AMAZING Podcast review/discussion of MoS - Very long

[113]

They really don't. It's mostly gigantic assumptions made regarding what the potential intent behind the plot was, but that doesn't really help. If you're going into a film, the idea is for there not to be plot holes that need a podcast to explain what was meant to happen. Most of Garman's criticism whilst hyperbolic was quite justified.

It actually has to do with whether you're willing to give the film the benefit of the doubt or not. Because you know what, when I saw The Avengers in that scene where Hulk runs through the floor of an office building, crashes through a window, and grabs a leviathon by the teeth (remember that?) well when I saw it the first thought in my head was thinking about all the people he just trampled, all the death and injury he just caused, but I wasn't trying to tear the film apart, I was trying to like the film, the collateral damage wasn't much of an issue despite irking me a bit.

People are doing the complete opposite with MoS by spending so much energy and time on these nit-picks when if you gave the film (and filmmakers) the benefit of the doubt you wouldn't have problem with. This is where the critique of critics come from, they give Joss Whedon a pass, but they dislike Snyder so they go in inherently skeptical of his work.

End of rant.

 

[herolee10]

It actually has to do with whether you're willing to give the film the benefit of the doubt or not. Because you know what, when I saw The Avengers in that scene where Hulk runs through the floor of an office building, crashes through a window, and grabs a leviathon by the teeth (remember that?) well when I saw it the first thought in my head was thinking about all the people he just trampled, all the death and injury he just caused, but I wasn't trying to tear the film apart, I was trying to like the film, the collateral damage wasn't much of an issue despite irking me a bit.

People are doing the complete opposite with MoS by spending so much energy and time on these nit-picks when if you gave the film (and filmmakers) the benefit of the doubt you wouldn't have problem with. This is where the critique of critics come from, they give Joss Whedon a pass, but they dislike Snyder so they go in inherently skeptical of his work.

End of rant.

Agreed. I don't think MOS is a perfect film by any means and has its fair share of problems, but the amount of negativity and nitpicks that this film has had to suffer from an bunch of critics is kind of ridiculous. I don't say that insinuating that people don't have a right to have their own opinion, but considering on how a lot of those opinions don't really have a lot strong basis supporting them, it's kind of hard to really see these negative reviews as legitimate ones.

People were okay with the amount of destruction that we've seen Superman indirectly cause during his animated fights and even in SII, where he killed Zod (based on the way the theatrical cut was presented), and yet people don't have beef with them at all.

 

[BlueLantern]

I don't say that insinuating that people don't have a right to have their own opinion, but considering on how a lot of those opinions don't really have a lot strong basis supporting them, it's kind of hard to really see these negative reviews as legitimate ones.

Throw out the political correctness and be honest. You think people disliking the film are idiots who don't recognize it for its greatness. That's fine. That's your opinion. For me most people defending the film are making stretch assumptions that require more effort to be justified than those criticizing the film. I've said it before and I'll say it again, truly great films also have flaws. It's just the positives are so overwhelming that the negatives get relegated to footnotes. Here, the flaws are very visible. It's just that some will give the film a free pass and some won't.

 

[113]

Throw out the political correctness and be honest. You think people disliking the film are idiots who don't recognize it for its greatness. That's fine. That's your opinion. For me most people defending the film are making stretch assumptions that require more effort to be justified than those criticizing the film. I've said it before and I'll say it again, truly great films also have flaws. It's just the positives are so overwhelming that the negatives get relegated to footnotes. Here, the flaws are very visible. It's just that some will give the film a free pass and some won't.

You just reinforced my point. This all comes down to who gets the benefit of the doubt in an individuals mind. For most critics Joss Whedon nearly always gets the benefit of the doubt. I personally find a lot of his stuff campy/hokey/"too-geeky." His work rarely really resonates with me.

I've said it numerous times before but Avengers is in my Top-3 list of CBMs just by default. It was impressive he managed to pull all these characters that different writers and directors had worked on into a solid film. So just by the fact he pulled it off gets him some benefit of the doubt.

But if I just look at Avengers as just a solo film, stripping away the previous Marvel works, stripping away the excitement of seeing these comic book heroes finally on screen together. If I just look at it as objectively as I can, I find it to be a solid/good movie, but nothing to write home about. A lot of the scenes were groan-worthy to me, some of the dialogue as well. Not to mention the entire second act takes place on the helicarrier and I found those scenes pretty painful to get through (see - boring) even the first time I watched it.

I was able to get through the entirety of the movie 3 full times until it doesn't do much for me anymore. Don't get me wrong, there are about 3 scenes (Iron Man vs Thor, "We Have a Hulk," and the famous tracking-shot with the whole team) that I'll rewatch, but the film as an entire piece of entertainment falls flat for me.

And not to be accused of being a DC fanboy just hating on Marvel movies, I actually have similar complaints with TDK (#4 CBM all time in my view, right behind Avengers). TDK got/gets the benefit of the doubt from critics because of Heath Ledgers performance and unfortunate death. Critics loved Heath and his death shocked everyone in Hollywood. But TDK rests largely on Heath's performance. You strip that away and, to me, you get a crime drama involving Batman, not really a Batman movie. Also, TDK kind of bores me nowadays. I've watched it probably 6-7 times straight through and now I can't even sit through it anymore. In contrast I can sit through Batman Begins straight through to this day, and I've probably watched that movie 30-40 times by now.

So, in conclusion, my overall point is that critics give certain filmmakers, writers, directors the benefit of the doubt and rarely look at a film objectively. MoS is a victim of this because critics just do not like Zack Snyder. If Nolan wasn't involved I'm sure it would have an even lower RT rating.

And the benefit-of-the-doubt thing matters a great deal because it's the difference between criticizing MoS for collateral damage vs not doing so with Avengers. It's the difference between viewing the "serious" tone of MoS as pretentious vs the "serious" tone of TDK as a strength.

The flaws of this film are very visible if you choose to look for them, and choose to concentrate on them. As I said, I saw many flaws in the Avengers, things that took me out of the experience. I saw flaws with TDK, things that took me out of the movie. But I chose to give the filmmakers the benefit of the doubt and see the story they were trying to tell. Likewise, I see flaws with MoS, some of which took me out of the movie, but I also see the story the filmmakers are trying to tell and give them the benefit of the doubt.

End of essay.

 

[BlueLantern]

I didn't really reinforce anything. I pointed out in not so good films the flaws are more visible since you're detached enough from the viewing experience to notice it. Obviously such things are similarly linked to an individual's frame of mind but hey, isn't everything? I can't give the film the benefit of the doubt because it relies too much on precisely the opposite. It grounds itself in realism and tries to play everything off as 'happening' so in turn there's going to be a **** load of exposition, which I'm accepting of, but said exposition is ridden with plot holes there's not much salvation. Even more when the overall presentation is flawed like bad place. Shaky cam, color palette, limited dialogue for the main character and repetitive action sequences. For me, giving the film the benefit of the doubt is extremely difficult.

I'm not going to address the rest of your post in detail because it's just not really making any sense. Your argument is that if you take away all the build up from the Avengers and all the good stuff from it that it's not a good film. Erm, duh? Similarly, if you take away a vital ingredient of the Dark Knight, it will obviously not be as good. There's not really any logic to that argument. Sorry. Take away the Superman mythos from this film and it's a sack of horse****. But you can't.

However, since everyone's so bad place bent on comparing the Avengers to Man of Steel, here's my take on it. The Avengers isn't all that much about the plot. It's there but the fun of the film lies in the characters, the humour and the general joy in seeing these guys on screen and doing their thing. The plot is secondary, so in many ways its weaknesses are not as obvious. But they're there. Man of Steel like every David Goyer film is very plot heavy. But the plot's essentially recycled science fiction tropes seen in other films. Star Trek, Serenity, The Matrix, Independence Day, The Avengers..the list goes on. So **** sticks out and hence will be weaker to me.

 

[Lorus]

However, since everyone's so bad place bent on comparing the Avengers to Man of Steel, here's my take on it. The Avengers isn't all that much about the plot. It's there but the fun of the film lies in the characters, the humour and the general joy in seeing these guys on screen and doing their thing. The plot is secondary, so in many ways its weaknesses are not as obvious. But they're there. Man of Steel like every David Goyer film is very plot heavy. But the plot's essentially recycled science fiction tropes seen in other films. Star Trek, Serenity, The Matrix, Independence Day, The Avengers..the list goes on. So **** sticks out and hence will be weaker to me.

I agree with your points for the most part and think that it really all comes down to clarity. The Avengers works because it's crystal clear about its intentions from the word go. The team has to assemble, and to do that they all have to accept who they are and their role. That's why the assembled shot in the circle is so great, it's dramatic catharsis in a way that's easily recognisable and accessible.

Man of Steel, by contrast, is too muddled. At times it seems to be a character driven story, given the flashbacks and the choice to follow Clark through childhood, but by the end of the film he hasn't changed or developed significantly. At other times the dialogue seems to suggest that the film is thematically driven but none of the themes are followed through or resolved. In essence there are many parts but no cohesive whole. At least, that's my take on the issue.

 

[BlueLantern]

Agree completely. For the lack of a better word the film is a mess.

 

[spider-neil]

It's really difficult to balance character and action. Spend too much on the character you leave next too no room for action making the movie feel like a drama/melodrama with action tacked on (SR, Ang Lee's Hulk). Devote too much time to the action without delevoping characters and you end up with a Transformers movie.

I think the best examples of balanced Superhero movies is IM/SM2/TDK2/X:FC

For me Superman has a little too much action and should have cut about 10-15 minutes of the final battle and either extended the individual flashbacks, had more flashbacks or spent more time developing the characters.

 

[BlueLantern]

The cornerstone of the perfect blend of action and character development are the Dark Knight and the Dark Knight Rises. Though the latter can be guilty of not appropriately developing Miranda Tate so the twist is felt. X2 did a fantastic job of balancing too. In terms of origin tales Iron Man probably did it best.

 

[J.Howlett]

The cornerstone of the perfect blend of action and character development are the Dark Knight and the Dark Knight Rises. Though the latter can be guilty of not appropriately developing Miranda Tate so the twist is felt. X2 did a fantastic job of balancing too. In terms of origin tales Iron Man probably did it best.

Iron Man did not. Begins easily towers over Iron Man in all departments.

 

[BlueLantern]

I was going to go with Begins but the problem with that film is that the escape sequence from Arkham went on for a bit. That's the only reason I didn't give it the nod. Otherwise I think both films are cornerstones in their respective styles of approaching comic book heroes.

 

[jmc]

Modern Myth Media are good but they need more opposing views.

 

[113]

Iron Man did not. Begins easily towers over Iron Man in all departments.

Agreed. I also don't think TDK had a great balance between action and character development. Neither did TDKR. Begins was really the perfect blend. I would have liked to see more of the scene of Tony in the Afghan village and less of the final battle in IM1. That final battle against Obediah is awful, one of the worst I've seen in a CBM (along with TDK).

 

[J.Howlett]

I agree with your points for the most part and think that it really all comes down to clarity. The Avengers works because it's crystal clear about its intentions from the word go. The team has to assemble, and to do that they all have to accept who they are and their role. That's why the assembled shot in the circle is so great, it's dramatic catharsis in a way that's easily recognisable and accessible.

Man of Steel, by contrast, is too muddled. At times it seems to be a character driven story, given the flashbacks and the choice to follow Clark through childhood, but by the end of the film he hasn't changed or developed significantly. At other times the dialogue seems to suggest that the film is thematically driven but none of the themes are followed through or resolved. In essence there are many parts but no cohesive whole. At least, that's my take on the issue.

Man of Steel is not crystal clear?! I now know I'm watching a different film than everyone else.

 

[J.Howlett]

Agreed. I also don't think TDK had a great balance between action and character development. Neither did TDKR. Begins was really the perfect blend. I would have liked to see more of the scene of Tony in the Afghan village and less of the final battle in IM1. That final battle against Obediah is awful, one of the worst I've seen in a CBM (along with TDK).

Well, I'll disagree on the balance in Knight and Rises. Begins might have the perfect balance but there's a balance in the sequels.

 

[BlueLantern]

Modern Myth Media are good but they need more opposing views.

Well it's directed towards fanboys and sunshiners.

 

[Lorus]

Man of Steel is not crystal clear?! I now know I'm watching a different film than everyone else.

Sure, it's clear in terms of the events that occur in every scene. I'm saying that, to me, it's unclear what the film is trying to do/be. Clark's lack of any real development suggests that the film isn't about him 'becoming' Superman. A lot of Jor-El and Jonathan Kent's pontificating would suggest that the film is about hope or determinism or existential ideas but none of those are explored either. So, I'm wondering what the film is, character or plot driven? At the moment, all I can say is it's about beating Zod. Mission accomplished I guess.

 

[br0adband]

So...

- has super powers unlike anyone else
- can't really be hurt by anything
- in situations where powers cause more problems than they fix (at the young age when he can't control them at all and they overwhelm him)
- is taught by Jonathan that helping people is the right thing to do
- every time he's in a situation where the right thing to do is help people it ends up being the wrong thing to do because of his secret
- can't win for losing
- becomes very reclusive, silent, shy, avoids contact as much as possible, just trying to find his way in the world
- movie shows all this rather brilliantly more so than any other "Superman" movie ever made, or TV show, or even most of the original comics and canon either
- helps whenever he can and then moves on because of the possible attention helping brings (Bruce Banner, anyone? From the original concept of the TV show? Sound familiar? Hello?)
- never really knows where he's from (and I don't mean the Kent farm) but then discovers his real background from a holo-consciousness of his Father on a crashed scout ship
- is given a choice, just as he's always been given, but this time doing the right thing means everybody on the planet will know he exists, almost at the same time given our 24/7 news and instant reporting abilities
- weighs the options carefully
- makes the right choice, starts on the path of his destiny as imagined by Jor-El
- movie just shows the beginnings of this hence it being referred half-jokingly as "Superman Begins" which it might have been called if "Superman Returns" had never been made

I'm ok with this.

 

[J.Howlett]

Sure, it's clear in terms of the events that occur in every scene. I'm saying that, to me, it's unclear what the film is trying to do/be. Clark's lack of any real development suggests that the film isn't about him 'becoming' Superman. A lot of Jor-El and Jonathan Kent's pontificating would suggest that the film is about hope or determinism or existential ideas but none of those are explored either. So, I'm wondering what the film is, character or plot driven? At the moment, all I can say is it's about beating Zod. Mission accomplished I guess.

It's the story of a man who finds out who he is and becomes what his fathers hoped he be one day.

 

[Lorus]

It's the story of a man who finds out who he is and becomes what his fathers hoped he be one day.

Unfortunately, I don't see the film as one where Clark turns from someone without purpose or with another purpose into the man his fathers hoped. Rather, he is simply told his heritage and then puts on the suit when his father tells him. There's no mystery for us in terms of his heritage and Clark doesn't seem too lost without the knowledge. Clark's morality is pretty much a constant throughout the film, the only thing that changes is his exposure.

However, rather than choose to, Zod forces Clark to change from the phantom helper to Superman. There's no apparent desire to inspire people or lead them as Jor-El intended. Even after Zod forces his hand, the film doesn't show Clark as being any of the things Jor-El wanted, he wears the emblem of hope but doesn't inspire much nor does mankind seem concerned with aspiring to be like him.

 

[br0adband]

Unfortunately, I don't see the film as one where Clark turns from someone without purpose or with another purpose into the man his fathers hoped. Rather, he is simply told his heritage and then puts on the suit when his father tells him. There's no mystery for us in terms of his heritage and Clark doesn't seem too lost without the knowledge. Clark's morality is pretty much a constant throughout the film, the only thing that changes is his exposure.

However, rather than choose to, Zod forces Clark to change from the phantom helper to Superman. There's no apparent desire to inspire people or lead them as Jor-El intended. Even after Zod forces his hand, the film doesn't show Clark as being any of the things Jor-El wanted, he wears the emblem of hope but doesn't inspire much nor does mankind seem concerned with aspiring to be like him.

He's been "Superman" for a day or two, he'll get there... the world just discovered he exists, they'll get there... that just wasn't the goal of MoS: to present people with a completely well rounded and perfectly self-confident Superman that's ready for anything, that along with humanity's understanding will come in time.

Jor-El: "We wanted you to learn what it meant to be human first so that one day, when the time was right, you may be the bridge between two peoples."


I have to wonder: if they'd called this "Superman Begins" would people have a better grasp of just what the bad place is going on... I wonder.

 

[Marvin]

Unfortunately, I don't see the film as one where Clark turns from someone without purpose or with another purpose into the man his fathers hoped. Rather, he is simply told his heritage and then puts on the suit when his father tells him. There's no mystery for us in terms of his heritage and Clark doesn't seem too lost without the knowledge. Clark's morality is pretty much a constant throughout the film, the only thing that changes is his exposure.

However, rather than choose to, Zod forces Clark to change from the phantom helper to Superman. There's no apparent desire to inspire people or lead them as Jor-El intended. Even after Zod forces his hand, the film doesn't show Clark as being any of the things Jor-El wanted, he wears the emblem of hope but doesn't inspire much nor does mankind seem concerned with aspiring to be like him.

Don't know about you but I saw and see two choices in that scenario.
This idea of being forced is kinda nonsense imo.

As for Superman becoming an inspiration for all man kind. This doesn't happen in issue one or rather in a first appearance story, even JorEl would understand that. That's the kind of thing that's solidified after a Grant Morrison run(ie all star in particular).

Lastly if you really want to see an example of Clark being told what, where, when and how to do anything for anyone, look no further than Superman The Movie. Complete with time skip and actor change.
I'm having trouble remembering if Clark helped a single soul before he met JorEl in that story(no one complains about).

ps. All JorEl wants is for his child to be able to choose his destiny. Thematically anyways. The rest stems from there.

 

[blumatic]

[QU=Lorus;26221541]Unfortunately, Idon't 't see the film as one where Clark turns from someone without pUpp. pose or with another purpose highly he man his fathers hoped. Rather, he is simply told his heritage and then puts on the suit when his father tells him. There's no mystery for us in terms of his heritage and Clark doesn't seem too lost without the knowledge. Clark's morality is pretty much a constant throughout the film, the only thing that changes is his exposure.

However, rather than choose to, Zod forces Clark to change from the phantom helper to Superman. There's no apparent desire to inspire people or lead them as Jor-El intended. Even after Zod forces his hand, the film doesn't show Clark as being any of the things Jor-El wanted, he wears the emblem of hope but doesn't inspire much nor does mankind seem concerned with aspiring to be like him.[/QUOTE]


This film to me was Clark taking Pa Kents advice to go out in the world and find himself. The flashbacks were the character development I needed to understand Clark a little bit more. He discovers his heritage and you see a Clark at peace with himself because questions about his past has been answered. Then Zod comes in and wrecks stuff. Then Kal, (its funny even in interviews they dont
address the protagonist as Superman) is forced to clean things up.

I think people think too highly of the Reeve Superman. Its just as simple or more simple than the story in STM. There was no overall theme. It was just a charming film. MOS is a more compelling story. I've never felt anything for Clark until I watched MOS. STM has flaws. The plot is silly.

I recognize the flaws MOS but as a hole it gives a really good film.

People don't like it.... Ok. But man people are downing this film so hard I'm thinking they saw the dragon ball film a few years ago instead of MOS. Man of Steel is a decent film at worst.

 

[113]

Good read from Time about Man of Steel and why it really has made Superman relevant again.

http://entertainment.time.com/2013/06/25/how-man-of-steel-inspires-even-as-it-divides/

 

[spider-neil]

Iron Man did not. Begins easily towers over Iron Man in all departments.

I don't think it does to be honest.