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

[Marvin]

Okay guys talked to mod.He doesnt see anything wrong with the Poll.

Looks very much like the Poll is accurate after all.So yeah.Most people like MOS on this boards.t:

Reporting a poll cuz its not how you like LOL dead bananas everywhere

It's the basic reality that is the MOS reception cycle. I'm sure WB is aware of it and are trekking on as confidently as Snyder projects.
There is a vocal sect(as seen in this very thread for example) that feel a(pessimistic) way about the film and then there is how the film plays with the masses. Often times in spite of what said sect explains. And then another and another thread...3 straight years. I blame WB really, Marvel has the foresight to not let us stew on any one film(good or bad) for too long before the circus starts up and moves the conversation along.
Even if the masses simply think the film is decent. The amount of waxing as to it's utter failure and just how much traction all that stuff gets is always so interesting.

 

[The Question]

Aw, it makes me so sad that some of you didn't like Jonathan Kent, or his death scene. I adored him, and his death scene still gives me goosebumps.

It came off as so fake to me. Jonathan never emoted or behaved the way a person would in that situation. There was no fear, no sense of any strong emotions of any kind. It seriously undercuts the emotional impact of a death scene when the character doesn't seem to care that he's dying. And the way he died, just fading into the tornado, was really fake looking and served no real thematic purpose by being that fake looking. That moment would have had so much more impact if his death had actually looked like a death during a tornado, if he ad been crushed by a car flipping over or something like that. Snyder was going fore pure aesthetics in that shot, but the problem is that aesthetics have no value or meaning without context or representation. Nothing is inherently beautiful, things are beautiful because the hold some kind of meaning to us. And the aesthetics of that scene worked against the purpose of that scene by creating this layer of artifice in the manner of Jonathan Kent's death and his reaction to it that cuts us off from the emotions and meaning of the scene.

 

[Marvin]

And the aesthetics of that scene worked against the purpose of that scene by creating this layer of artifice in the manner of Jonathan Kent's death and his reaction to it that cuts us off from the emotions and meaning of the scene.

Not everyone faces death the same way. Especially when the actual point of the moment is that of choice and acceptance. That is, him struggling against the circumstance vs projecting peaceful acceptance works against both his motivation as a character in that scene and his purpose as it relates to the story.

It's not to far removed from the terminator putting up his thumb peacefully in the end, Ripley(notice her face)....Steve Rogers...Ra's...IronGiant.
Unlike even Tony Stark in avengers, there is a level of conviction at play in the former and that is infused by things like him not 'fighting it'.
I suppose that's my take anyways, but then again I'm not speaking as to how the scene actually played for people.

It came off as so fake to me.

Well, I'm glad you added this. Now we beg the question of what Snyder not pleasing you in particular means against the grand scheme.

 

[The Batman]

Its always annoying when people try to undermine opinions on MOS just because they're not positive. Not to mention this falsehood that everyone who dosen't think fondly of MOS claims that its hated by a majority, a statement that I haven't seen in this particular thread.

 

[The Question]

Not everyone faces death the same way. Especially when the actual point of the moment is that of choice and acceptance. That is, him struggling against the circumstance vs projecting peaceful acceptance works against both his motivation as a character in that scene and his purpose as it relates to the story.

But I'm not sure that the scene was about peaceful acceptance. That doesn't really make sense when you look at where that scene is placed in the narrative of the film. Peaceful acceptance has nothing to do with the themes of the film or how that flashback related to the scenes around it or the other flashbacks. That scene wasn't about peaceful acceptance, it was about sacrifice. Clark's father sacrificed his own life to protect Clark's secret, and that left a huge impact on him and his life choices after that point (which is pretty clearly spelled out for the audience through Clark's dialogue in the graveyard scene right after). And that is seriously undercut by the fact that Jonathan has no emotional reaction to his own impending death at all.

And, like, here's the thing. Let's assume that you're interpretation of the scene is correct, and that it's about peaceful acceptance. The scene still doesn't work because of Jonathan's non-emotional reaction. Narrative storytelling is all about contrast and conflict. Without those things you don't have a story, you just have a list of events. Showing Jonathan's immediate visceral reaction to his own impending death, and then showing that wash away as he peacefully accepts his end, that conveys a theme of acceptance. It shows us something horrible which we do not want to accept, shows the character go through that same emotional process that we would, and then shows him letting go of his fear and accepting what comes next, thus modeling a point of view that the audience can think about and perhaps be change by. Simply showing him accepting it right off the bat without any kind of initial emotional turmoil undercuts all of that because it doesn't address why we might not want to accept that in the first place. It diffuses the conflict in the scene, which is bad for making stories happen.

I also get the feeling, from your word choice, that you misunderstand what I mean when I say that Jonathan didn't react or emote properly. I'm not saying that he should have broken down crying and screamed to the heavens and wailed and gnashed his teeth. I am saying that there should have been a moment when he saw that he was about to die and we saw that he was scared. And that didn't happen. From what Kevin Costner conveyed with his face acting, it didn't seem like Jonathan Kent fully felt or appreciated the gravity of that situation.

It's not to far removed from the terminator putting up his thumb peacefully in the end, Ripley(notice her face)....Steve Rogers...Ra's...IronGiant.
Unlike even Tony Stark in avengers, there is a level of conviction at play in the former and that is infused by things like him not 'fighting it'.
I suppose that's my take anyways, but then again I'm not speaking as to how the scene actually played for people.

I don't think Kent's death was comparable to any of those. In all of those death scenes, those characters showed an appropriate emotions and an appropriate amount of emotion for their characters in those circumstances, and unlike Jonathan Kent'd death, all of those deaths were climactic moments that were the culmination of a story and character arc. And all of them emoted way more than Costner did in the tornado scene.

In the Iron Giant, that was the moment he was truly defining himself as the person he wanted to be in defiance of his programming, and in that moment he was overcome by a profound sense of joy.

The Terminator was conveying his newfound senses of humanity and love in his last moments, holding on to his connection with John Connor as he died.

And the last three, I don't even see how you can use them as examples of why the tornado scene worked because they are all examples of exactly what I want and what the tornado scene lacked. Ra's didn't just calmly accept his death like it wasn't a thing, he steeled himself for his death through meditation in the manner of a warrior philosopher who cared more for the big picture than his own life. Steve Rogers and Tony Stark both clearly conveyed that they were frightened about the end. Tony especially. It's subtle, sure, but look at RDJ's face in that scene. He is clearly starting to tear up just a little bit, and he is clearly overwhelmed by the situation he finds himself in and he willingly walks into what he thinks is certain death.

Costner, on the other hand, was stone faced through that whole sequence. There is a very clear difference between performances there.

Well, I'm glad you added this. Now we beg the question of what Snyder not pleasing you in particular means against the grand scheme.

Personally, I think it's because I was looking for something more meaningful and genuine than what he was offering. But I imagine we'd disagree about that.

 

[Boy Scout]

What I always found funny is that the very same people who would raise hell if someone criticized MOS would turn right around and **** all over SR even more aggressively.

 

[Rodrigo90]

The Terminator was a machine, and even he showed more emotion as he was dipped into molten steel, than Jonathan Kent did, who was a human, as he was sucked into a tornado...That's very odd

 

[The Question]

What I always found funny is that the very same people who would raise hell if someone criticized MOS would turn right around and **** all over SR even more aggressively.

I think a strong argument could be made that Superman Returns is the better of the two films. Or, at least, the most technically competent. It certainly has flaws that are worth disliking it for, and its script is full of meandering nonsense that makes the film hard to get into, but it got a lot of important stuff right that I think Man of Steel failed at.

 

[Lilbaz]

Thought the film looked good. Liked the actor who played Superman. Just was left thinking "what?" with too many scenes. I also lost the point of the film mostly because I didn't really care.
Watched it again the other week and there is still nothing really memorable about it. Which is a pity. I loved the Christopher Reeves films growing up and really wanted this to be special.
Just think it doesn't have much substance even though it seems to try really hard.

 

[The Batman]

What I always found funny is that the very same people who would raise hell if someone criticized MOS would turn right around and **** all over SR even more aggressively.

That's exactly what I'm sayin g, and they ignore that detail when you point it out to them. They have no problem making lame jokes or crowing about "Deadbeat Superstalkers" or "Cellophane S's", but blow a gasket when someone brings up "Man of Murder" or "Destruction Porn".

 

[Boy Scout]

I think a strong argument could be made that Superman Returns is the better of the two films. Or, at least, the most technically competent. It certainly has flaws that are worth disliking it for, and its script is full of meandering nonsense that makes the film hard to get into, but it got a lot of important stuff right that I think Man of Steel failed at.

I agree. I maintain that both films are disappointing in their own ways, but I think SR is, overall, the superior film.

 

[The Question]

Here's a video about film craft that talks about Man of Steel briefly:

[YT]NUrTRjEXjSM[/YT]

 

[The Batman]

I think MOS and SR are both disappointments, and its a shame that we're in a CBM boom that still hasn't seen a great or even good 21st Century Superman film.

 

[Rodrigo90]

If just one person liked The Master of Disguise, they'd defend the hell out of it and praise the Turtle scene as the greatest moment of cinema history.

 

[The Question]

I agree. I maintain that both films are disappointing in their own ways, but I think SR is, overall, the superior film.

Superman Returns had dialogue that conveyed character instead of information, it had moments of silence where the camera and the non-verbal performances of the actors told us what the characters were feeling instead of having it explained, and it drew out the tension of a conflict and used the anticipation of violence instead of just subjecting us to a drawn out bombardment of conflict and violence with no breaks. The scene on the island with the kryptonite shiv is tend times more gripping and exciting a moment of conflict than the Zod/Superman brawl in Man of Steel. This makes it the winner in my book.

That being said, the film is up its own ass with meta-references to the Superman franchise, the whole middle of the film with Superman's saving people montage meanders like crazy, and the whole nature of its story as a sequel to a film from 30 years earlier with a completely different cast really disconnects the audience from the narrative. It just plops the audience into the middle of a story that isn't its own. I think Superman Returns is a very strong argument against the notion that WB can just start fresh with a new Batman and not have to worry about reintroducing the character because everyone already knows Batman. Movies don't really work like that.

Honestly, if Singer had directed a Superman origin film instead of what Returns was, I think the comic book movie field would look completely different right now.

 

[Marvin]

But I'm not sure that the scene was about peaceful acceptance. That doesn't really make sense when you look at where that scene is placed in the narrative of the film. Peaceful acceptance has nothing to do with the themes of the film or how that flashback related to the scenes around it or the other flashbacks. That scene wasn't about peaceful acceptance, it was about sacrifice....

I never said euthanasia peaceful acceptance. I said being at peace with one's decision is the point of that scene. Sacrificing your life without having to(lift a giant kryptonite landmass) struggle to do so can be met with stone faced peace, is the first point I'm making. If you can get on board with that the rest seems to be a matter of if it's earned apparently.

Simply showing him accepting it right off the bat without any kind of initial emotional turmoil undercuts all of that because it doesn't address why we might not want to accept that in the first place. It diffuses the conflict in the scene, which is bad for making stories happen.

No, it just tells you what kinda man Kent is. It suggests he doesn't react the same way 'most' people do when the plane goes down or the car spins out. You see similar from seasoned and weathered war vets(Is kent one? maybe). What you are describing seems better to capture the human experience as you can describe it and relate to it. To Kon, keeping his son safe is where you see his knees shake and eyes widen relatably. I personally think he's the type of old man you read about in novels by their own kids, who isn't shook by much outside of his families safety, I think that's the man Martha fell for. That's the read I get from the presented characterization. But that's me.

And I think you misunderstand my word choice. For example: My mother died of a horrible disease when my bother and I were young. Her (literal) last moments with us were very much on the peaceful and gleeful boasting of self accomplishment side of things, for she was bloody well happy that her bother finally landed the visa to come and take care of her of what was her whole world and the bulk of her worry and regret. Most people in her situation I suspect to said fate in a more in a way that's more conducive to 'better story telling' if you will. I'm here as always suggesting that not everyone is the same and stories should be beholding to only that fact alone. Then again, I suppose that was more earned thematically because it came at the 'climatic cinematic end' of her story. Funny enough, it was kinda the first act of mine. Go figure.

My point about the IronGiant and the rest of them wasn't about the themes or what was earned by the end of the movie, but the simple reality that death, however violent can be faced in many different ways. Once that's accepted, the when and how is all relative to; if you(the viewer) are personally with it or not. I recall Harry Knowles review of the film, he saw it with his father. Worth a read if you have the time. I assume his dad was "with it."
I'll reference the cap death again(and not get into the others) briefly, in that I'm sure you noticed the element of Rogers' calm demeanor to the loved one on the other line. Maybe it was and act and or forced but take the why of that(his projection with said woman) and try for a second to apply it to the Kent boys. One final gift perhaps.

Personally, I think it's because I was looking for something more meaningful and genuine than what he was offering. But I imagine we'd disagree about that.

That we'd disagree on what you were looking for? Meh, I'll make no assumptions at this juncture.

 

[DA_Champion]

Re: Jonathan Kent.

I think that people need to make more of an effort to try and see what movies are doing than to look for ways to contradict. I thought the movie was clear, Jonathan loves his son and wants to protect him, and that's a ****ing complicated situation so he is unsure what to do. He figures that eventually his son will lead an important life but first he needs to grow up in peace.

 

[Marvin]

Re: Jonathan Kent.

I think that people need to make more of an effort to try and see what movies are doing than to look for ways to contradict. I thought the movie was clear, Jonathan loves his son and wants to protect him, and that's a ****ing complicated situation so he is unsure what to do. He figures that eventually his son will lead an important life but first he needs to grow up in peace.

Between the initial Jon teaser and tv spot 11.
I think that much is obvious DA, however there is the little issue of how conducive that is to...the established.

 

[The Question]

Personally, I think it's because I was looking for something more meaningful and genuine than what he was offering. But I imagine we'd disagree about that.

I actually feel kind of bad about this. While I do agree with this sentiment to a degree, I was going for snark instead of giving you a real, full answer. So, let me elaborate on my opinion in a way that isn't quite so pointlessly sassy:

I think that Zack Snyder is a filmmaker who relies very heavily on cliches and sentimentality. And when I say sentimentality, what I am specifically referring to is the use of images or concepts that elicit immediate emotional reactions or are tied in out social consciousness to things which are important to us, but don't actually hold much meaning themselves. A common example of sentimentality used in fiction would be:

You want the audience to be happy. So, the main character discovers a box of puppies on her way home from work. The audience is now happy. The story continues on.

OR

You want the audience to hate the villain. You have the villain drown a box of puppies. The audience hates the villain. The story continues on.

Most people like puppies and think they are cute, and so including them in the story makes that connection for the audience. But, in neither of those instances are the puppies woven into the narrative. The puppies aren't made to represent anything meaningful to the main character's backstory or the themes of the narrative when the main character discovers them, and the villain isn't built up beforehand as someone who would do this, and this act doesn't factor into his motivations, his actions for the rest of the story, or his personality beyond the rather banal detail that he's someone who has no problem drowning puppies. In neither case are the puppies and their discover/death integrated into the narrative for any reason other than to be cute. That is sentimentality.

Now, I don't think Snyder is as saccharine as the above example, but he is always using emotional shortcuts like that instead of taking the time in his films to set up and pay off important concepts and giving the audience the opportunity to come to care about them organically. The destruction in Man of Steel is a big example of this. We barely spend any time in Smallville and we don't get to know any of its residents other than the Kents before the Kryptonians start tearing up main street. We spend even less time with Metropilis before the battle there, we known absolutely nothing about that city even thought it is the thing at stake in the third act. We see dozens of buildings get destroyed, but we never see the actual effect that any of it has on human lives. We never see civilian reaction during the battle, and when we come back to Metropolis after the battle is over, everything is cleaned up like it never happened. Snyder is showing us things that are universally agreed upon to be sad or scary, but he doesn't actually show us the sadness or fear that should come with them. He is making these communities the thing at stake in these sequences, but he's not giving us any identity or familiarity to latch onto, we just have generic small town and generic big city. It is inherently hollow.

Compare it to Batman begins. That film spends an enormous amount of time establishing Gotham, both through dialogue and through cinematography and set design. By the time the third act roles around, we know Gotham. It has an atmosphere that we can taste, and a culture that we've come to understand, if only a little bit. So, when water manes start exploding all over the city, we have a better feeling for what is at stake, and during that action sequence we do cut away from Batman every once in a while to see what the citizens of Gotham are experiencing in all of that chaos through Rachel's eyes. The Dark Knight does an even better job, building off of what was done in the first film by using the architecture and aesthetic of Chicago to give Gotham a real sense of character, and spending a lot of time with the civilians caught up in The Joker's schemes. The difference is enormous.

And the thing is, there are people who don't care about any of this. There are people who respond to Snyder's emotional shortcuts exactly the way he wants them to. They get scared and sad because a building crumbling to he ground is a scary and sad thing. They don't need anything else to feel that. And that's fine. There's nothing wrong with that. However, the more detail oriented and subtler approach to achieving the same effect that I'm advocating for would not detract from their enjoyment. The people who only need to see the building fall down would not feel the feels any less if the film included all of those other elements for support that people like me want. The film would be just as effective for the people who already like it, and more effective for the people who don't.

And that, I believe, makes for better filmmaking.

 

[Tempest]

It came off as so fake to me. Jonathan never emoted or behaved the way a person would in that situation. There was no fear, no sense of any strong emotions of any kind. It seriously undercuts the emotional impact of a death scene when the character doesn't seem to care that he's dying. And the way he died, just fading into the tornado, was really fake looking and served no real thematic purpose by being that fake looking. That moment would have had so much more impact if his death had actually looked like a death during a tornado, if he ad been crushed by a car flipping over or something like that. Snyder was going fore pure aesthetics in that shot, but the problem is that aesthetics have no value or meaning without context or representation. Nothing is inherently beautiful, things are beautiful because the hold some kind of meaning to us. And the aesthetics of that scene worked against the purpose of that scene by creating this layer of artifice in the manner of Jonathan Kent's death and his reaction to it that cuts us off from the emotions and meaning of the scene.

So...if I found the scene beautiful and touching and emotional, does that mean I do movies wrong? Because the tornado scene really is one of my favorite moments.

Er, that came off as a little snarky, and I didn't mean for it to. I'm actually not trying to get involved in the "MOS is great vs MOS sucked argument". I'm just curious if I'm just kind of an idiot about films and stories in general.

 

[Rodrigo90]

Re: Jonathan Kent.

I think that people need to make more of an effort to try and see what movies are doing than to look for ways to contradict. I thought the movie was clear, Jonathan loves his son and wants to protect him, and that's a ****ing complicated situation so he is unsure what to do. He figures that eventually his son will lead an important life but first he needs to grow up in peace.

It's still the worst JK interpretation I've seen..

Clark wants to help people, his dad tells him, no.
A son is torn with keeping his powers a secret, and giving in to his conscience to do the right thing, is told by his dad, that maybe he should have let some kids die.
Clark wants to do something with his life, his dad tells him to stay on the farm.
Clark wants to save his dad, only for his dad to tell him, no...leaving his son safe, but arguably traumatised for life.

Father of the year award goes to him

 

[The Question]

So...if I found the scene beautiful and touching and emotional, does that mean I do movies wrong? Because the tornado scene really is one of my favorite moments.

Er, that came off as a little snarky, and I didn't mean for it to. I'm actually not trying to get involved in the "MOS is great vs MOS sucked argument". I'm just curious if I'm just kind of an idiot about films and stories in general.

I don't think that, no. I just think that you might react emotionally in a way that I and many others do not. I touched on this in the post right above yours. Some people look at a character dying in a story and are touched by it emotionally simply because a character is dying and that is inherently sad, and that combined with the right musical cues and a good dutch angle is all they need. Others, like myself, require a more immersive experience, and if even one detail is off it lessens the impact. Neither reaction is correct or incorrect, both result in a good time to be had, but I argue that truly good filmmaking is able to appeal to both camps, which Man of Steel does not.

 

[Tempest]

I don't think that, no. I just think that you might react emotionally in a way that I and many others do not. I touched on this in the post right above yours. Some people look at a character dying in a story and are touched by it emotionally simply because a character is dying and that is inherently sad, and that combined with the right musical cues and a good dutch angle is all they need. Others, like myself, require a more immersive experience, and if even one detail is off it lessens the impact. Neither reaction is correct or incorrect, both result in a good time to be had, but I argue that truly good filmmaking is able to appeal to both camps, which Man of Steel does not.

I don't think it's just the angle and music and that someone is dying. I may have laughed when Anakin's mom or aunt or whatever died in that one film. And when Rachel died Batman.

 

[The Question]

I don't think it's just the angle and music and that someone is dying. I may have laughed when Anakin's mom or aunt or whatever died in that one film. And when Rachel died Batman.

Well, Attack of the Clones was just funny all around.

I don't get the Rachel thing though. I thought that scene was pretty good.

 

[Tempest]

Well, Attack of the Clones was just funny all around.

I don't get the Rachel thing though. I thought that scene was pretty good.

Pffft. Rachel was rude to Bruce all through the first two films. Then she's trying to be all noble and brave, and when she realizes she's not going to be saved, she was sooo surprised. I may not have liked her much. And yes, I am fully aware that this makes me a horrible person.

And I always find Beth's death in Little Women to never be done well. It's a sad, beautiful moment in the book, and in the films it's glossed over, even though Beth's illness and death are part of what forges Jo's character.

But I will always cry reading Beth's death in the book. And Matthew from Anne of Green Gables always gets to me. That scene.