The fact that, at the end of the day, many people may have died in the Chitauri invasion, more than Cap saved, isnt the point. What people are trying to argue is that its important that during your climactic battle, you dont lose sight of whats important. Your heroes are fighting your villains because they want to protect us and keep us safe. Although the eventual defeat of the villain is in our best interest, it rings hollow to the essence of a superhero story if what youre really concerned with is the potential for super powered mayhem. Whedon was clearly concerned that without scenes of the Avengers helping people and making an attempt to protect civilians, his final set piece finale would be dismissed as an excuse for showcasing destruction and the audience would lose sight of why the Avengers coming together was a good thing and a reason to be excited. Snyder didnt share those concerns and the valid criticism was made that that was an oversight as it diminishes what should be the thrill of Superman finally being out in the open.
Now would be a good point to address why I believe people arent too accepting of moments like Superman saving the pilot as justification for his later inaction. For the reasons stated above, its a very different having your hero save someone who he sees is in trouble directly in front of him and having him choose to do something proactive in defence of citizens. It shows that your hero saving lives and being a positive influence is important to the filmmaker, more so than the action itself, which is just a vehicle to express that point.
I dont think anyone has a problem with a filmmaker choosing to subvert genre conventions to make a point in the Alan Moore Miracleman vein, they, and myself, just dont see that as being presented in Man of Steel. This is for two main reasons. Firstly, it runs counter to the idea of Superman being ultimately an inspirational figure who you should be thrilled and excited to see. You cant simultaneously play the genre straight and subvert it. Secondly, the destruction you describe is merely offered without comment by Snyder. No characters muse on the great toll the Kryptonian feud played on the city. Nothing is done to humanise the CGI corpses beyond any other genre offering. Neither Superman, nor anybody else draws attention to the loss of life that accompanies the spectacle.
The death of Zod seems to illustrate that Snyder was concerned with spectacle before the tragedy of mass destruction rather aptly. Zod tells Superman beforehand that he will keep killing until he is killed. He deliberately knocks Superman through buildings and levels them to make good on that promise. Superman has to kill him because he is single minded in his purpose. However, its only when civilians are directly threatened with heat vision that Superman gives in and kills Zod. The scenario which sees Superman kill Zod is the same throughout the entire fight but that it only occurs to Superman to commit the act when Snyder actually puts real humans in the scene highlights that he wasnt concerned with the hundreds of other people who were killed by levelled buildings, presumably because the spectacle of two super humans fighting was the priority.
A film has to stand on its own. Potential plots for other films cant be used to defend valid criticisms of the film at hand.
Tonys PTSD stems naturally from the consequences of the invasion. Hes suffering because of his own near death experience and the greater idea that he is smaller and less significant than he believed. Hence his retreating into his comfort zone and building all the suits. His anxieties werent related to collateral damage or mass devastation, but his personal brush with death and realisation that hes far from the king of the hill, as hed been able to believe in the previous films.
1)There were 6 Avengers, the
only one concerned about civilian safety was Cap, frankly because since he's so much less powerful than Hulk, Thor, IM he's really only useful to give directions and save civilians. He doesn't have to bother with stopping the Chitauri invasion because he physically can't.
2) On the flip side, there is only one Superman and thus he has to prioritize. If we're only talking about the final battle between Zod and Superman, well Zod is just as powerful as Superman and has vowed to massacre humans to spite Supes, thus Superman is forced to engage with him so Zod doesn't go off and start killing people.
3) Given that Zod is just as powerful, Superman can't just force Zod to not cause destruction, he
has to fight him as priority #1.
4) Now you can say "that rings hollow to the essence of a superhero story" all you want but a) that's purely subjective b) that's the point defendes of MoS have been making all along that people are bringing their own pre-conceived notions of what Superman is into the film instead of judging the film on its' own merits. That statement you made proves our point.
5) Sure Superman saving the pilot is a nice moment, but this film isn't about Superman "being Superman" as some people state, this film is about Clark Kent/Kal-El
becoming Superman. This film is about stopping an existential threat to the Earth via alien invasion. That is the priority, everything else is secondary.
6) While I agree Snyder
should have done more to mention the carnage, and it was jarring for seemingly everything to be back to normal at the end I don't think this ruins the film as some are convinced it does. It's a minor weakness/annoyance and to concentrate on this oversight is to nit-pick. In comparison, as you mentioned, there is some moment of reflection in Avengers for those that died but this felt tacked on to me and didn't have any emotional weight/resonance. It just felt forced and out of place in Avengers. But I recognize this as a nit-pick and a weakness, so I don't use it as a significant attack on the film.
7) So you wanted to see, what, Superman snap Zod's neck immediately? Yes Snyder and Goyer put Superman into this moral dilemma intentionally. And the only way for it to work is for a precise setup where there was no other option, where all avenues had been exhausted. Superman just coldly snapping Zod's neck because he foresaw potential damage to building that would ensue from a battle would actually be out of character.
A film has to stand on its own. Potential plots for other films cant be used to defend valid criticisms of the film at hand.
8) This film does stand on its' own, this isn't IM2. I just recognize/see where Goyer and Snyder are going with the trilogy/DCCU and this film lays a
great foundation. It can be both, a movie that stands on its' own merits
and a setup film.
9) As I said with Avengers, the PTSD/"seriousness" in IM3 seems tacked on, and forced. And this is where
tone really matters. Avengers did nothing to set-up a tone of allowing for a world where PTSD would be an issue for these heroes, especially someone of Tony Stark's background. If your tone is "light" then any real serious issue is going to seem forced/not-believable. And that's precisely what happened in IM3. The whole PTSD storyline got a big eye-roll from me when I saw it because it was so out of place.
And those defending it sound like how us MoS defenders must sound to the detractors, grasping at straws to justify a seemingly clear weakness in the film. A point many MoS detractors have stated over and over, I'll apply to IM3, the film should make everything clear, if you have to explain it after-the-fact then the film failed at its' job.
