How Flawed is Man of Steel?

[DA_Champion]

rogbngp,

What page is your original post on?

 

[rogbngp]

rogbngp,

What page is your original post on?

I weigh in with my own rating at p.1, post #6

 

[rogbngp]

Re: Snyder understanding full well that Man of Steel would be polarizing, I am struck by the very first line spoken in the first teaser trailer that we got for this film:

Charlie Rose: "Is it really surprising... that the most powerful man in the world... should be a figure of controversy?"

[YT]IwfUnkBfdZ4[/YT]

!

 

[Monochron]

Imho, I have to respectfully disagree with this Lench.

More seriously, though, I have come to the conclusion that what makes a film click or resonate as enjoyable with one viewer versus another, or vice versa as not enjoyable, ultimately boils down to personal, subjective, idiosyncratic reasons. I'm about to get embarrassingly intellectual and wonkish here, but I do passionately believe this:

We can discuss objective facts about a film. The cinematic craft of storytelling is something that we can objectively analyze. This includes such things as cinematography, the screenplay and script, acting performances, pacing of the action, CGI, etc., and especially how well the director orchestrates all the various elements of the film. We can offer objective evidence for how well these things are accomplished, or not, in our own appreciation of a film.

But I assert again that the deepest reasons why one might appreciate a film as "good" or "bad" (which really means "like" or "dislike") still ultimately varies individually, from person to person. That is undeniable and self-evident in fact. Clearly we do not all agree. Anything but.

I think it is true that there are certain 'universal' principles that govern how the brain produces aesthetic experiences. The golden ratio of 1:1.618 seems a good example. But clearly not everyone loves works of art that are (understandably) considered masterpieces. Those works of art leave some people cold--many people, actually. How many young people do you know that love anime, for example, but would simply shrug at the Mona Lisa? Human taste in art is insanely diverse.

The subjective experience of the film, and one’s overall appreciation of it, is processed through each viewer's unique personality structure, personal tastes, and personal life history. Appreciation is filtered by these things. And for that reason the foundations for personal tastes are ultimately individual.

Here is how I frame film appreciation these days:

a film succeeds for me in the most basic terms if:

1) I care what happens to the characters (they matter to me, their fate matters to me)

2) I become interested and engaged in the story itself and how it unfolds (it takes me on a journey, and I’m willing to go on it)

3) I appreciate the cinematic craft of storytelling, i.e., specifically through the medium of film.

And, by the way, again: isn't most of that going to boil down to personal subjective reasons? At least with respect to the first two criteria above: Why do I care about the characters? Why is the story entertaining to me? Aren't those reasons ultimately going to be personal? Hell, even the third criterion is, arguably.

There is the level at which we are 'all the same', as a species, with a shared physiological structure (nervous system and brain) that is subject to the laws of physics and certain structural constants.

There is the level in which we are all 'both the same and different' which is the group identification level--the society and culture we share with others around us, and all of its subsets.

And there is the level at which we are all 'like no one else' in being a unique individual with a one-of-a-kind physiology, location in time and space, and personal identity and history, etc.

All of things things are true, they are all happening together. But it seems that the 'final word' on what we feel an affinity for is most tied to what makes us an individual.

That's fine if you want to keep the discussion to whether or not we liked the film or not, it's a matter of taste. But personal taste has very little bearing on the quality of art and if we truly want to discuss flaws regarding any piece of art in a broad sense we have to try to step outside ourselves a bit. Not an easy thing to do but but if we don't at least try then having a discussion about how flawed any piece of art is, will be ultimately useless.

 

[The Guard]

I honestly don't know how anyone can credibly put a precise number on this issue.

This.

I'm curious what the mathematical equation/scientific process that allows people to put a firm percentage on how flawed a piece of art is.

Does not liking something equal a flaw?

Can you like something that is a flaw?

It seems that like it's a fairly subjective set of issues, and even if something is a flaw, how does one assess how much that impacts the overall film from a percentage standpoint?

More to the point, I've seen people do things like label it 10-15% flawed and elsewhere claim it's a bad movie because of these flaws.

This place strikes me as far too black and white on MOS for a rating system like this.

So...yeah.

 

[DA_Champion]

Re: Snyder understanding full well that Man of Steel would be polarizing, I am struck by the very first line spoken in the first teaser trailer that we got for this film:

Charlie Rose: "Is it really surprising... that the most powerful man in the world... should be a figure of controversy?"

[YT]IwfUnkBfdZ4[/YT]

!

Personally, what I'm seeing of BvS trailers, and I assume they are accurate representations of the plot, makes for a good and natural sequel to MoS.

1) Superman has been revealed to the world, and now people are debating how to respond to him. To me, this is so obviously exactly correct that I genuinely don't know how anybody can object to this. Metropolis was just destroyed, everybody almost died, obviously people are going to debate this. The only issue, which will be resolved by the film, is if that debate is presented in a sensible and coherent manner. I think it should evolve by the end of BvS, but not be resolved.

The movie is making the standard narrative choice to embody that debate within Bruce, Lex, and those characters. Maybe also Diana, we'll find out when watching the movie.

2) The existence of Superman, implies other non-mundane entities. In the real world this would be the case as well. Mathematically, it's straightforward to show that we don't know how common alien life is in the Universe just based on our own existence. But if we find a single other instance where life evolved independently, that implies it's very common.

Similarly, the world of MoS was mundane prior to MoS, and then there were aliens. This implies human beings, Kryptonians ... and a whole lot of other crazy stuff out there. In the movie this will probably be embodied by Wonder Woman.

 

[rogbngp]

That's fine if you want to keep the discussion to whether or not we liked the film or not, it's a matter of taste. But personal taste has very little bearing on the quality of art and if we truly want to discuss flaws regarding any piece of art in a broad sense we have to try to step outside ourselves a bit. Not an easy thing to do but but if we don't at least try then having a discussion about how flawed any piece of art is, will be ultimately useless.

Well, as I said there are objective standards for quality of craftsmanship in filmmaking specifically and storytelling in general. Those things can and should be studied, analyzed, and discussed. I'm just pointing out something in addition to that. There is another factor at work that is disconcerting to some: The experience of those objective elements is processed or filtered through each viewer's unique personality structure, personal tastes, and personal life history.

That is what explains why we have our different individual reactions, imho. I don't think it is as simple as there being an perfect, absolute objective reality for what is "good" (quality-wise) that each of us individually has varying ability to perceive. There may be some truth to that, actually... But it is probably more the case that something strikes a chord with us (or makes us recoil, and so on) for surprisingly personal reasons. We're often unconscious that that is the reason, though. And of the reasons why for us individually.

Or maybe not. It's all theoretical.

 

[rogbngp]

Personally, what I'm seeing of BvS trailers, and I assume they are accurate representations of the plot, makes for a good and natural sequel to MoS.

1) Superman has been revealed to the world, and now people are debating how to respond to him. To me, this is so obviously exactly correct that I genuinely don't know how anybody can object to this. Metropolis was just destroyed, everybody almost died, obviously people are going to debate this. The only issue, which will be resolved by the film, is if that debate is presented in a sensible and coherent manner. I think it should evolve by the end of BvS, but not be resolved.

The movie is making the standard narrative choice to embody that debate within Bruce, Lex, and those characters. Maybe also Diana, we'll find out when watching the movie.

2) The existence of Superman, implies other non-mundane entities. In the real world this would be the case as well. Mathematically, it's straightforward to show that we don't know how common alien life is in the Universe just based on our own existence. But if we find a single other instance where life evolved independently, that implies it's very common.

Similarly, the world of MoS was mundane prior to MoS, and then there were aliens. This implies human beings, Kryptonians ... and a whole lot of other crazy stuff out there. In the movie this will probably be embodied by Wonder Woman.

Agree.

Yeah, the whole thing of an Amazonian island that remains hidden in our modern world, and that it connects with divine beings and so forth, is not just a legend from antiquity but is real. And we'll undoubtedly discover some wild stuff going on down in the depths of the ocean with Aquaman. Both of those worlds have magic, and I will not be surprised if a lot of care and thought goes into the worldbulding for 'magic' as something that could somehow exist somehow in our real world, hidden from most of us though it might be. It will almost certainly use the multiverse framework, I think.

 

[Monochron]

Well, as I said there are objective standards for quality of craftsmanship in filmmaking specifically and storytelling in general. Those things can and should be studied, analyzed, and discussed. I'm just pointing out something in addition to that. There is another factor at work that is disconcerting to some: The experience of those objective elements is processed or filtered through each viewer's unique personality structure, personal tastes, and personal life history.

That is what explains why we have our different individual reactions, imho. I don't think it is as simple as there being an perfect, absolute objective reality for what is "good" (quality-wise) that each of us individually has varying ability to perceive. There may be some truth to that, actually... But it is probably more the case that something strikes a chord with us (or makes us recoil, and so on) for surprisingly personal reasons. We're often unconscious that that is the reason, though. And of the reasons why for us individually.

Or maybe not. It's all theoretical.

Yes you keep repeating yourself. What your saying is basically that we like things for our own arbitrary reasons.

But we should do our best to become self-aware enough to bypass that as much as possible.

It doesn't matter that someone doesn't like the Mona Lisa or the Godfather film, they will still be masterpieces of their respective mediums.

 

[rogbngp]

Yes you keep repeating yourself. What your saying is basically that we like things for our own arbitrary reasons.

But we should do our best to become self-aware enough to bypass that as much as possible.

It doesn't matter that someone doesn't like the Mona Lisa or the Godfather film, they will still be masterpieces of their respective mediums.

I should have been clearer that my emphasis in the last post is that both things are true. I'm actually not sure how to answer the question of which might be "more true," for most people, most of the time, because I don't know how that could be measured...

Do you think you might be minimizing (or maybe even denying) the personal, subjective processing/filtering part? I'm just giving it it's due as an important factor that is maybe... I dunno... roughly equal... but in all likelihood the stronger influence of the two.

I may let you have the final word in response because I'm not sure what further to say about it.

 

[Monochron]

I should have been clearer that my emphasis in the last post is that both things are true. I'm actually not sure how to answer the question of which might be "more true," for most people, most of the time, because I don't know how that could be measured...

Do you think you might be minimizing (or maybe even denying) the personal, subjective processing/filtering part? I'm just giving it it's due as an important factor that is may... I dunno... roughly equal... but in all likelihood the stronger influence of the two.

I may let you have the final word in response because I'm not sure what further to say about it.

I think the fact that I mentioned how we have to become self-aware of such things in order to bypass them more than shows I don't deny their hold over us.

I also said bypassing them is is very difficult to do so I don't think I'm minimizing them either.

On a slightly related note would I be wrong in guessing that you have been listening to the manofsteelanswers podcast?

 

[rogbngp]

Maybe our thinking might be closer in reality than it appears, with just more of an affinity for one factor than another.

No, I don't follow the Man of Steel Answers podcast. I have seen a few of their videos, though. I'll go take a look after I sit down to dinner.

 

[rogbngp]

The podcast was pretty good. Although I got the impression that with news regularly breaking fast now as we draw closer to the release date, a monthly podcast format is doomed to be behind the curve in terms of what's current to discuss about the film. I had hoped for more discussion of the Joseph Campbell quote, but it was still very cool to hear the audio clip of Campbell actually speaking the entire quote from the PBS series, The Power of Myth.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if Man of Steel Answers and the analysis video A Thesis on Man of Steel are both the creations of film students. In the podcast the author used the term "diagetic," which I remember from my own film studies program* refers to how the story developments are portrayed in the film versus how the story would unfold in real time. Film narratives typically have to be selective about what they show, and often use flashbacks, i.e., the entire story-in-full on the screen is (usually) not unfolding chronologically as it would in real time. Anyway, that's a term that someone who has studied film would use. Although with the Internet now a person can through their own research and self-study acquire a tremendous fund of knowledge about any subject.

*I double majored, and film studies was one of them, many moons ago during the mid to late 80s; I had dreams then of one day hopefully maybe making a living as a screen writer. Even then that was not my number one choice, though. I knew how fiercely competitive it was to break into that profession, for example.

 

[WBwins]

50 percent Flawed.Mixed film.
Bad characterisation,Logic holes and Terrible editing mixed with Awesome visuals,Great actors.and DBZ action