Rate MAN OF STEEL......once and for all

[DA_Champion]

That doesn't have anything to do with his direction, though. Those are all plot details. How does his direction service that theme?

I discussed plot details that are specifically attributed to Snyder. He is credited for the characters of Queen Gorgo in 300, the story for Sucker Punch, and the challenging of Superman in MoS.

 

[The Question]

I discussed plot details that are specifically attributed to Snyder. He is credited for the characters of Queen Gorgo in 300, the story for Sucker Punch, and the challenging of Superman in MoS.

1: But that's still besides the point. We're talking about Snyder's skills and inclinations as a director, meaning how he translates the script into sounds and images in order to tell a story and what he tends to focus on when he does so. He may have come up with those plot details, but simply coming up with those plot details don't speak to his skills or inclinations as a director. They only speak to his inclinations as a writer.

2: What does "challenging Superman" mean?

 

[Boy Scout]

I'm not sure epic is always a good thing. Epic can actually get int the way of story sometimes. I think the impulse of the filmmakers to make the fights epic got in the way of the actual storytelling and humanity of the piece.

It wasn't just the action. It felt like Snyder was trying to tell a huge, important story. In the end, he didn't do a good job of it, but I can appreciate his effort and give credit where it's due.

 

[jmc]

The way I can best describe his direction style is someone who wants to get straight to dessert but stubbornly has to eat his vegetables first. In other words he really wants to get to the cool stuff first. Most directors try to build up to the cool stuff, lay a foundation for it to happen. To his credit I think he genuinely tries to lay a foundation unlike Michael Bay, but I think that urge to head straight for the cool stuff gets the better of him too often. As such he focuses too much on the cool parts of the story and not the build up to those parts and whether the foundations are strong enough in the first place.

 

[DA_Champion]

1: But that's still besides the point. We're talking about Snyder's skills and inclinations as a director, meaning how he translates the script into sounds and images in order to tell a story and what he tends to focus on when he does so. He may have come up with those plot details, but simply coming up with those plot details don't speak to his skills or inclinations as a director. They only speak to his inclinations as a writer.

2: What does "challenging Superman" mean?

It means that Superman was actually being challenged in the movie which is unlike what we're used to seeing in other Superman movies or other CBMs period.

The norm is for a comprehensive absence of all dramatic tension, much like the climaxes of The Avengers or The Guardians of the Galaxy. The root cause of this is arguably that everybody knows the ending beforehand, and we know that everything is going to be tidied up, so we're just hoping to catch some jokes along the way. The end result is that the heroes are not usually challenged, for example Thor and Darcy were just strolling around flirting with strangers and colleagues in the climax scene of Thor 2.

There was a lot of tension in the climax scenes of MoS and it's impressive that Snyder pulled that off, given that as before all audience members knew that Superman and even Lois would survive to see the sequel.

There are a few ways this happened, the first is that Snyder is the most successful at causing audiences to feel urban destruction, even though we've all seen CGI skyscrapers destroyed before, the combination of visuals, sound, etc were somehow superior here, more convincing. In the Zod fight, Zod acquires command of his abilities, of heat-raying, building on a theme previously established in the film that heat vision is a difficult Kryptonian skill, and this raises the stakes.

 

[The Question]

It wasn't just the action. It felt like Snyder was trying to tell a huge, important story. In the end, he didn't do a good job of it, but I can appreciate his effort and give credit where it's due.

I feel like Man of Steel is an example of a super common problem in a lot of modern genre storytelling. A lot of writers and directors don't realize that huge, important stories need huge, important ideas or huge, important emotional truffles to pull them off. They try to create epic stakes by having something hugely important hang in the balance, but they don't give it the ideological or emotional backbone to get the audience to care about it beyond an intellectual understanding that the bad thing happening will be bad. That's not to say that people don't care about these movies or shows, they obviously do, but the impact of the actual conflict and what is at stake, i/e: the thing that makes a story huge and important, is a lot less than what it could be. To quote Film Crit Hulk:

"THE END OF THE WORLD IS A LAZY DRAMATIC SHORTCUT. INSTEAD, MAKE HULK FEEL DREAD AT THE END OF 'SOMEONE'S WORLD.'"

 

[DA_Champion]

I feel like Man of Steel is an example of a super common problem in a lot of modern genre storytelling. A lot of writers and directors don't realize that huge, important stories need huge, important ideas or huge, important emotional truffles to pull them off. They try to create epic stakes by having something hugely important hang in the balance, but they don't give it the ideological or emotional backbone to get the audience to care about it beyond an intellectual understanding that the bad thing happening will be bad. That's not to say that people don't care about these movies or shows, they obviously do, but the impact of the actual conflict and what is at stake, i/e: the thing that makes a story huge and important, is a lot less than what it could be. To quote Film Crit Hulk:

"THE END OF THE WORLD IS A LAZY DRAMATIC SHORTCUT. INSTEAD, MAKE HULK FEEL DREAD AT THE END OF 'SOMEONE'S WORLD.'"

I think the issue is not that people failed to feel dread in the climax, but rather that they felt too much dread. The audience wanted a happy ending, and they got a grim resolution.

See the history of complaints.

 

[jmc]

It's more a case of the climax not having much meaning in the first place.

 

[The Question]

It means that Superman was actually being challenged in the movie which is unlike what we're used to seeing in other Superman movies or other CBMs period.

The norm is for a comprehensive absence of all dramatic tension, much like the climaxes of The Avengers or The Guardians of the Galaxy. The root cause of this is arguably that everybody knows the ending beforehand, and we know that everything is going to be tidied up, so we're just hoping to catch some jokes along the way. The end result is that the heroes are not usually challenged, for example Thor and Darcy were just strolling around flirting with strangers and colleagues in the climax scene of Thor 2.

I mean, I honestly don't know how to respond to this. Saying that there was no dramatic tension in the climax of The Avengers is like saying that The Avengers weren't in the climax of The Avengers. There was absolutely dramatic tension there. The heroes getting injured and overwhelmed, civilian lives directly at stake, the whole sequence with Iron Man and the bomb, it was all there. I don't see how someone can say that dramatic tension was entirely absent from the end of that film.

There was a lot of tension in the climax scenes of MoS and it's impressive that Snyder pulled that off, given that as before all audience members knew that Superman and even Lois would survive to see the sequel.

There are a few ways this happened, the first is that Snyder is the most successful at causing audiences to feel urban destruction, even though we've all seen CGI skyscrapers destroyed before, the combination of visuals, sound, etc were somehow superior here, more convincing. In the Zod fight, Zod acquires command of his abilities, of heat-raying, building on a theme previously established in the film that heat vision is a difficult Kryptonian skill, and this raises the stakes.

And yet at no point during the fight to Superman or Zod show any signs of being injured or tired. They just hit each other back and forth and suffer no consequences. And while buildings are getting destroyed all around them, we never see any kind of human emotional reaction to the destruction besides a few people getting out of the way. Until they get to the train station, the city seems otherwise vacant. And it all comes immediately after the film already had a fairly drawn out climax and serves as a second climax that lasts an unnecessarily long about of time. How does that not kill the tension?

I think the issue is not that people failed to feel dread in the climax, but rather that they felt too much dread. The audience wanted a happy ending, and they got a grim resolution.

See the history of complaints.

1: Not everyone who disliked the film has the same complaints.

2: A lot of people feel that the ending was too dark, but it would have been acceptable and even great if the ending had more substance to prop up and justify that darkness. It's not an either/or thing, everything is situational in storytelling.

3: They felt the wrong kind of dread. Instead of the dread you feel from being super emotionally invested and wanting things to turn out okay, it was the dread you feel from being bombarded by gritty darkness that feels pointless. The former is the kind of dread where you don't mind if things don't turn out well, because it was an emotionally rewarding experience. The later is just tiring. Again, situational.

 

[Boy Scout]

The way I can best describe his direction style is someone who wants to get straight to dessert but stubbornly has to eat his vegetables first. In other words he really wants to get to the cool stuff first. Most directors try to build up to the cool stuff, lay a foundation for it to happen. To his credit I think he genuinely tries to lay a foundation unlike Michael Bay, but I think that urge to head straight for the cool stuff gets the better of him too often. As such he focuses too much on the cool parts of the story and not the build up to those parts and whether the foundations are strong enough in the first place.

I feel like Man of Steel is an example of a super common problem in a lot of modern genre storytelling. A lot of writers and directors don't realize that huge, important stories need huge, important ideas or huge, important emotional truffles to pull them off. They try to create epic stakes by having something hugely important hang in the balance, but they don't give it the ideological or emotional backbone to get the audience to care about it beyond an intellectual understanding that the bad thing happening will be bad. That's not to say that people don't care about these movies or shows, they obviously do, but the impact of the actual conflict and what is at stake, i/e: the thing that makes a story huge and important, is a lot less than what it could be. To quote Film Crit Hulk:

"THE END OF THE WORLD IS A LAZY DRAMATIC SHORTCUT. INSTEAD, MAKE HULK FEEL DREAD AT THE END OF 'SOMEONE'S WORLD.'"

Can't really bring myself to disagree with either of these posts.

 

[DA_Champion]

I mean, I honestly don't know how to respond to this. Saying that there was no dramatic tension in the climax of The Avengers is like saying that The Avengers weren't in the climax of The Avengers. There was absolutely dramatic tension there. The heroes getting injured and overwhelmed, civilian lives directly at stake, the whole sequence with Iron Man and the bomb, it was all there. I don't see how someone can say that dramatic tension was entirely absent from the end of that film.

It was very dull, particularly on second watch. I've never watched that movie a third time.

And my assessment is vindicated by the absence of consequences. Nothing happened in The Avengers. It's a meaningless climax. We don't know of anybody dead or injured or of any buildings destroyed. When Iron Man went into the portal there was no risk of him not coming back. Thanos was held back but he's coming back in the next episode. There's no plot, the world didn't change. All the heroes did was restore the status quo.

And yet at no point during the fight to Superman or Zod show any signs of being injured or tired. They just hit each other back and forth and suffer no consequences. And while buildings are getting destroyed all around them, we never see any kind of human emotional reaction to the destruction besides a few people getting out of the way. How does that not kill the tension?

It's not Superman's body that's broken, it's his soul.

Audiences certainly felt the destruction in Metropolis, if they hadn't you wouldn't have heard about it 1,000,000 times. In contrast audiences did not feel the damage in New York, people only really began to widely discuss after seeing Man of Steel as a point of comparison.

 

[Tempest]

I mean, I honestly don't know how to respond to this. Saying that there was no dramatic tension in the climax of The Avengers is like saying that The Avengers weren't in the climax of The Avengers. There was absolutely dramatic tension there. The heroes getting injured and overwhelmed, civilian lives directly at stake, the whole sequence with Iron Man and the bomb, it was all there. I don't see how someone can say that dramatic tension was entirely absent from the end of that film.

Because it wasn't like we haven't seen that kind of nonsense before? In every Marvel film ever?

I could barely stay interested in Avengers. It was sooooo boring. I really didn't care about anything that happened in the film.

It was a typical plot, with the typical 'twists', and there was nothing that made me feel any sort of emotion for the film.

And yet at no point during the fight to Superman or Zod show any signs of being injured or tired. They just hit each other back and forth and suffer no consequences. And while buildings are getting destroyed all around them, we never see any kind of human emotional reaction to the destruction besides a few people getting out of the way. Until they get to the train station, the city seems otherwise vacant. And it all comes immediately after the film already had a fairly drawn out climax and serves as a second climax that lasts an unnecessarily long about of time. How does that not kill the tension?

I believe that Superman was stunned, maybe even unconscious for a few seconds during the fight with Zod (he was also stunned in the battle at Smallville, and seemed to be in pain whenever he used his heat vision). And there was pain for Zod at least, with the coping of his suddenly sensitive senses. I'm not sure how you missed all that.

The city wasn't vacant, but it did look like maybe a lot of people stayed home -- most of the buildings we saw in the battle seemed more business related than residential. If there was an alien threatening the world, I would presume that many places of business remained closed.


Edit: I realize that the "I'm not sure how you missed that" would come off as snippy, and I didn't mean for it to be that way, so if you read that, and were offended, I apologize. I just meant that I noticed it in the film on my first viewing, so I thought others had as well. I always thought it was kind of cool that Superman wasn't just an all-powerful guy; that he could hurt a little or be dazed.

 

[The Question]

And my assessment is vindicated by the absence of consequences. Nothing happened in The Avengers. It's a meaningless climax. We don't know of anybody dead or injured or of any buildings destroyed. When Iron Man went into the portal there was no risk of him not coming back. Thanos was held back but he's coming back in the next episode. There's no plot, the world didn't change. All the heroes did was restore the status quo.

1: The world did change. Earth had first contact with aliens, paving the way for future dangers from beyond the stars. Thanos doesn't show up in this film, sure, but the knowledge that the world is not as safe as it was before the events of the film is pressed upon at the end and is a thematic consequence. We see a whole montage of the people of the world reacting to the battle and to the Avengers, both positively and negatively. Most of the cast has gone through something of an arc that ends with them bonded together as a team and open to new viewpoints about each other and themselves. And, like, a bunch of people died, one of whom (Coulson) we did know. The movie had consequences and change.

2: How was there no risk of Iron Man not coming back? It was very clearly presented that there was a ugh risk of him not coming back, what with characters saying that and Tony losing control of his suit after he gets through the portal and Black Widow closing the portal before he returns. There was just as much risk of him not coming back as there was risk of anything back happening in Man of Steel.

It's not Superman's body that's broken, it's his soul.

That's not a factor in the fight. That only happens after the fight is over. That doesn't create tension or stakes in the fight because it comes after the fight.

Audiences certainly felt the destruction in Metropolis, if they hadn't you wouldn't have heard about it 1,000,000 times. In contrast audiences did not feel the damage in New York, people only really began to widely discuss after seeing Man of Steel as a point of comparison.

People talked about the destruction in Metropolis 1,000,000 as a bad thing, as something that was poorly executed, overdone, and distasteful. Audiences absolutely felt the damage in New York, they simply didn't complain about how much they hated it because it was handled much better. Remember, it's the difference between the dread that feels meaningful and the dread that feels sickening and exhausting.

 

[DA_Champion]

Did you actually worry that Iron Man was going to die?

 

[The Question]

Because it wasn't like we haven't seen that kind of nonsense before? In every Marvel film ever?

I could barely stay interested in Avengers. It was sooooo boring. I really didn't care about anything that happened in the film.

It was a typical plot, with the typical 'twists', and there was nothing that made me feel any sort of emotion for the film.

1: How was Man of Steel any different?

2: There weren't any twists in The Avengers.

I believe that Superman was stunned, maybe even unconscious for a few seconds during the fight with Zod (he was also stunned in the battle at Smallville, and seemed to be in pain whenever he used his heat vision). And there was pain for Zod at least, with the coping of his suddenly sensitive senses. I'm not sure how you missed all that.

1: I don't recall Superman being stunned or unconscious during the Zod fight.

2: The super senses were only at the very beginning of the fight. They weren't a factor during the bulk of it.

3: Neither of them showed any signs of injury or fatigue as a result of fighting each other. At all. No cuts or bruises, no signs of either of them slowing down, and no sense at any point of either of them getting the upper hand. Pure stalemate. After the fight, Superman looked completely fine physically.

The city wasn't vacant, but it did look like maybe a lot of people stayed home -- most of the buildings we saw in the battle seemed more business related than residential. If there was an alien threatening the world, I would presume that many places of business remained closed.

The alien invasion began in the middle of a work day and had only been going on for about an hour or so in-universe when the Zod fight took place. A city that size should have still been crowded with people trying to evacuate.

 

[The Question]

Did you actually worry that Iron Man was going to die?

Not really, but that's only because I knew he was a franchise character who was going to be in other movies. The film made that threat seem as real as possible under those circumstances.

Did you actually worry that Superman was going to die, or that the Kryptonians would successfully terraform the planet?

Man of Steel wasn't any different in this regard.

 

[DA_Champion]

Not really, but that's only because I knew he was a franchise character who was going to be in other movies. The film made that threat seem as real as possible during those circumstances.

Did you actually worry that Superman was going to die, or that the Kryptonians would successfully terraform the planet?

Man of Steel wasn't any different in this regard.

The MoS climax had stakes. For example it affects how Superman is viewed by the world, the movie closes with a scene of the government spying on Superman with predator drones.

It could also come down to Zod having actual motivations and being a character we could sympathise with. He's a Kryptonian ultra-conservative fighting for the survival of his world.

Man of Steel, btw, has another important consequence: Krypton is totally destroyed. Not just the planet, but the ~20 survivors who embodied its values some of whom we actually got to know, as well as Jor-El's hologram, the fortress of solitude and the embryos.

 

[The Question]

The MoS climax had stakes. For example it affects how Superman is viewed by the world, the movie closes with a scene of the government spying on Superman with predator drones.

Which is a factor in The Avengers as well.

It could also come down to Zod having actual motivations and being a character we could sympathise with. He's a Kryptonian ultra-conservative fighting for the survival of his world.

1: Avengers also had a villain with recognizable motivations.

2: Zod's motivations hardly made him sympathetic. He had no real reason to wipe out the human race by terraforming the planet, the new Krypton could easily survive with Earth's regular atmosphere. Better, in fact, what with the superpowers and all.

3: What does that have to do with the film's stakes, tension, or consequences?

Man of Steel, btw, has another important consequence: Krypton is totally destroyed. Not just the planet, but the ~20 survivors who embodied its values some of whom we actually got to know, as well as Jor-El's hologram, the fortress of solitude and the embryos.

1: We really didn't get to know any of Zod's crew.

2: None of Zod's crew are dead. They were simply sucked back into the Phantom Zone.

3: I'd argue that the embryos really weren't a well developed enough concept.

 

[DA_Champion]

If you're going to instinctively disagree with everything then it may be of no use to continue the discussion.

Exhibit A:

2: Zod's motivations hardly made him sympathetic. He had no real reason to wipe out the human race by terraforming the planet, the new Krypton could easily survive with Earth's regular atmosphere. Better, in fact, what with the superpowers and all.

He's a Kryptonian ultra-conservative. He wants to rebuild Krypton, that's hid mindset and his programming due to ideology, not to build Super-Krypton.

Seriously man ...

 

[Tempest]

1: How was Man of Steel any different?

2: There weren't any twists in The Avengers.

Didn't they kill off a beloved character or something? Or...I don't know. I barely remember the film.

1: I don't recall Superman being stunned or unconscious during the Zod fight.

He was. There's a moment where he gets hit HARD and he goes limp.

2: The super senses were only at the very beginning of the fight. They weren't a factor during the bulk of it.

No. In the middle of the fight, Zod screams as he unleashes, seemingly by accident, his heat vision. It might not have been a huge factor, but to say that it never existed would be untrue.

3: Neither of them showed any signs of injury or fatigue as a result of fighting each other. At all. No cuts or bruises, no signs of either of them slowing down, and no sense at any point of either of them getting the upper hand. Pure stalemate. After the fight, Superman looked completely fine physically.

Clark also didn't have any signs of injury after the oil rig collapsed on him. Maybe he should have? It's not a big deal to me.

To me, (and yes, I know this is opinion) Clark looked exhausted at the end of his fight with Zod. I know that he was exhausted emotionally, but I really think he was worn out. He seemed tired after the battle with the world engine and the effects of the phantom zone.

The alien invasion began in the middle of a work day and had only been going on for about an hour or so in-universe when the Zod fight took place. A city that size should have still been crowded with people trying to evacuate.

The aliens showed up the night before in the US. I'm sure a lot of people didn't go to work the next day. And in the scenes, it looked like a lot of people on the ground, which makes me think that many people left the buildings once the gravity beam started to destroy the buildings.

 

[The Question]

If you're going to instinctively disagree with everything then it may be of no use to continue the discussion.

Or maybe, I just actually disagree with what you've said so far. There's no reason to argue that the other person is being disingenuous simply because they haven't agreed with you yet.

Exhibit A:

He's a Kryptonian ultra-conservative. He wants to rebuild Krypton, that's hid mindset and his programming due to ideology, not to build Super-Krypton.

Seriously man ...

1: That still doesn't make him sympathetic.

2: If he's programmed to protect Krypton no matter the cost, wouldn't giving all of the Kryptonians superpowers help in with that? Even if he would be reflexively opposed to it, we never even see him consider it. We never see him consider anything and then dismiss it because it goes against his programming, which honestly would have done a lot to flesh out the character. Which leads me to…

3: The notion of him being programed to want and think the things he does was only ever explained to the audience through two lines of dialogue. We never actually saw it dramatized in-scene.

 

[DA_Champion]

Zod is a Kryptonian ultra-conservative. He wants to rebuild Krypton, not Super-Krypton. This is communicated in the movie both by dialogue and actions.

"Wouldn't giving everyone superpowers be great!" is a sociological theory invented by the fans after the movie and is external to the movie's plot. However, let's examine it. It's simply not a great theory: what would happen to social institutions on Earth if all humans got superpowers? They would completely disintegrate. I'm not sure ultra-conservatives would go for that. The weapons we use to control under-privileged people would no longer have any effect.

 

[The Question]

Didn't they kill off a beloved character or something? Or...I don't know. I barely remember the film.

1: That's not the same thing as a twist.

2: You still didn't answer my question. How is Man of Steel any less derivative than The Avengers?

He was. There's a moment where he gets hit HARD and he goes limp.

But it doesn't have any consequences on the rest of the fight.

No. In the middle of the fight, Zod screams as he unleashes, seemingly by accident, his heat vision. It might not have been a huge factor, but to say that it never existed would be untrue.

1: I didn't take that scream to mean that he was in pain, I took it to mean that he was angry.

2: Even if he was in pain, it lasts only for a second and has no bearing on the rest of the fight. There are no signs of accumulative wear and tear during the fight, and it seems only one (possibly two) instances of the characters showing any sign of pain or injury at all.

Clark also didn't have any signs of injury after the oil rig collapsed on him. Maybe he should have? It's not a big deal to me.

I don't think the oil rig is relevant. It didn't require the same tension and stakes as the final fight of the film.

To me, (and yes, I know this is opinion) Clark looked exhausted at the end of his fight with Zod. I know that he was exhausted emotionally, but I really think he was worn out. He seemed tired after the battle with the world engine and the effects of the phantom zone.

That's after, not during. I'm talking about the fight itself and what I perceive as its lack of tension. During the fight itself he seemed fine.

The aliens showed up the night before in the US. I'm sure a lot of people didn't go to work the next day. And in the scenes, it looked like a lot of people on the ground, which makes me think that many people left the buildings once the gravity beam started to destroy the buildings.

Which doesn't change the fact that outside of one shot, we don't really see these people on the ground and their reaction to what's going on.

 

[Tempest]

Or maybe, I just actually disagree with what you've said so far. There's no reason to argue that the other person is being disingenuous simply because they haven't agreed with you yet.



1: That still doesn't make him sympathetic.

2: If he's programmed to protect Krypton no matter the cost, wouldn't giving all of the Kryptonians superpowers help in with that? Even if he would be reflexively opposed to it, we never even see him consider it. We never see him consider anything and then dismiss it because it goes against his programming, which honestly would have done a lot to flesh out the character. Which leads me to…

3: The notion of him being programed to want and think the things he does was only ever explained to the audience through two lines of dialogue. We never actually saw it dramatized in-scene.

Actually, Zod does indicate that he's thought about the Earth's atmosphere. He says flat-out to Jor-El (the hologram, obviously) that he doesn't want to spend years, and endure a lot of pain like Kal-El has had to.

Plus, it seems pretty clear to me that he wants to recreate the world that he lost...not just create more Kryptonians.

 

[The Question]

Zod is a Kryptonian ultra-conservative. He wants to rebuild Krypton, not Super-Krypton. This is communicated in the movie both by dialogue and actions.

1: No it isn't. We only see him decide to terraform the planet. It is never shown to us why terraforming the planet instead of conquering it and leaving the atmosphere as-is is important to him. It is never shown or told to us why he feels that is necessary for the survival of New Krypton. He just does it. And his whole speech about his programming (which, BTW, is telling, not showing, usually a storytelling no-no) comes after that whole sequence.

2: It still does not make him sympathetic.

"Wouldn't giving everyone superpowers be great!" is a sociological theory invented by the fans after the movie and is external to the movie's plot. However, let's examine it. It's simply not a great theory: what would happen to social institutions on Earth if all humans got superpowers? They would completely disintegrate. I'm not sure ultra-conservatives would go for that. The weapons we use to control under-privileged people would no longer have any effect.

1: Which would be fine if that logic was presented in the movie, but it wasn't. Your explanation is just as outside of the plot of the film as the notion itself.

2: That kind of deliberate callousness that you describe kind of contradicts the notion of Zod being dictated by programming or of him being in any way sympathetic.