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

[ThePhantasm]

I use the internet a lot, which has proven to me that people will dismiss anyone who they disagree with as "haters" instead of applying critical thought to why they hate the things they do. Haters are a myth. Everyone has reasons.

I never said they don't have "reasons." I said their reasons aren't based in reality, but in misperceptions about things like WB or Christopher Nolan, etc.

Someone who hates is by definition a hater. Also, you'd be surprised at how many people can't articulate a reason for their hatred of something.

 

[The Question]

Regardless, even if Superman killing is an "exception," why is such an exception permissible in the comics and not in film? In both Superman II and MOS, Superman killed Zod. But only one film gets **** for it because the death was dramatic rather than comical.

1: This assumes that people who dislike Superman killing Zod in Man of Steel also enjoyed Superman killing in the examples you gave. A lot of people hated both.

2: The people who hated the killing in man of Steel but liked the killing in some or all the examples you gave may have felt that the comics examples managed to earn it and make it meaningful while Man of Steel did not.

3: Zod's death in Superman II was not comical.

4: Zod's death in Superman II was nowhere near as graphic or explicit, was ambiguous enough that people could read it differently if they wanted to, and also some people did dislike it and vastly prefer the original cut of Superman II where Zod doesn't wall into the vaguely defined smokey hole and is seen being arrested by the military after he loses his powers.

No they aren't. They said that about MOS too, before it came out.

Some people did. Other people gave Man of Steel a fair shot and disliked it, and they are skeptical about Batman VS. Superman because of Man of Steel. There is no monolithic "they" here.

There's been a huge mistrust of WB ever since the Schumacher era. At one point that mistrust was well founded. It isn't anymore.

Unless you were one of the people who thought Man of Steel was a lousy film, in which case it still is.

Because the examples I gave occur throughout Superman's history, not just in one early time period. Big difference.

How is it a big difference?

I never said they don't have "reasons." I said their reasons aren't based in reality, but in misperceptions about things like WB or Christopher Nolan, etc.

Except, you know, those aren't the reasons why people disliked Man of Steel. People disliked Man of Steel for actual reasons that had to do with the film itself.

Someone who hates is by definition a hater. Also, you'd be surprised at how many people can't articulate a reason for their hatred of something.

1: When people say hater, the implication isn't simply "one who hates," the implication is "one who hates something for no other reason than wanting to hate something." Those people don't exist.

2: Not being able to articulate your reason doesn't mean you don't have one.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Some people did. Other people gave Man of Steel a fair shot and disliked it, and they are skeptical about Batman VS. Superman because of Man of Steel. There is no monolithic "they" here.

The "they" is the group I was talking about. Not a monolithic whole. Don't twist my words into some bizarre absolute, man.

How is it a big difference?

Because Batman's character was redeveloped and retconned into a no-kill character quickly after his inception, whereas Superman has consistently been portrayed throughout his history as willing to kill when absolutely necessary.

2: Not being able to articulate your reason doesn't mean you don't have one.

Yes, and I can't technically "prove" that unicorns don't exist either, but whatever...

EDIT: I have to go to work, so we can continue this another time.

 

[The Question]

The "they" is the group I was talking about. Not a monolithic whole. Don't twist my words into some bizarre absolute, man.

That's how it read to me. I apologize.

Because Batman's character was redeveloped and retconned into a no-kill character quickly after his inception, whereas Superman has consistently been portrayed throughout his history as willing to kill when absolutely necessary.

Except he hasn't. He too was redeveloped and retconned into a no-kill character with a very explicitly defined code against killing, and there are a handful of exceptions peppered sporadically throughout his history that were used for dramatic effect. There's nothing consistent about that.

Yes, and I can't technically "prove" that unicorns don't exist either, but whatever…

That thought experiment is not relevant here. "People having reasons for hating things" is not an implausible mythical animal with supernatural abilities.

EDIT: I have to go to work, so we can continue this another time.

You don't need to tell me that. We're not IMing each other.

 

[Marvin]

Except there are just as many examples of Batman killing people in the comics as the Superman examples you gave.

And the fact is that there is a rule. It has been explicitly stated in the comics on numerous occasions that Superman has a code against killing.

It has never been stated where he got it. And it's in that, that this live action canon is actually making good on the rule in a way the others have relied on other means of story telling.
If the point is that he have one, then what's the issue if the process of him gaining one is dramatized? What's more, in the comics, the no kill rule has basically separated him from the likes of wolverine or ironman what with the the easy and constant killing and the the quips. The source material has presented that he does kill when 'he has to or is forced to'. Another thing the film was keen enough to stage.

Speaking of batman, I just find it odd how much more killing batman has been doing in these movies(every single feature save for adam west) and it's this that breaks the camels back. Is it because in this instance superman did it in a callous/cruel way, compared to the batman(or other superman) kills? Cause compared to the other cbms that year he seemed alot more taken by his act.

 

[Boy Scout]

Regardless, even if Superman killing is an "exception," why is such an exception permissible in the comics and not in film?

It's not.

In both Superman II and MOS, Superman killed Zod. But only one film gets **** for it because the death was dramatic rather than comical.

1) SII was released before I was even born. It was popular enough to spawn two sequels and is now nothing more than one movie in a series of movies that are part of a discontinued cinematic universe. What could I possibly gain from criticizing it now, in 2014?

2) I don't take that movie as seriously as MOS because it doesn't even take itself that seriously.

 

[The Question]

Speaking of batman, I just find it odd how much more killing batman has been doing in these movies(every single feature save for adam west) and it's this that breaks the camels back. Is it because in this instance superman did it in a callous/cruel way, compared to the batman(or other superman) kills? Cause compared to the other cbms that year he seemed alot more taken by his act.

Batman did not kill anyone in The Dark Knight Rises. Batman did kill Harvey in The Dark Knight, but it was kind of an accident. He also didn't technically kill anyone in Batman Begins, but obviously he did **** all to try to save Ra's' life and I have no beef with anyone who thinks that counts. Batman also did not kill anyone in either of the Schumacher films, and plenty of fans have a problem with Batman's body count in the two Burton films.

 

[Boy Scout]

It has never been stated where he got it.

Probably because it's never needed an explanation.

If the point is that he have one, then what's the issue if the process of him gaining one is dramatized?

Because, in this case, it wouldn't make much sense. When he killed Zod, he saved the world, and there didn't appear to be any lasting emotional consequences afterwards. If there's anything he should take from the experience, it's that killing is sometimes a necessary evil.

Speaking of batman, I just find it odd how much more killing batman has been doing in these movies(every single feature save for adam west) and it's this that breaks the camels back. Is it because in this instance superman did it in a callous/cruel way, compared to the batman(or other superman) kills? Cause compared to the other cbms that year he seemed alot more taken by his act.

I haven't really been comfortable with any of Batman's kills.

 

[Marvin]

Batman did not kill anyone in The Dark Knight Rises. Batman did kill Harvey in The Dark Knight, but it was kind of an accident. He also didn't technically kill anyone in Batman Begins, but obviously he did **** all to try to save Ra's' life and I have no beef with anyone who thinks that counts. Batman also did not kill anyone in either of the Schumacher films, and plenty of fans have a problem with Batman's body count in the two Burton films.

Firstly, I tend to consider manslaughter murder and I'm sure some States agree given our prisons. And thus when I say 'kill' that's actually what I mean, encapsulating pretty much all his films(can't remember if Freeze died though). I say so specifically cause in the books, his 'rules' tend to account for manslaughter and now you are suggesting they don't. He goes out of his way to save any and everyone in his path(TDK style in the entire third act save for Dent).
The Begins kill is the most egregious and non batman imo. What's more, that was his own handy work with the train derailment.

As for the Burton films, yes I heard some complaints, but nothing like what ensured last year. Not mass talk of the producer not getting the character and the body counts were through the roof.

 

[Marvin]

Probably because it's never needed an explanation.

I wonder what other sorts of things don't actually need explaining in films. At a certain point find yourself(I have) in discussions about stronger vs weaker story telling on principle. What's interesting is that alot of good heroes do actually kill(the entire mcu roster for instance). I find it odd this idea that virtuous heroes don't need their super strict no kill rules explained as if it's some kinda given when it's clearly not.

Because, in this case, it wouldn't make much sense. When he killed Zod, he saved the world, and there didn't appear to be any lasting emotional consequences afterwards. If there's anything he should take from the experience, it's that killing is sometimes a necessary evil.

If that's what he takes away then it will be source accurate. Again, compare how superman operates vs stark.
As far as lasting effects, I've seen a hand full of these trilogies deal with their lasting effects, throughout said trilogy. Consequences don't always set in right away, just look at those Rocky movies, sometimes it's about closing on a high and the fallout comes after. Better yet, the issue is confronted when approaching the next villain if you will. Legend of Korra is very much in this sort of vain.

 

[Boy Scout]

I wonder what other sorts of things don't actually need explaining in films.

I don't know, but to be honest, it's not a conversation I'm up for having right now.

I find it odd this idea that virtuous heroes don't need their super strict no kill rules explained as if it's some kinda given when it's clearly not.

I don't see how it isn't. I think most people are uncomfortable with the idea of killing another person, even if it would be completely justified. Why wouldn't a superhero feel the same way?

That said: unless it's relevant to the story being told (and it often isn't), I don't think it needs to be exaplained why someone is or isn't comfortable with killing. I don't know why Tony Stark is okay with it and I don't really care.

If that's what he takes away then it will be source accurate.

Not really, but I don't think Snyder is particularly concerned about that. And that's not always a bad thing.

As far as lasting effects, I've seen a hand full of these trilogies deal with their lasting effects...

How many of them gave you at least something to chew on in the first installment? MOS introduced it during the last ten minutes or so and moved on. I'm sure DOJ will address what happened - at least to an extent - but that won't change the fact that I think MOS did a pretty piss poor job of handling it. If it were up to me, it wouldn't be brought up again. I'd focus more on the property damage (which I didn't have too many issues with).

 

[DA_Champion]

Sorry The Question but no the make gaze is not a problem with Snyder's films (except Sucker Punch) unless you include male power shots. All of his remotely sexy shots are in story and not gratuitous.

If you disagree find me a male gaze shot from each of Dawn of the Dead, 300, and MoS.

Just be sure that if James Gunn or Shane Black had directed MoS there would have been many gratuitous T&A shots of Antje Traue -- and that virtually nobody would complain.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Yes, Jonathan tells him it's his choice! Whether he becomes the ruler of earth or it's protector. He's done his job by making sure Clark is safe until the time comes for him to make that decision. And then Jor-El shows up and tells him he should help people and boom Clark becomes a hero. He's a hero because of Jor-El not Jonathan. If Clark hadn't found the kryptonian ship then what's to say he wouldn't have just carried on bumming around earth maybe helping people if he happened to be there, but never becoming the great symbol and hero he did.

Do you see what i mean? It takes away Superman's humanity and therefore I find it much harder to identify with the character.

I completely agree with you. It's something I dislike in ALL of the movies and a lot of Smallville where it feels like Clark only becomes a hero once Jor-el tells him that's his purpose.

It just takes away from what I love about Superman as an idea - that someone can just be a totally GOOD person because they were raised by two also good people, and because they happen to have powers they are able to channel that good into something with world wide effect.

That's the idea that gives me hope.

The idea that the hero is only good because he's NOT human, just totally destroys that.

I'm not going to start singing it's praises just yet

I'm just not turning my nose up at it anymore because I'm starting to see things I couldn't before.
And I was doing that. I mean everybody else has their issues with it, and I'm not saying it's perfect, but for over a year and a half, I've been watching with my nose turned up and not giving it a fair chance. If I've had it on, I've been on my phone and rolling my eyes at it if I listen.

I've definitely not done that. I saw it 4 times at the cinema, and each time was a totally different experience.

But on home viewing, it's just become more and more cemented that I simply don't like it. I simply don't think it's well written or acted, I don't like the ideas presented, I don't like certain elements of the characterization, and I personally dislike the neck snap as it is as far away from the interpretation of Superman I was hoping for as you can get.

There aren't any other live action feature interpretations that do it. There isn't really anything outside of comics and straight up shows circling the idea of superboy for seasons on end. I suppose that would be Smallville.

Lois and Clark?

Exceptions don't make the rule. If Superman wasn't generally against killing, then breaking Zod's neck in MOS wouldn't have been the source of so much conflict. To say that Superman has never been against killing is blatantly untrue. If you're fine with it, that's one thing, but you don't have to rewrite history to prove your argument.

EDIT: I think it's important to note that I said that Superman has a rule against killing - not that he has never killed.

Regardless, even if Superman killing is an "exception," why is such an exception permissible in the comics and not in film? In both Superman II and MOS, Superman killed Zod. But only one film gets **** for it because the death was dramatic rather than comical.

Because this film was more than just a single instance in a comic without a wide spread general audience reception.

Because this was a reintroduction of Superman to a generation that didn't know much about him. It was a reboot at a critical time in Superhero movies... and is an interpretation that will continue to be cemented in the minds of this generation as the accepted standard version of Superman, as further sequels appear.

This is why I don't understand people defending the neck snap by citing the few instances in the comics were he has killed.

Yes, there have been exceptions to the rule.

But in MOS, there simply was no rule.

And i'm personally not saying 'that's not allowed'... I mean, anything is allowed. It's up to the film maker to decide what to do with the character.

I'm just saying it's a shame that's what they did. More than a shame... it was absolutely heart breaking to me.

Because it's the aspect of Superman I love the most. I love his often unshakable conviction regarding the subject. I don't care how many people rip it apart as impractical or illogical... because he doesn't care either. Because he BELIEVES in it, and is willing to take a lot of heat for that belief.

And that version of Superman now has no chance of being portrayed to the majority of members of the general public now.

They will never know the hero I love. They have literally been introduced to him as the opposite.

And I know people say that he might become that hero in later movies... but honestly, I just doubt it. And I think I have the right to feel that way after so many disappointments in general with DC's current handling of their heroes.

 

[DA_Champion]

I can't imagine seing a movie I hate 4+ times.

 

[DA_Champion]

Superman killing Zod in Superman 2 was treated as a joke, which is why it didn't bother people.

In contrast, in MoS, Superman felt guilty afterwards, and that's why people didn't like the scene.

It took me a while to understand this but here goes: people are not against killing, it's the feeling of guilt that they don't like. This is true in both movies but also in CNN discussions of war.

 

[flickchick85]

I can't imagine seing a movie I hate 4+ times.

You'd be amazed at what the love for a certain character can compel someone to do. I've seen Green Lantern more times than I'd care to admit purely out of my love for the character and my ability to imagine a better version of the movie as I watch it.

For the record, I've never had a problem with ANY instance in which Superman killed Zod, MoS included. BUT I do agree it was kinda sloppily handled in MoS. It's hard to convey the weight of Superman breaking one of his main rules if you haven't even established that rule yet. Of course, I'm not sure it was handled any better in Superman II, but I kind of hate Superman II anyway for other reasons, so that one barely registers.

 

[DA_Champion]

Well everyone's different, but for me, if I don't like a movie, I have a hard time watching it just once.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

I can't imagine seing a movie I hate 4+ times.

A movie you had been anticipating and discussing for years?

You really can't imagine watching it repeatedly, trying to at least get some pay off for all those hopes?

Well everyone's different, but for me, if I don't like a movie, I have a hard time watching it just once.

Any ordinary movie sure. But this is Superman...

 

[DA_Champion]

Star Trek into Darkness I only watched once and Star Trek was a big part of my childhood. Terminator Salvation I tried to watch recently and I could not finish, in spite of the original being my favorite movie ever. I like Superman, but I only watched Superman 1, 2, 3 once each after buying the four-pack, and I've never tried Superman 4, because of the suffering I went through watching Superman 2 and 3.

If you watched it four times in theatres, with previews and transportation that works out to ~14 hours of your life and $80 at least, and then you watched it some more at home and maybe bought the blu ray... I can't help but think you saw some good.

And really... I think I could nitpick and destroy any movie that I watched 5 or 6 times.

But then again everybody is different. I worry about all the great movies I have not even watched once. A month ago I went through Breaking Bad for the first time ... itis hard for me to imagine delaying that to watch STID again to find some good.

You... watch way more movies than I do. I notice you in the film ranking thread ... you're exceptionally efficient at watching a lot of movies.

 

[Rodrigo90]

Superman killing Zod in Superman 2 was treated as a joke, which is why it didn't bother people.

In contrast, in MoS, Superman felt guilty afterwards, and that's why people didn't like the scene.

It took me a while to understand this but here goes: people are not against killing, it's the feeling of guilt that they don't like. This is true in both movies but also in CNN discussions of war.

Our morals, compassion and anything else that makes us human, is slowly going down the crapper...

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Star Trek into Darkness I only watched once and Star Trek was a big part of my childhood. Terminator Salvation I tried to watch recently and I could not finish, in spite of the original being my favorite movie ever. I like Superman, but I only watched Superman 1, 2, 3 once each after buying the four-pack, and I've never tried Superman 4.

Different levels of fandom.

There is a level of fandom within which logic takes a funny turn

Especially when dealing with something that has been anticipated for such a long time and that, on paper, seemed like it was going to be such a big pay off.

I was trying to like it. There are things I like in it. But no matter how much I try to focus on those things, I can't block out the things I hated... and they unfortunately weigh more within the film.

If you watched it four times in theatres, with previews and transportation that works out to ~14 hours of your life and $80 at least, and then you watched it some more at home and maybe bought the blu ray... I can't help but think you saw some good.

I travelled to London to see the first showing at the Imax theatre there. I then saw once again alone in my own city, once with a big group of people who aren't that into superheroes, and once with 1 friend who is into superheroes.

Each of those cinema experiences allowed me to take something different from it. Each had a different vibe, and each time I was left with a different feeling or judgement based on the reactions of people around me.

Each time, I was hoping that my enjoyment of the film would improve. That the annoyances would lessen.

But they never did.

I recently watched it again with another friend for the first time in months... and it was just boring. I've completely exhausted it... The things I like about it or find entertaining... they don't hold my interest in the movie as a whole.

But I had to try!

Like other people on this forum have managed, and like i've experienced on occasion before - sometimes a second or third watch can actually make you like a film.

I think it'd be sad for a fan to give up on something they were invested in just based on their initial reaction.

And really... I think I could nitpick and destroy any movie that I watched 5 or 6 times.

You could sure. But you wouldn't if you liked the movie as a whole.

But when you don't like a movie, you are constantly attempting to understand and explain why. In fact people ASK you to explain why... and then call it nit picking

Sure, you pick out small examples of dislikes in a movie and they are 'nit picks' but the majority of the time people are using them as examples of an over all failure in their eyes.

But then again everybody is different. I worry about all the great movies I have not even watched once. You... watch way more movies than I do. I notice you in the film ranking thread ... you're exceptionally efficient at watching a lot of movies.

I have an unlimited membership at my cinema. £15 a month, as many movies as I like... I get my moneys worth

Superman killing Zod in Superman 2 was treated as a joke, which is why it didn't bother people.

In contrast, in MoS, Superman felt guilty afterwards, and that's why people didn't like the scene.

Wow that is just so not true for me.

My problem wasn't that he expressed guilt for a moment.

It was that it was only for a moment, and then they lead straight into a joke.

I want them to take that subject seriously... and they sort of touched on it, which is even more frustrating, because if they'd followed up with that with some dialogue discussing it, it would have significantly lessened the blow for me.

 

[Rodrigo90]

I completely agree with you. It's something I dislike in ALL of the movies and a lot of Smallville where it feels like Clark only becomes a hero once Jor-el tells him that's his purpose.

It just takes away from what I love about Superman as an idea - that someone can just be a totally GOOD person because they were raised by two also good people, and because they happen to have powers they are able to channel that good into something with world wide effect.

That's the idea that gives me hope.

The idea that the hero is only good because he's NOT human, just totally destroys that.

In MOS, it's true that his powers have isolated him from a normal life. He doesn't interact much with the other kids and they pick on him. They torment and bully the hell out of him and he states that he wanted to hurt them to Jonathan when they pushed him down.
And for a kid with the powers of a God, who is under the pressure to keep a lid on it, while also under the pressure of containing his feelings, he must have used all his strength to keep his humanity intact, especially juggling with the revelation that he's not human. Yet, he still saved Pete Ross from drowning when he was a dick to him and God knows how long he made Clark a victim for.

This was a question brought up in Smallville when Whitney was killed in the Marines in Season 2. Clark pondered if he would be any more heroic if he had no powers. Basically asking if he had no powers, could he still go up against the dangers and the 50/50 chance of death that other men do in war.
And Jonathan said that there would be no doubt that he would.

But you're still left with the curiosity of how and why is he so heroic and caring in MOS, when his parents have drilled it into him, to be the opposite of the hero, in order to protect his secret. I have no doubt, just because we got a few choice words from Jonathan, that leaves the impression that he told Clark not to help anyone, that the Kent's did raise Clark to always do the right thing. They were believers in God and so was Clark and maybe it was his Christian beliefs that made him a hero?
And the way the film is, I'm starting to believe that was the case.
Superman's policy is very Bibleish and makes sense considering he was brought up in a small town, with many religious factors.

As a Christian man myself, I welcome that. I'm no bible basher or Church goer, but I do often read the bible at times and I see a lot of stuff that could easily make it into Superman and it has

I've definitely not done that. I saw it 4 times at the cinema, and each time was a totally different experience.

But on home viewing, it's just become more and more cemented that I simply don't like it. I simply don't think it's well written or acted, I don't like the ideas presented, I don't like certain elements of the characterization, and I personally dislike the neck snap as it is as far away from the interpretation of Superman I was hoping for as you can get.

But that's all the things I've come to love about it

Well, not entirely

I can't get away with the ending. I know they'll bring it up in BvS, I'm certain of that.
I can't get away with people bringing Lois everywhere for some reason.

And yeah, the film just springs Zod's death completely out of nowhere. Just imagine that we had no clue about it, nobody revealed any spoilers or anything...Because you and I both knew about it.
But if I hadn't of prepared myself for such a thing, I think I would've choked on my popcorn in shock.
And that is what is was meant to do. Goyer and Snyder did not prepare any of us for what was about to happen...and why? Because they both made a last minute change to the script. That is why we have no foreshadowing or any talk or even a hint of Clark's "no kill" policy. Because it was just sprung out of nowhere. If the film had of prepared people, it might have softened the blow and just might have made it a little more accepting.

But I have no problem with it, in the long run. I just wish Snyder and Goyer hadn't of done it for a few reasons.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

In MOS, it's true that his powers have isolated him from a normal life. He doesn't interact much with the other kids and they pick on him. They torment and bully the hell out of him and he states that he wanted to hurt them to Jonathan when they pushed him down.
And for a kid with the powers of a God, who is under the pressure to keep a lid on it, while also under the pressure of containing his feelings, he must have used all his strength to keep his humanity intact, especially juggling with the revelation that he's not human. Yet, he still saved Pete Ross from drowning when he was a dick to him and God knows how long he made Clark a victim for.

This was a question brought up in Smallville when Whitney was killed in the Marines in Season 2. Clark pondered if he would be any more heroic if he had no powers. Basically asking if he had no powers, could he still go up against the dangers and the 50/50 chance of death that other men do in war.
And Jonathan said that there would be no doubt that he would.

But you're still left with the curiosity of how and why is he so heroic and caring in MOS, when his parents have drilled it into him, to be the opposite of the hero, in order to protect his secret. I have no doubt, just because we got a few choice words from Jonathan, that leaves the impression that he told Clark not to help anyone, that the Kent's did raise Clark to always do the right thing. They were believers in God and so was Clark and maybe it was his Christian beliefs that made him a hero?
And the way the film is, I'm starting to believe that was the case.
Superman's policy is very Bibleish and makes sense considering he was brought up in a small town, with many religious factors.

As a Christian man myself, I welcome that. I'm no bible basher or Church goer, but I do often read the bible at times and I see a lot of stuff that could easily make it into Superman and it has
.

Basically you're now filling in the holes for yourself in order to get along with the movie

What we were actually shown in the film is Clark being told by Jonathon that being a hero is not only something he shouldn't do, but something that could lead to disastrous consequences because the world 'is not ready'.

And yet, because you feel this makes no sense (rightly so) you are attempting an 'assumption' that this conversation is not an accurate portrayal of their relationship and the way he was raised.

But that's all the things I've come to love about it

Well, not entirely

I can't get away with the ending. I know they'll bring it up in BvS, I'm certain of that.
I can't get away with people bringing Lois everywhere for some reason.

And yeah, the film just springs Zod's death completely out of nowhere. Just imagine that we had no clue about it, nobody revealed any spoilers or anything...Because you and I both knew about it.
But if I hadn't of prepared myself for such a thing, I think I would've choked on my popcorn in shock.
And that is what is was meant to do. Goyer and Snyder did not prepare any of us for what was about to happen...and why? Because they both made a last minute change to the script. That is why we have no foreshadowing or any talk or even a hint of Clark's "no kill" policy. Because it was just sprung out of nowhere. If the film had of prepared people, it might have softened the blow and just might have made it a little more accepting.

But I have no problem with it, in the long run. I just wish Snyder and Goyer hadn't of done it for a few reasons.

I agree with all of that. It was definitely added in for shock value.

I just think that's an empty reason, and a particularly Snyderish one at that.

Not that I usually mind his love of shocking people or being a bit brutal in his movies. But just not this time.

 

[The Question]

Sorry The Question but no the make gaze is not a problem with Snyder's films (except Sucker Punch) unless you include male power shots. All of his remotely sexy shots are in story and not gratuitous.

If you disagree find me a male gaze shot from each of Dawn of the Dead, 300, and MoS.

Just be sure that if James Gunn or Shane Black had directed MoS there would have been many gratuitous T&A shots of Antje Traue -- and that virtually nobody would complain.

1: Did you miss the part where I said that it wasn't a problem in Man of Steel?

2: A shot being "in story" doesn't make it not male gaze.

3: 300 had a few shots of the Queen and Xerxes' harem, Watchmen had more than a few male gaze-y shots of silk Spectre, and I never saw Dawn of the Dead.

4: People would have complained if anyone put gratuitous T&A shots in Man of Steel. No one has an irrational bias against Zack Snyder.

5: Why are we arguing about this when, again, I said that the male gaze wasn't really a problem in Man of Steel?

Firstly, I tend to consider manslaughter murder and I'm sure some States agree given our prisons. And thus when I say 'kill' that's actually what I mean, encapsulating pretty much all his films(can't remember if Freeze died though). I say so specifically cause in the books, his 'rules' tend to account for manslaughter and now you are suggesting they don't. He goes out of his way to save any and everyone in his path(TDK style in the entire third act save for Dent).
The Begins kill is the most egregious and non batman imo. What's more, that was his own handy work with the train derailment.

1: Mr. Freeze did not die in Batman and Robin.

2: Batman fails to save the people he basically kills by accident in the comics all the time.

3: Manslaughter and murder are not the same thing. They definitionally are not.

As for the Burton films, yes I heard some complaints, but nothing like what ensured last year. Not mass talk of the producer not getting the character and the body counts were through the roof.

Maybe they were more forgiving because, other than that one thing they didn't like, they thought Burton's movies were good.

 

[I Am The Knight]

Batman has sent Ra's to his death at least 3 times in the comics. 2 of those happened in the same issue. That really annoyed me.