the sun shinning high and bright, this ain't Batman.
Second mistake, the final fight should have been constructed from the very beginning to showcase not only Superman's physical powers, but his heart as well, as in showing more care for those around him while Zod was knocked down, even if for a second or two, just to show some real proper concern for his surroundings.
Bringing us to the next point, the fight itself. A gigantic mistake in having them punch the hell out of each other and they barely feeling the effect of the impacts, it should have been like two humans fighting in a city made of cardboard, the surroundings would feel the impact of their confrontation, but so would both of them, giving Supes a chance and opportunity to perform a save or two while Zod regroups.
They should have had Zod actively trying to kill humans and Superman's tireless fight to prevent him, even if it meant super speeding between Zod and the victims. Just weak example really, but you get the point.

Not just punch, punch, punch, building falling here and there and snap goes the neck.

Well, I do admit that it would have been nice to see Superman and Zod bleeding from some of the punches that they exchanged with each other.

I think the reason why I give Superman more leeway in this case is because.... well, he just started. This is the first time that he's been put to the test when it comes to his abilities.

He's not the veteran Superman that most people are familiar with.

Plus, in the comics...you see him fighting in the exact same manner and not really stopping by to check on civilians while he's in the midst of a intense fight.

And I guess they felt that Zod unleashing the two gravity beams upon Earth was a clear enough message that he was planning on wiping out all of humanity, along with Zod stating that he was going to do so himself before fighting Superman.

If anything else, the reason for why they were just exchanging blows before arriving in the train station was to show that there was no way Superman could end the fight with leaving Zod alive and that he wouldn't be able to beat him and save people without killing him.

 

[Mike22]

The sequel should have everything MOS had and more.
One of the main problems with Clark/Kal-El/Superman, is that we barely saw a personality. I can certainly understand the effects of solitude and how that made him a man of few words, but he needs to speak more, offer more of himself, show that he isn't boring, as people mistakenly describe him. I personally felt that was one of the biggest criticisms I had about the movie. He is written as overly stoic. In essence, he should be more like the Chris Reeve Superman, without the camp. Basically charisma, which Cavill has plenty of, they just need a script that allows him to implement that into his acting, Man Of Steel didn't allow him to do that.

 

[Mike22]

Well, I do admit that it would have been nice to see Superman and Zod bleeding from some of the punches that they exchanged with each other.

I think the reason why I give Superman more leeway in this case is because.... well, he just started. This is the first time that he's been put to the test when it comes to his abilities.

He's not the veteran Superman that most people are familiar with.

Plus, in the comics...you see him fighting in the exact same manner and not really stopping by to check on civilians while he's in the midst of a intense fight.

And I guess they felt that Zod unleashing the two gravity beams upon Earth was a clear enough message that he was planning on wiping out all of humanity, along with Zod stating that he was going to do so himself before fighting Superman.

If anything else, the reason for why they were just exchanging blows before arriving in the train station was to show that there was no way Superman could end the fight with leaving Zod alive and that he wouldn't be able to beat him and save people without killing him.

Not necesarilly just bleeding, but having them physically show that the're in pain, otherwise they're perceived to be nothing more than wrecking balls.

I guess I can understand the point of view of slapping him on the wrist because he had just began his career as Superman, but my complaint is really more with the script in general.

As for Zod, I wasn't intending him going after civilians to merely kill them, it was meant more as a mocking of Kal-El, as in to say, not only will I destroy the world but since you turned your back to me and your own race, I will mercilessly kill them in front of you just to agonize you, like he told him he would prior to the fight starting.

And yeah, I got where the fight was heading, but I really just felt that the whole fight was poorly conceived. Awesome fight, but he shouldn't have to kill him in order to establish a no-kill rule for the future. In my humble opinion, it was just lazy writing.

 

[Herolee10]

The sequel should have everything MOS had and more.
One of the main problems with Clark/Kal-El/Superman, is that we barely saw a personality. I can certainly understand the effects of solitude and how that made him a man of few words, but he needs to speak more, offer more of himself, show that he isn't boring, as people mistakenly describe him. I personally felt that was one of the biggest criticisms I had about the movie. He is written as overly stoic. In essence, he should be more like the Chris Reeve Superman, without the camp. Basically charisma, which Cavill has plenty of, they just need a script that allows him to implement that into his acting, Man Of Steel didn't allow him to do that.

On the contrary, I actually found Cavil's Clark/Superman to be engaging to watch.

He may not be nearly as chatty like Tony Stark or Peter Parker are, but he has a way of having people emphasize with his character imho.

I'm glad that he's not like Christopher Reeve's Superman. I don't want a carbon copy of the character, especially one that was portrayed as seemingly perfect (even though he was actually flawed).

Here Clark is portrayed as Flawed, but yet he has the qualities where you can see him becoming the hero that people are familiar with today.

I felt like his actions spoke louder than his words.

 

[J.Howlett]

Absolutely. Same here. While I would prefer if Superman didn't kill anyone, I can definitely see a situation written where he does and it universally works. The thing is, for an origin story, the character now has a precedent. He can/will kill the bad guy because the writers made it the status quo. People can argue till they're blue in the face about "the sequel will address it" but that, in itself, means the movie failed to tell a cohesive story. Imagine if we were three movies in before he was written to kill Zod. It would have been a much more profound cinematic moment. And on top of that, the epilogue offered no catharsis. Cut scene cut scene all is well. End credits. I mean, how can anyone not see why that was so negatively received from a critical perspective when we've had SO many movies in the past few years that showed a similar situation that was executed with much more finesse?

How do we know that he'll kill the bad guy from here on out? Just because the "precedent" has been set does not mean that it will continue.

If we're doing the "it's not real, it's a movie" bit, couldn't I argue that the filmmakers will build up the sequel to a point where he doesn't kill if the situation arises again?

Again, you can make the argument both ways with the "it's a movie, it's not real" argument.

 

[J.Howlett]

I think the reason why I give Superman more leeway in this case is because.... well, he just started. This is the first time that he's been put to the test when it comes to his abilities.

He's not the veteran Superman that most people are familiar with.

And this is an argument that you could make about every decision he makes in this film and not technically be wrong if you looked past the idea of this being a comic book film about a character that's been around for 75 years.

That's not a fanboy argument. It's how he's presented in the film as conceived.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

See, the thing is, I have a hard time trying to understand on why people had issues with the amount of destruction presented in "Man of Steel".

It wouldn't be realistic, imho, to think that an invading Alien race with two weapons of mass destruction could create anything less of the chaos that we saw in the film.

I mean, it happens all the time within the comics, and in other mediums... and yet people had issues with MOS because of the destruction?

What do they honestly expect to happen when you have two super powered beings going at it within a city a like Metropolis?

I think it's because neither the source material or cartoons attempt to portray the world as an almost tangible version of our world, and as such it should have massive worldwide effects- politically, economically, militarily.

In fact, even in the comic book universe, the only time we see areas of cities levelled was Coast City and Bludhaven. Both of which were used as frameworks for much larger stories.

But Man of Steel shows Metropolis rebuilt and the same as ever. I think it's more a problem of internal consistency.

 

[Lily Adler]

So Superman gets his power from the yellow sun, but what happens when he and league fight aliens or inter-dimensional demons on a planet or realm without one?