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.
Fair enough. What do you think he means?
You stand by what? What he is saying?
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.
That is a theme of the franchise and the very idea of Superman. It is not going to be entirely explored in a single film, nor does it need to be. The military is the first point of contact, so that is the point of view we see. And we do see their reaction to them, in multiple respects.
Much like the people of Gotham don’t immediately know about or know what to make of Batman in BATMAN BEGINS and we see mostly the police department and the underworld’s point of view, the world isn’t all that familiar with Superman in MAN OF STEEL.
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.
They got plenty right about Superman and his “core principles” during the movie. The only one they really arguably did not was that Superman killed.
But, Superman, as has been pointed out time and time again, has been depicted as having had to kill before.
Are you kidding me? Of course the movie doesn't literally say that. Its bloody shown.
Where does the movie show everyone being happy AND everything being swept under the rug?
Where is anything swept under the rug? Where does anyone in the film say “Well, that never happened. Let's never discuss it again."
The movie shows people happy in a single sequence at the end of the film.
That does not mean there will be no lasting effects or issues related to what happened. It simply means, in this filmmaker’s mind, if that story is going to be told further, then that’s a story for another time.
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.
That’s a bit unrealistic, to believe it would have no effect on the whole world and the central characters.
When you say “no effect”, I assume you mean other than a large portion of the city being destroyed and people dying and aliens now living among us and Lois and Clark becoming friends and Cso on?
Expecting the movie to try to wrap all that up…wrap something that big up in a few scenes is just unrealistic.
Yes, they could have done a montage. THE AVENGERS did a montage, but that didn’t really tell us anything concrete or interesting about the event and the themes involved except the obvious: People died and people were sad about that, and some of them were happy about being saved, but the existence of heroes was going to be a potential problem.
I think people can already draw these conclusions from the end of MAN OF STEEL.
It’s frankly, based on the preceding events of the film, just common sense.
And the whole "its going to be explored in BvS' The way the film ended seemed like the filmmakers thought they had represented Superman in a good light and deserved such an ending.
The way the film ended, I think it’s pretty clear the filmmakers were setting Superman up as a divisive figure, a concept that would continue to be developed and explored. That's how the very end of the film unfolds.
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.
It's nice to want things. I would have liked to have seen more done about the destruction as well. I don’t feel like the film is a failure because it doesn’t show it.
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.
For a movie that sets up a franchise, talk about a sequel or potential ongoing story concepts and themes is no more irrelevant than it was after BATMAN BEGIN, which made it clear that things were better, but not great.
You can always talk about a potential sequel, or where the story is going or was likely to go, even if no story is written. That’s the nature of stories and ideas. They’re open for interpretation and continuation.
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?
Where on earth do you get the idea that I don’t understand that they could have added more to the story?
To YOU, a quick little montage might have done it.
I don’t want to see that type of filmmaking utilized at the end of yet another
action/superhero movie. It’s cheap, and its half-ass, and it doesn’t really tell us much of anything that we don’t already know or can figure out.
I don't think a "montage" was a good solution any more than I think "more expository dialogue" is a solution.
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.
The film could have done a better job portraying the disaster and its aftermath.
I feel like the movie set up a world where Superman is not entirely trusted.
I feel like a lot of people died in the event and people were probably sad.
A little montage introducing what I can already surmise about such an event would not sway me either way.
Nothing about my feelings surrounding the event or the film's portrayal of would really change if there were no sequel.
No, the sequel is not a crutch, and I have suggested nothing of the sort. The sequel is a continuation of the story.
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.
What’s not earned about it, exactly?
Clark certainly earns a happy ending for all he’s been through. He deserves
to find his place in the world.
Was it not earned for Perry and Lois and the others? And if so, why not?
The film never says Metropolis is all happy.
It simply chooses not to dwell on the sad event.
The film doesn’t forget…the film moves to the next scene. It’s a thing movies and stories do.
Should we also complain that THE AVENGERS forgot about the destruction in New York because it eventually moves on from a scene of montages about the destruction to a scene where The Avengers make a couple of jokes?
So what? That's not a good justification for Goyers sloppy writing. Seems like you're grasping at straws at this point.
And some movies doing something a different way is not a valid justification for calling the writing sloppy.
Not every movie has to do things the way other movies, or even most movies, have done them.
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.
It’s almost like maybe that was Jor-El’s endgame, and not so much a concept for this movie to explore, but an eventual outcome he hoped for.
Superman takes the first step toward that in handing himself over to humanity, and then working with the military.
He has to earn their trust before he can inspire them.
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.
Except that it does.
Because the military is representative of humanity.
It is the first point of contact humanity has with Superman.
Other representatives of humanity include Lois and Perry. Others with knowledge of Superman.
It didn't go nowhere. It just didn't go where perhaps you wanted it to.
t:
