How can the DCU upstage the Marvel Cinematic Universe? - Part 1

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]498389[/split]

 

[Tg11]

This is the question I pose to all of you, just how can the DC Cinematic Universe go one better? How can the DC Cinematic Universe upstage the Marvel Cinematic Universe especially to the point of building up towards an eventual Justice League movie?

Considering Marvel built up their cinematic universe remarkably well certainly to the point where everything was in place that an Avengers movie could even happen especially when no one ever thought that it could happen and when it did it paid off so how can DC top that?

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Which is hilarious because the Avenger movies continually addressed the heroism involved in attempting to prevent casualties. No matter how much people try to defend Man of Steel, the majority of their arguments are in-text (Watsonian) reasons - "He couldn't prevent casualties, he was fighting for his life" for example. In reality, Man of Steel is a piece of fiction, and Superman could have turned into a bubblegum wrapper if they wanted him to. And as a piece of fiction, the external reasons why a narrative choice was made matters. By refusing to even provide a scene of Superman futilely attempting to take the fight elsewhere, Snyder failed to provide characterisation and development within the fight.

Or even have a more somber ending where they are mourning the losses, starting to rebuild, and striving to move forward. Instead, the destruction is just ignored and immediately afterwards the city and characters back to normal like nothing happened.

That this was supposed to be a more realistic adaptation just made the reaction all that more unbelievable because it didn't even fit the tone of the rest of the movie.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

I thought Jor El was all about going against the Kryptonian system, making babies and all. Maybe he fights like he's had training because.....he did have a lot of training?

They also set Krypton up in a way that seems like the system is somewhat broken, and that the absence of free will actually limits the capability of the people that who've spent their lives adhering to it. One of the movie's themes is about choice after all, both the burden of it and the power of it.

 

[NewYorkSpider]

Or even have a more somber ending where they are mourning the losses, starting to rebuild, and striving to move forward. Instead, the destruction is just ignored and immediately afterwards the city and characters back to normal like nothing happened.

That this was supposed to be a more realistic adaptation just made the reaction all that more unbelievable because it didn't even fit the tone of the rest of the movie.

One thing that bugged me about Man Of Steel was the fact that nobody was panicking about an alien invasion coming to Earth. Zod basically sent a message across the world and everyone is just fine and dandy? I wish they had showed people leaving Metropolis and rioting in the streets in different city's. Would have made that more realistic IMO.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

One thing that bugged me about Man Of Steel was the fact that nobody was panicking about an alien invasion coming to Earth. Zod basically sent a message across the world and everyone is just fine and dandy? I wish they had showed people leaving Metropolis and rioting in the streets in different city's. Would have made that more realistic IMO.

Yeah, a reaction similar to what happened in Independence Day would have been more appropriate.

 

[Boy Scout]

Whedon's résumé goes beyond Firefly and Serenity. And you're in the minority when it comes to those two projects of his. Especially Firefly. Great stuff.

I've never seen Firefly, but I've heard nothing but good things. I tried to get into Buffy a year or two ago, but I lost interest after episode two or three. Dr. Horrible is easily my favorite out of everything I've seen of his.

When it comes to MAN OF STEEL, I don't think the film's weakness is so much an actual lack of story or characterization. The problem is that it didn't tell the type of story or feature the type of characterization a lot of fans wanted from a Superman film.

I don't think that's true. Most people, in my opinion, would've been more accepting of MOS and what it had to offer if it had been a better movie.

A lot of fans wanted to see a more straightforward origin; the story about how the Kents raise Clark, and because he's raised by good people, he chooses to do good, in other words, the personal "why" of Superman, and the film presented us with a different side of the character; Superman's internal conflict about his place in the world and the global "why" of him.

I think most knew what to expect going in. We all saw the trailers and read the interviews and were aware of how much Snyder had been influenced by BB/TDK/TDKR. Most fans, I think, were excited at the possibility of seeing a more conflicted and psychologically compelling Superman. The problem, again, is that the film failed to tell its story competently.

I disagree that Clark is any more a passive character than he has ever really been in the past.

I think he was a very passive character. How long had he spent wandering the country, working odd jobs and saving people here and there? Months? Years? What was his purpose? What was he thinking? Would he have spent the rest of his life as a drifter if he hadn't accidentally overhead soldiers discussing classified information in a public place? I honestly think he would have.

Even him hiding himself from the world was an active choice he made...

He made an active decision to be passive/reactive. Hooray, I guess?

I view the end of MOS as neither a good or bad choice, simply a nontraditional one.

I think it was a pretty tone deaf ending, to be honest.

Since the next film seems to be spending a large part of the film addressing the "unanswered questions" from MAN OF STEEL...

You don't see a problem with that?

People get so hung up on the fact that Jor beat Zod, like if it is some unquestionable major flaw.

That's the movie's fault. It made a big deal out of the fact that Kryptonians could only be (or do) one thing. Why would a scientist be able to defeat men and women who were literally born to be fighters, even if he had taken it upon himself to learn how to fight?

I think the point is that Zod is highly flawed on pretty much all levels, that's why he always fails.

A character's flaws shouldn't contradict the internal logic of the film.

As far as Jor-El's fighting abilities, i can't say i remember everything that happened in the movie, but i'm conviced that nowhere in it we're told that the people from Krypton can only learn one skill.

Again: even if Jor-El had decided to take a class or two, how could he have so easily taken on trained soldiers?

It's interesting that people pay more attention to what characters say than to what they do.

That's because dialogue is really important. It often supports and informs the actions of the characters.

Character A says that he has more training than character B and is a much better fighter than him, but then character B beats character A, and people conclude that the movie is flawed. Why is it flawed?

Well, first of all, you didn't provide any context, so it's hard to answer your question.

But let's assume Character A is Batman and Character B is Lucius Fox. I think most people would assume that the former could easily defeat the latter. Batman is, after all, a trained fighter. Logically, he should be able to defeat Lucius in a fistfight. Does that mean Lucius could never win? Of course not. Maybe Batman is deliberately holding back. Maybe he's injured. Maybe they're only pretending to fight. Maybe Lucius has actually been taking self-defense classes for decades now and is actually capable of defeating Batman because he's just that amazing at martial arts.

Point is: if you're going for the unexpected victory, you have to explain how the underdog is able to achieve that victory. The explanation given also has to make sense within the context of the film. Jor-El was able to beat (and I think kill) several soldiers because...well, I don't know why. He shouldn't be able to. We're never told why he's able to. He just does, because it looks cool. And, for me, for this particular movie, that's not good enough.

 

[Marvin]

That this was supposed to be a more realistic adaptation just made the reaction all that more unbelievable because it didn't even fit the tone of the rest of the movie.

It fit the tone of a 'superman' film.

 

[The Guard]

Because that's the way Goyer wrote it. His comments make it very clear why this movie was so devisive and still debated to this day but also why there will never be a way to solve the argument. "If you take Superman out of it, what's the right way to tell the story...". Nothing more clear than that- Goyer wasn't telling a Superman story. Goyer wasnt telling a story of what would Superman do.

You keep bringing this statement up…I don’t think you understand what Goyer meant. He didn’t literally mean “remove Superman from the equation.”

As he said before the movie ever came out, this was not meant to be a superhero movie; he wanted it to be a "first contact" movie.

I’m pretty sure he meant “Not just a typical superhero movie”. “First Contact” was the overarching theme, but there are lots of elements of a superhero movie in MAN OF STEEL. So its kind of a moot point. It was both.

There really is nothing to debate, Goyer wasn't telling a Superman story when he wrote it.You're telling me you're OK with writers who write a movie without taking into account the titular character? Come on, I mean really?

No…but again, I don’t believe that’s what happened. I don’t think you understand what Goyer meant by “taking Superman out of it”.

*sigh* Right because that what most of us think right? Your point here really cements the point I made earlier which I feel the need to reiterate here:

"Everything about these big movies riding on the coattails of established properties are suffering an internal conflict. They'll try to jettison the supposedly 'corny' and 'outdated' elements of Superman without thinking about why such elements were fundamental to the armature underneath that icon.You want to have a gritty, complex, conflicted protagonist? Fine. Want to tell a first-contact story in which an inexperienced young god is instrumental in causing unimaginable amounts of destruction? Cool! Sounds fascinating!

You think the film was made simply to jettison these elements? You’re discounting the fact that, Superman, as a character, has been moving in this direction over the last decade or so in the comics. The film, in many respects, is a reflection of Superman as he has often been interpreted in modern comics.

But think carefully about that before hogtying it willy-nilly to an icon that is strongly tied to an ideal of heroism while blaring the sound system with a heroic anthem and desperately trying to present it like a hero based on an audience's collective awareness/association with it.

Hog-tying it willy nilly?

I don’t think there’s anything desperate about it. They presented him as a hero because he was doing heroic things. Risking his life and exposure to the world to fight Zod, who was hellbent on destruction.

That's a big part of the disconnect, I think. So many of these old 'heroes' and 'role models' are being trotted back out without much thoughtfulness. They are being brought out specifically to spit in the face of 'corny old heroism.' The "THIS AIN'T YOUR DAD'S ___________" approach to mining a property to sexy it up. That's where these writers and people behind these films miss the point because they don't get it."

Umm…no. These heroes are not being made into films just so they can spit in the face of “Corny old heroism”.

This and other superhero films are a reflection of our time, and of evolving values and ideas about what it means to be a hero.

Seems like Goyer wrote the film with the unspoken (and likely studio mandated) purpose of appealing to people who don't actually like the character.

That is ridiculous. Especially since plenty of people who do like the character enjoyed the film.

Which is just bad story telling if that was the intent (and it would have been just sloppy) but it clearly wasn't because MoS ties things neatly and ends on a happy note, with Metropolis seemingly rebuilt(?), everyone is all happy and everything that happened beforehand is swept under the rug.

No…Clark himself is happier and more fulfilled. The movie does not say “Everyone is happy and everything that happened before has been swept under the rug”. At all.

That is obviously not the case per the sequel.

A movie has to stand on its own and not rely on another movie to address events of the previous movie.

MAN OF STEEL doesn’t rely on the sequel to address the events of MAN OF STEEL. The events of MAN OF STEEL happened in MAN OF STEEL. It would be asinine to expect the end of the film to somehow resolve all the potential questions and concerns the world might have. Or even to properly introduce them.

However, MAN OF STEEL does present a scene making it obvious that there are concerns about Superman and his abilities and intentions, namely with the agency he worked most closely with during the film, the US Government.

The sequel will expand on the world’s reaction to the events in the first film. Much like other films and movie and literary franchises have done in the past.

That's just bad storytelling.

No it’s not. The only true bad storytelling is storytelling that lacks internal logic, and there’s nothing inherently illogical about showing a happier time at the end of a film.

Again, plenty of franchises and stories have taken this approach.

And as to regards the Jor-El vs of fight.The movie clearly sets up the fact that Kryptonian social classes are specialized to do one thing.

And never, ever says they can’t do another thing. It only points out that they are discouraged to do so culturally. And if anyone is going to buck that trend, it makes sense that it’s Jor-El, who seems to be the rebel of the culture.

But somehow after establishing this fact people want us to believe that Jor-El trained to be a fighter. Even if he was, I hardly believe he was any match for someone who spent his entire life as an actual hardened soldier.

Yes, I know it's a bit much to believe that he could build a rocket but not train himself to be a capable fighter.

The movie shows you that he was, in fact, a match for Zod in that moment.

I wonder how you believe that say, Bruce Wayne could beat Ra’s Al Ghul in BATMAN BEGINS, or buy any of the hero/villain “upsets” over the years in cinema.

Someone weaker or less skilled winning a fight with a seemingly more formidable opponent is rampant in literature and cinema.

And if it was Goyers or Snyder's intent to show that Zods character had flaws, then they failed at properly expanding on the idea.

No…they very clearly explored several of Zod’s ideological flaws and the flaws in his methods.

Which again as I said before, MoS is all ideas that dont really go anywhere.

Simply not true.

 

[Deadshot]

Which is hilarious because the Avenger movies continually addressed the heroism involved in attempting to prevent casualties. No matter how much people try to defend Man of Steel, the majority of their arguments are in-text (Watsonian) reasons - "He couldn't prevent casualties, he was fighting for his life" for example. In reality, Man of Steel is a piece of fiction, and Superman could have turned into a bubblegum wrapper if they wanted him to. And as a piece of fiction, the external reasons why a narrative choice was made matters. By refusing to even provide a scene of Superman futilely attempting to take the fight elsewhere, Snyder failed to provide characterisation and development within the fight.

Superman attempting to take the fight elsewhere wouldn't provide any more characterisation than him keeping the fight on the city and then killing Zod. Both scenarios say plenty about the man. They just say different things. And i have no problem with MOS's Superman not being the "perfect" Superman, since we're dealing with someone who went very quickly from not knowing exactly who he was to having to save earth. It's only natural for him to show flaws and bad judgement. It actually makes him more interesting. Plus, he will have plenty of time to grow.

You can say this is wrong because in the comics he is this and that, yada, yada, yada, but this Superman worked perfectly in the context of this particular story.

What casualties did The Avengers prevent? In the first movie they save a couple of people, but they still keep the fight in the middle of the city. The movie is 100% light and they show no credible concern for the fact that thousands are dying right there while they're cracking "funny" one liners amongst them. MOS is not much better, but man, there's one scene where you can see true concern and pain in the eyes of the hero, and that's something i can't say about anyone in The Avengers.

In the second movie they showed a lot of concern for the civilians, but you can tell that was just Marvel trying to play as safe as possible. They saw what happened with MOS and they didn't wanna piss people off, so they just decided to address as much as possible the civilians. To me that's what takes the fun away from these Marvel movies. They are just waaaaaaaaaaay too concerned with not pissing anybody off. They're just waaaaaaaaaaaay too strategic. Good for them, they make money that way. But watching these movies is a little bit like hearing a politician talk. I just can't fully buy into it. Nothing seems to come from the heart.

A character's flaws shouldn't contradict the internal logic of the film.

Again: even if Jor-El had decided to take a class or two, how could he have so easily taken on trained soldiers?

That's because dialogue is really important. It often supports and informs the actions of the characters.

Well, first of all, you didn't provide any context, so it's hard to answer your question.

But let's assume Character A is Batman and Character B is Lucius Fox. I think most people would assume that the former could easily defeat the latter. Batman is, after all, a trained fighter. Logically, he should be able to defeat Lucius in a fistfight. Does that mean Lucius could never win? Of course not. Maybe Batman is deliberately holding back. Maybe he's injured. Maybe they're only pretending to fight. Maybe Lucius has actually been taking self-defense classes for decades now and is actually capable of defeating Batman because he's just that amazing at martial arts.

You're assuming too much and that's a silly comparision.

First off all, we're never told about the particularities of Krypton's civilization. The information we get is very limited. You're just assuming too much. We know they're supposed to follow a certain lifestyle, but we don't know if they can't have access to information outside their line of work. Well, we actually know: They can. The movie doesn't say it, but it shows. And we also know that being a soldier, apparently, doesn't require superior hand 2 hand combat. Not on Krypton and not even on earth. Do you think a soldier can beat anybody in a fight? Most of them have very minimal hand 2 hand training. There's nothing wrong or odd about a scientist beating a soldier. You're just trying to apply your own personal(and quite fictional) rules to a universe about which you don't even have enough information to draw any type of definite conclusion, since the film never really went into detail about such matters. Or maybe it did, when it showed you a scientist could actually fight. I repeat: The movie shows you. It's there for you to see. It's telling you: "Hey, Jor-El knows how to fight".

Why? Why does Jor-El knows how to fight? I don't know. The movie never tells. Is it important? Maybe not. There are dozens of pretty plausible theories.

Now, about Batman and Gordon: Batman is known for being an ultimate Martial Artist. He is supposed to be better than pretty much everyone else. It's actually the permise of the character: He can do what others can't. Now, about Zod, we are never told about his exact qualifications as a martial artist. All we know is that he is a general, which, per se, if you know anything about military, doesn't say much about his fighting abilities.

Jor-El is a man of knowledge, and he uses an armour, which kind of indicates that Krypton is an hostile enviroment to live. People who life in hostile enviroments often learn how to defend themselves. Being him such an important man, it's only logic for him to learn how to defend himself.

I don't understand what's so complex to understand about this. I think it just takes a little bit of real world experience to watch that scene and not be surprised by it.

 

[The Guard]

The problem, again, is that the film failed to tell its story competently.

How so?

The film's two major storylines (in other words, its story) were:
-Superman's conflict about exposing himself and his role in the world.
-The arrival of hostile alien forces on Earth.

Both stories were competently told. The reaction to Superman's arrival was shown from the perspective of the military, and several angles of this were explored.

I think he was a very passive character. How long had he spent wandering the country, working odd jobs and saving people here and there? Months? Years? What was his purpose? What was he thinking? Would he have spent the rest of his life as a drifter if he hadn't accidentally overhead soldiers discussing classified information in a public place? I honestly think he would have.

But he wasn't doing nothing. He was wandering the world helping people.

"Saving people here and there" is still actively saving people.

What was his purpose? He obviously wanted to help people but without exposing himself to the world, which can be seen via his actions, and was eventually actively searching for answers about his heritage. What's he's thinking? What he's thinking varies from scene to scene. The film showed various interactions and encounters, all which inform the central theme of Clark trying to reconcile his nature with the world.

It's a bit like calling Bruce Wayne "passive" because he goes off on a worldwide tour but doesn't know quite where he will end up.

He made an active decision to be passive/reactive. Hooray, I guess?

This is the central problem with Superman, and really with most superheroes. He's a largely reactive force. He always has been.

I think it was a pretty tone deaf ending, to be honest.

Tone deaf in what sense?

That's the movie's fault. It made a big deal out of the fact that Kryptonians could only be (or do) one thing.

No. It didn't. This is an assumption that some have made based on a few lines of dialogue.

But at no point does the movie expressly say or show us that just because someone is "bred" to be something that they are incapable of being something else. Jor-El flat out proves its possible in multiple respects.

Why would a scientist be able to defeat men and women who were literally born to be fighters, even if he had taken it upon himself
to learn how to fight?

How does anyone with less skill beat someone with more skill at a given time? Luck. The other person is off their game...pick a reason, there are many.

A character's flaws shouldn't contradict the internal logic of the film.

Storytelling has always shown that a character's flaws can cause them to be vulnerable to others, in this case, the heroes.

Again: even if Jor-El had decided to take a class or two, how could he have so easily taken on trained soldiers?

Because obviously he had more than "a class or two". He had armor, weapons and the element of surprise.

Point is: if you're going for the unexpected victory, you have to explain how the underdog is able to achieve that victory. The explanation given also has to make sense within the context of the film. Jor-El was able to beat (and I think kill) several soldiers because...well, I don't know why. He shouldn't be able to. We're never told why he's able to. He just does, because it looks cool. And, for me, for this particular movie, that's not good enough.

You shouldn't need to be "told" everything. The beauty of film is that it can "show" things without expressly stating them. Some things have an apparent logic without dialogue to explain them.

The film also pretty much shows you how Jor-El won against Zod.

The movie clearly shows that Jor-El's announcement that he and Lara have had a son shocks and enrages Zod, who attacks Jor-El.

It is reasonable to assume, based on his rage-filled attack, that Zod is undisciplined in said attack. The film also shows this happening.

Jor-El has more at stake, is better prepared for the encounter, and fights more efficiently than Zod, who is raging. All fairly logical reasons that Jor-El would win a fight at a given time.

As for the other soldiers, Jor-El shot a couple of them. No mystery there.

 

[Napoleon]

This is the question I pose to all of you, just how can the DC Cinematic Universe go one better? How can the DC Cinematic Universe upstage the Marvel Cinematic Universe especially to the point of building up towards an eventual Justice League movie?

Considering Marvel built up their cinematic universe remarkably well certainly to the point where everything was in place that an Avengers movie could even happen especially when no one ever thought that it could happen and when it did it paid off so how can DC top that?

As I said in a previous thread, I don't think that the DCEU needs to upstage the MCU as much as it needs to forge its own identity so that it can stand apart from the competition. And by that I mean offer the audience something that they haven't seen before in a comic-book adaptation, don't be afraid to take risks, and just make quality movies. Personally, I believe that they're heading in the right direction in regards to the former two, since they're making a movie about two of they're superheroes being in direct conflict with one another (Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice), a villain team-up movie (Suicide Squad), and a female-headlined solo movie (Wonder Woman), all being pushed out before Marvel's respective films.

 

[The Guard]

The "Avengers"/"MOS" debate is largely pointless. They're two different animals.

THE AVENGERS presents the final battle as The Avengers fighting cannon fodder aliens. The aliens pose a threat, but the threat is not one where The Avengers are constantly being pummeled by superior combatants with immense powers. They're fighting flying aliens with lasers. The threat to the heroes is just generally not on the same intensity level, even if it is more impressive in terms of numbers.

Superman is presented as a rookie fighting Zod. A raging superpowered madman who will not stop, and who allows no time to react. That is not what is shown in The Avengers.

Its two very different approaches to portraying a pitched battle.

 

[Boy Scout]

How so?

This is already going to be a long post. Going into exactly why I think the movie fails to tell its story competently would make it unnecessarily longer.

But he wasn't doing nothing. He was wandering the world helping people.

He saved people when it was convenient for him to do so. He wasn't actively searching for people to rescue.

"Saving people here and there" is still actively saving people.

No it isn't. That implies that he was intentionally seeking out people in need of help, which he wasn't.

What was his purpose? He obviously wanted to help people but without exposing himself to the world...

If it was obvious, then you wouldn't have to explain it to me.

Clark was purposeless. Lost. Traveling from place to place without caring where he ended up.

It's a bit like calling Bruce Wayne "passive" because he goes off on a worldwide tour but doesn't know quite where he will end up.

No it isn't. Bruce, in BB, had a clearly defined and understood purpose: to understand how criminals think. It's not a plan that requires him to be at any particular place at any particular time. After all: crime and criminals are everywhere.

This is the central problem with Superman, and really with most superheroes. He's a largely reactive force. He always has been.

When it comes to disasters and fighting crime, yes. When it comes to finding answers, becoming Superman, and making something of himself? Not usually.

Tone deaf in what sense?

The happy ending doesn't really jive with what came before it. That being, lots of death, collateral damage, and a man in emotional agony.

No. It didn't. This is an assumption that some have made based on a few lines of dialogue.

Then that dialogue should have better explained the circumstances.

But at no point does the movie expressly say or show us that just because someone is "bred" to be something that they are incapable of being something else.

Sure. But that "something else" shouldn't directly contradict what we were lead to believe about Krypton's culture.

Jor-El flat out proves its possible in multiple respects.

He also flat out said that he's just as much a victim of Krypton's stereotyping as anyone else. That's why he didn't travel with Kal-El to Earth.

How does anyone with less skill beat someone with more skill at a given time? Luck. The other person is off their game...pick a reason, there are many.

Yeah, no, that's lame. And it wasn't luck that allowed Jor-El to beat those soldiers. It was skill. Skill that Jor-El, as a scientist, shouldn't have possessed.

Storytelling has always shown that a character's flaws can cause them to be vulnerable to others, in this case, the heroes.

I don't know what that has to do with what I said.

Because obviously he had more than "a class or two".

Why? How? And how do those classes allow him to stand up to people who were born and bred to be fighters?

And if the explanation is that simple, why couldn't it be expressed through a few lines of dialogue? We were on Krypton for what...twenty minutes? Twelve more seconds wouldn't have made a difference.

He had armor, weapons and the element of surprise.

The soldiers had armor, weapons, and years of experience.

You shouldn't need to be "told" everything.

I don't. But if the Lucius Fox of the film is gonna beat the Batman, I'd like a better explanation than, "Because he can."

The film pretty much shows you how Jor-El won against Zod.

And it doesn't make sense, which is why we're having this conversation.

The movie clearly shows that Jor-El's announcement that he and Lara have had a son shocks and enrages Zod, who attacks Jor-El. It is reasonable to assume, based on his rage-filled attack, that Zod is undisciplined in said attack.

It's also reasonable to assume that Zod, as someone who has probably spent years training, is able to productively channel rage and use it to make himself even more formidable, especially against someone who shouldn't be on his level.

 

[Mjölnir]

I didn't say anything about how advanced Krypton was compared to Earth...

It's an important part in creating the expectations of how significant the effects of their genetic engineering are.

Being told to be something does not mean they cannot develop any other skills during their lives or make different choices. It obviously didn't stop Jor-El from acquiring other skills and acting a certain way.

Interpreting as just being told that makes the whole concept ridiculously weak. Then Krypton is no more special than any controlling dictatorship on Earth and it's just stupid to talk about genetic engineering if that's not supposed to matter at all. It's pretty weak to have Jor-El be a good warrior in that society in itself, but it would at least be acceptable if he was good but that it only lead to him being able to delay his own defeat enough for securing the launch. He doesn't have to reduce Zod to Grima Wormtounge.

Eh...Zod has the upper hand at first. I don't consider that downright awful, nor was he "downright awful" at combat later in the film. Jor-El, who has more at stake, simply fights harder and wins their first encounter.

Yes, Zod is humiliated. So?

Where is it written that because he has been designed to be a soldier that he will somehow be perfect at every aspect of it in every concievable outcome?

No one said he's a good leader, or a good person. Maybe, just maybe, there's a weakness in his mindset, and that's why he's a villain? Maybe, just maybe, attempts to create the perfect soldier aren't always the right way to go.

It's almost like that's one of the things the movie was trying to say.

As far as I remember Zod only lands two strikes on Jor-El. That's being humiliated and the "so?" is obviously that it leaves everything we're told about Krypton redundant. It of course also doesn't help set up your villain well if he's an utter failure at everything he's supposed to be good at.

And please stop with the ridiculous "perfect" argument. He doesn't have to be perfect but he needs to be good at it. Otherwise the whole description of Krypton is irrelevant, confusing and wasting time. I've been more than clear on that it's not about him not being perfect but about him being absolutely awful at everything.

No one's said that he's a good leader? So why was he put in the position of being the overall military leader of Krypton, a planet where they supposedly can engineer people to be what they should be? He should be able to lead the army but clearly most of it didn't care to follow him at all. He's also a completely moronic tactician since he staged a coup where he was swatted down immediately, which was the obvious result if he didn't get his own military forces behind him.

He's much more of a good person than he is competent as he at least has noble intentions.

 

[Flint Marko]

It's always interesting to see how hard some will work to try and explain/justify the numerous problems with Man of Steels screenplay.
"Zod was enraged, so that's how a military general who was genetically engineered and trained to be a soldier for his entire life was matched by a scientist. Clearly Zods problem was his genetic engineering which made him a myopic, ineffectual leader, even though that was hardly touched upon in the movie to make more time for punchy punch punch punch. And the super abrupt, unsatisfying ending is great because it raises a whole bunch of questions it doesn't even think to answer".

 

[Black Narcissus]

This is the question I pose to all of you, just how can the DC Cinematic Universe go one better? How can the DC Cinematic Universe upstage the Marvel Cinematic Universe especially to the point of building up towards an eventual Justice League movie?

Considering Marvel built up their cinematic universe remarkably well certainly to the point where everything was in place that an Avengers movie could even happen especially when no one ever thought that it could happen and when it did it paid off so how can DC top that?

Trying to get back on topic here:


If Skwad and BvS can hit on both terms; critically and box office then the DCEU is more than born. The other films coming out the gate could use that good will to get an extra boost at the box office and critical response. WB coming out with a solo female film and their villains under one movie, it already puts them first over marvel as far getting to the gate first. Now we wait.

 

[TeeKay]

You keep bringing this statement up…I don’t think you understand what Goyer meant. He didn’t literally mean “remove Superman from the equation.”

English may not be my first language but I very much understand what Goyer is saying. I stand by it and I doubt I'm in the minority.

I’m pretty sure he meant “Not just a typical superhero movie”. “First Contact” was the overarching theme, but there are lots of elements of a superhero movie in MAN OF STEEL. So its kind of a moot point. It was both.

The overarching theme that was just a pass in the wind. The world is suppose to react to the discovery of alien life and we ibky see it from the military POV? What's so funny is that MoS just ended up being just another typical superhero movie masked as a poor mans Batman Begins.

No…but again, I don’t believe that’s what happened. I don’t think you understand what Goyer meant by “taking Superman out of it”.



You think the film was made simply to jettison these elements? You’re discounting the fact that, Superman, as a character, has been moving in this direction over the last decade or so in the comics. The film, in many respects, is a reflection of Superman as he has often been interpreted in modern comics.

Yet his core principles as a character has essentially stayed the same. When the people behind this film can't even get it right what's the point. And if its moving towards that way in modern comics, I don't care. How about making the character interesting in the film? We are talking about the film itself and not what's happening in the source material. Take away Superman as Goyer intended, it changes nothing. The focal character is still uninteresting. Which is the problem for me.

Hog-tying it willy nilly?

I don’t think there’s anything desperate about it. They presented him as a hero because he was doing heroic things. Risking his life and exposure to the world to fight Zod, who was hellbent on destruction.



Umm…no. These heroes are not being made into films just so they can spit in the face of “Corny old heroism”.

This and other superhero films are a reflection of our time, and of evolving values and ideas about what it means to be a hero.

MoS clearly failed at that IMO. For me, it lacked that 'character' moment for me, a moment which defined Superman ( kinda like the scene Steve jumps for the grenade before he gotntge serum). Sure the scene where he destroys the world engine was meant to be epic and heroic, but at the same time I felt nothing because I was totally disconnected from the main character.

That is ridiculous. Especially since plenty of people who do like the character enjoyed the film.

Yet the film was so polarizing that people have different perspectives and interpretations of ideas and themes of the film. Clearly the filmmakers didn't do a good enough job of exploring the characters and themes of the film if people are so divided on it.

No…Clark himself is happier and more fulfilled. The movie does not say “Everyone is happy and everything that happened before has been swept under the rug”. At all.

Are you kidding me? Of course the movie doesn't literally say that. Its bloody shown. Zods invasion seems not have an effect on the central characters and the whole world. We don't know how much it impacted the world, how things changed and how people felt about this. And the whole "its going to be explored in BvS' doesnt cut for me. The way the film ended seemed like the filmmakers thought they had represented Superman in a good light and deserved such an ending. The Avengers as light hearted and family friendly as it was, it took time to acknowledge the alien invasion. How people felt about it etc. That's all I wanted in MoS. Just acknowledge what happened and you can still have your happy ending.

That is obviously not the case per the sequel.

Were not talking about the sequel, its irrelevant because we're talking about MoS as a movie and not what's going to transpire in the sequel.

MAN OF STEEL doesn’t rely on the sequel to address the events of MAN OF STEEL. The events of MAN OF STEEL happened in MAN OF STEEL. It would be asinine to expect the end of the film to somehow resolve all the potential questions and concerns the world might have. Or even to properly introduce them.

Now you're contradicting yourself. A quick little montage would have done it. No one is expecting another hour of dealing with events that transpired before. I just wanted the film ACKNOWLEDGE what happened not act like nothing happened. How can you not comprehend this?

However, MAN OF STEEL does present a scene making it obvious that there are concerns about Superman and his abilities and intentions, namely with the agency he worked most closely with during the film, the US Government.

The sequel will expand on the world’s reaction to the events in the first film. Much like other films and movie and literary franchises have done in the past.

Okay let me ask an honest question. Hypothetically speaking, if there was no sequel to this film, would you still the same about the way it ended? Because with the way you're a stating, the film is using the sequel as a crutch.

No it’s not. The only true bad storytelling is storytelling that lacks internal logic, and there’s nothing inherently illogical about showing a happier time at the end of a film.

Of course, no one is saying otherwise. I'm all for happy endings. MoS's ending was not earned for me. You can't seriously tell me you had no problem with how the film film portrayed Zods invasion as 9/11 esque event, where there was emphasis buildings upon buildings are crumbling down and people are dying and then film just sort of just forget it never happens. Like no one even talks about it. No line of dialogue, nothing.

Again, plenty of franchises and stories have taken this approach.

So what? That's not a good justification for Goyers sloppy writing. Seems like you're grasping at straws at this point.

And never, ever says they can’t do another thing. It only points out that they are discouraged to do so culturally. And if anyone is going to buck that trend, it makes sense that it’s Jor-El, who seems to be the rebel of the culture.



Yes, I know it's a bit much to believe that he could build a rocket but not train himself to be a capable fighter.

The movie shows you that he was, in fact, a match for Zod in that moment.

I wonder how you believe that say, Bruce Wayne could beat Ra’s Al Ghul in BATMAN BEGINS, or buy any of the hero/villain “upsets” over the years in cinema.

Someone weaker or less skilled winning a fight with a seemingly more formidable opponent is rampant in literature and cinema.



No…they very clearly explored several of Zod’s ideological flaws and the flaws in his methods.

Mljonir's reply to you on that subject pretty much echoes my thoughts. No point reiterating here.

Simply not true.

Not for me.Part of my frustration with this movie is It even goes so far as to borrow the "join you in the sun" line from All-Star Superman (my personal favorite text on the character) without spending even a single minute of screen time on the ramifications of that idea. So much of the movie talks to be about how humanity will react to Superman as an alien, as an idea, as a threat, or as a savior, but I don't think the story itself goes there at all. That's just an example of an idea that went know where.

 

[Black Narcissus]

And BvS seems to recall and acknowledge some of those mos issues. So why we jelly for? lol

 

[Black Narcissus]

It's always interesting to see how hard some will work to try and explain/justify the numerous problems with Man of Steels screenplay.
"Zod was enraged, so that's how a military general who was genetically engineered and trained to be a soldier for his entire life was matched by a scientist. Clearly Zods problem was his genetic engineering which made him a myopic, ineffectual leader, even though that was hardly touched upon in the movie to make more time for punchy punch punch punch. And the super abrupt, unsatisfying ending is great because it raises a whole bunch of questions it doesn't even think to answer".

It's always fascinating to see how much passion some still talk about it on here tho. Both for and against. lawd. The same debate going on for years now.

 

[Deadshot]

It's always interesting to see how hard some will work to try and explain/justify the numerous problems with Man of Steels screenplay.
"Zod was enraged, so that's how a military general who was genetically engineered and trained to be a soldier for his entire life was matched by a scientist. Clearly Zods problem was his genetic engineering which made him a myopic, ineffectual leader, even though that was hardly touched upon in the movie to make more time for punchy punch punch punch. And the super abrupt, unsatisfying ending is great because it raises a whole bunch of questions it doesn't even think to answer".

It's not that hard, really. A lot of the supposed flaws of the movie can be easily explained and can also easily make sense, depending on how you choose to look at it. When you say that a scientist beating a soldier is a "screenplay problem", you're really looking at it from a very limited point of view. Sometimes, the flaws that you mention are more a result of the audience's misconceptions than bad writting per se.

Now, if the movie means nothing to you, you don't mind being superficial in your judgement. People who enjoyed the movie will probably make a little more effort to understand certain things that might not be 100% obvious for 100% of the viewers.

I'm not one of those who thought MOS was excellent and had no flaws. It's pretty weak in several aspects. I just think some criticism people have is not a good representation of the real problems of the movie, which are several.

Look at how lame and weak Loki was. I could go on and on about how pathetic and unthreatening he was as a villain, but i'm pretty sure the fans of the movie could come up with all sorts of excuses for his flaws. Why can Jor beat Zod? Why can Hulk beat Loki so easily? Why can Black Widow knock out aliens and robots with little effort? Is she Wonder Woman or something? If you liked The Avengers, i'm pretty sure you have no problem accepting that a couple of enhanced humans can beat dozens and dozens and dozens of aliens, cyborgs and beings with magical powers, with their bare hands. Well, i liked MOS and i have no problem believing a scientist could beat a soldier, since i wasn't given enough information to assume that only soldiers can learn hand 2 hand combat.

 

[starscream22]

Better villains are all DC needs. But if that Lex Luthor is any indication of things I doubt that will happen in BvS at least.

 

[The Batman]

When the Avengers movie has flaws, people make up excuses for those flaws.

When MOS has flaws and fans try to justify or explain that they're not flaws, that's just them putting in "a little more effort to understand certain things that might not be 100% obvious for 100% of the viewers."

I see.

 

[Black Narcissus]

Both films have flaws.

There.

How is this addressing the topic at hand? I'm far more interested to know what folks want to see different or hoping in BvS/DCEU. The box office won't be enough, it has to hit critically as well.

 

[The Batman]

It's always interesting to see how hard some will work to try and explain/justify the numerous problems with Man of Steels screenplay.

People can have their own view of MOS' story, just don't act like someone else "Doesn't understand" just because they didn't like something. This movie is too polarizing to act like the criticisms of it are just oddities.