Then I misread your intention, as I thought you meant 'Superman film (STM) vs Good film (MOS)', as though MOS' ending made it a good film, whereas STM's ending made it a popular Superman story, but not neccesarily a good film.
And I was only pointing out that STM's example of an ending to a Superman story is not the only popular way of ending one, and not the only example of how you could do a triumphant ending successfully. It is not a question of one or the other.
Sadly that's exactly what I meant. STM for years has been seen as an ideal superman movie by the masses, (it was only after the realty that was SR that some realizations were made...) Even in modern reviews there is still this sort of talk. The film having a flawed ending doesn't stop that. The simple idea here is that much of the critical talk out of MOS was and is about non triumphant ending(something that is sort of a requirement for this material apparently), they actually point this out.
When they walk out of STM, these same numbers of people don't bring up any such criticism about the ending(again see the reviews), which implies it's more successful execution. Thus the conclusion that though it's a failure of story telling, it's a greater success in the realm of the material. I never said anything about it being one or the other, however I'm comparing the reception of the only two large examples we've gotten in this media and amongst this audience(critics and GA alike). So, sure, one or the other it seems critics prefer one.
Which ending to a film is weaker? STM for me.
We can agree on something. If only more people saw it that way, however superman being forced to "lose" is the greater crime to others. This one tragic element in closing is a bigger deal breaker for many than time space deus exing. When compared.
I wonder what sort of Rant Mark Waid would have set out on coming out of STM had he been there. Especially that ending which as a writer should have bore a particular weight on him. I don't think he would have rallied against the film in it's premise personally. I think at the end of the day this ending sucks more to him. I shouldn't speak for him though.
STM is a product of it's time, and is judged as such. Like I said above, that kind of ending would absolutely NOT fly nowadays IMO.
However, THAT is not what people are taking about when asking for a more triumphant ending, and wishing MOS' ending wasn't so depressing.
I haven't heard anyone saying 'I wish the ending was more like that awesome ending to STM'. So I just don't really see the relevance.
The Godfather and raging bull of are of the same time. However they are traditionally judged by modern film standards were as some of these other things are championed as
of their time. I personally don't subscribe. Strangely enough even that won't stop the MOS < STM comparisons from flying about.
I agree, not everyone is asking for a deus ex ending, however how many of these people who are critical of mos' ending would rank it under the triumphant ending of STM. I'm sure if there is a third option these people might just pick that one but like I said, of the two. STM's ending has a tradition of being seen as conducive a superman film that has been celebrated for 35 years. Whereas MOS has an ending that has been met with mixed reaction.
...of the two.
Superman killing vs Superman not killing(but messing with traditional writing conventions), of the two, one has given rise to more criticism.
A film ending vs a superman film ending, triumphancy seems to give one the edge among detractors...he was saving lives after all.
It's hard to say, because I think the internet has changed the way that fans recieve things. Not to mention how much more critical we are, because we expect a higher standard.
Back then, fans were probably just in awe of the film being made at all.
That doesn't account for the comparisons between the films. I mean this very debate went down on that Kevin Smith pod cast. The mal content wouldn't stop comparing the two films. I think his kind speak volumes on the matter, as he has the age and clairvoyance to see full picture in context.
As for fanboys, I agree the internet has not only bread cynicism but a few other things.
Again, I was not discussing whether MOS was a technically good film.
When I get involved in discussions about whether MOS was a technically good film, I look at it from a film critic stand point and become objective. I look at the clunky dialogue and the bad editing and the under developed character relationships and the badly realised plots and themes... and I judge it as a bad film.
When I want to talk about why I don't like it as a SUPERMAN fan, I discuss how much I disliked the ending, how much I disliked the way they portrayed Pa Kent and his relationship with Clark, and how badly I felt Lois was handled in the second half of the film.
That's a good distinction to make, sadly that hasn't been the way of things with most people. Just how many professional reviews bring up these things you describe as fan points? The lines have become blurred with this film. Who isn't a fanboy of something that has been part of american cinema for close to 40 years.
I don't know why you seem to believe that the only discussions with any merit are the completely unbiased ones that only concern the GA.
We're all fans here. We're allowed to talk about what we like or don't like.
Never said anything against that.
Again, it was in direct relation to that particular point you stepped in on. For example: If I say Batman and Robin is seen as failure of a batman film in relation to TDK, all subjective opinions aside it's a safe bet I'm concerning the GA. When you jump in and say "but I didn't like the ending to TDK", I would also respond in the fashion of
it's not just your opinion on the quality of these films in question here.
I never meant to dismiss your opinion on the matter but in the context of that particular discussion(that again, I don't think I was having with you in particular), the point needed to be made. I wasn't talking about your opinion, I wasn't talking about mine either!
If I didn't believe in fans sharing their opinions around here, I'd leave.
I hope that much is clear.
But in terms of picking and choosing what I like, I don't think your seeing my point at all.
When I said 'pretty much every', i'm even thinking of stories that I don't like (Superman: Earth One for example). The 'pretty much every' is to account for the very very very small amount of stories that end with Superman killing.
My point is only that there is a wide range of endings to Superman stories, so so many different ways of doing it. There's not just this idea of one cliched type of ending you have, as though there is only that or having him kill.
And it's okay to feel some stories do not hold as much weight or influence as others.
I mean, I wouldn't take Supergirl (vol. 4) #79 (the issue with Pink Kryptonite) and use it as the building blocks for how to portray the character. It's a funny, one time story that doesn't actually hold any weight in terms of canon.
But if they did go that route, the same people yelling 'he killed in the comics' could equally yell 'he was turned gay by Pink Kryptonite in the comics'.
Lots of weird OOC stuff has happened in the comics. Some of it several times over the years. But that doesn't make it RIGHT to use it in the films. It doesn't become some kind of PROOF that negates the opinion of fans of didn't like it happening in the films.
That's all i'm saying.
It's a good point.
However we are talking about story tropes in this example. All films have endings, or rather conflict resolutions. When looking at the issue of say good vs evil in this superhero genre, the matter of whether killing or not killing comes up very often. The matter itself has come up often enough with superman that it's actively defining him and redefining him every few years. Sorry but this goes beyond an instance of pink kryptonite occuring in on one if his b-list sibling books(though gay rights might be worth exploring in these films).
Superman killing in several of his books and media throughout the years doesn't negate any criticism by people that don't like it, you're right. However, anyone that say's it's not part of the character and hasn't been for a long time, simply isn't looking. At the very least people should take into consideration the the legitimate stories in which killing as been of consequence and view the film in that regard. The films are about him and what's of consequence to who he is. I don't care about him saving cats from trees, I am concerned with what killing means to him.
Batman doesn't kill, he's killed in maybe one odd story, that doesn't mean killing in not a big(huge) part of the character. A movie in which he does happen to kill and it weighs on him in some form going forward, has it's merits. This has nothing to do with fans not liking the story in which he did pull out a gun and kill, this has to do with what killing actually means to his mythos. You can explore that in several ways, one of which is to engage in a story about how committing the act tastes to the character and it's effects.
Killing is a bigger part of superman than it is Ironman and because of that I think it worth exploring in a modern superman film. This is a matter of concept and thematic exploration, not simply Ironman can kill in his movie and superman can't. It's the idea of what happens when a character who vowes to never kill has to, or inversely(as has been said by the producers), someone who has to kill and vowes never to do so again.
Killing is a huge part of superman and I for one am glad these films are addressing the issue. It's about time one of these superhero films did(and not just pretend to like TDK trilogy).
Clap clap hopefuldreamer. You tell em! I hope you continue to post here alot. I know it must be hard having MOS break your heart and all. Plus who knows where this horror ride is going now.
