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

[The Question]

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.

Well, by gum you're right. I did not recall that line of dialogue. Well, I concede that point. Zod did, in fact, consider the possibility or rebuilding Krypton with Earth's atmosphere and then rejected it.

 

[Tempest]

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?

Half the complaints on MOS are that it's not "the Superman we know". So MOS was more original in the angle it took on Superman. But really, you're right. MOS is typical trope, but I found it a lot more interesting and engaging than Avengers. So you got me. MOS is not super unique. Just more entertaining. For me, at lest.

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

I don't understand your problem here. Lots of fight sequences have lots of characters overcoming, surviving, or ignoring the consequences of what a real fight might do to them.

Is this a serious problem for you, or just in MOS?

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

No, he screams and clutches his head. He is clearly in pain.

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.

Rewatch the fight scene. I just did, and there are several instances where Clark has to shake things off.

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.

Still not sure what you wanted. Clark didn't have any injuries after fighting the world engine, come to think of it. That was pretty intense. The only time we see blood is when he gets zapped by the laser, now that I really think about it.

That's something. Uhhh, the big scary Kryptonian whose name I've forgotten seemed undamaged through the Smallville fight, except when Clark used his heat vision. So I wonder if the requirement to cause injury isn't the super super high heat. Very interesting...

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.

Again, fight scenes usually require a lot of handwaving in films, so the fact that Superman didn't pant or act exhausted doesn't bother me. Clearly this is more of a matter of opinion than anything else.

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.

Several shots. We see people being killed by the gravity beam, as well as many people running from, or watching the fight. I even remember seeing a police officer attempting to direct people to safety.

 

[The Question]

Half the complaints on MOS are that it's not "the Superman we know". So MOS was more original in the angle it took on Superman. But really, you're right. MOS is typical trope, but I found it a lot more interesting and engaging than Avengers. So you got me. MOS is not super unique. Just more entertaining. For me, at lest.

This raises the question, why did you find it entertaining? I'm not asking this in bad faith, I'm very curious to know why you found Man of Steel more entertaining and why I found The Avengers more entertaining and what that says about us, the people who might agree or disagree with us on various points, and the films themselves.

I don't understand your problem here. Lots of fight sequences have lots of characters overcoming, surviving, or ignoring the consequences of what a real fight might do to them.

Is this a serious problem for you, or just in MOS?

It depends to a degree on the genre and tone of the film and what function of the fight scene is within the narrative, but it's almost always a serious problem with fight scenes in general. The narrative purpose of a fight scene is to generate tension around the notion that one or both of these characters might die, as well as being a physical manifestation of whatever it is they are fighting over, and signs that one or both of them might die during the fight speak to what's at stake in the wider context of the narrative. Fight scenes that are all spectacle where characters don't suffer injury or fatigue and are basically in a stalemate until one of them just wins are inherently dull and lack tension.

Like, compare and contrast the lightsaber duels in the original Star Wars trilogy with the duels in the prequels. You'll see what I'm talking about.

No, he screams and clutches his head. He is clearly in pain.

Okay. I'll take your word for it.

Rewatch the fight scene. I just did, and there are several instances where Clark has to shake things off.

Having to shake things off isn't the same as what I'm talking about. The fight should have taken an accumulative toll on both characters.

Still not sure what you wanted. Clark didn't have any injuries after fighting the world engine, come to think of it. That was pretty intense. The only time we see blood is when he gets zapped by the laser, now that I really think about it.

He should have been injured and fatigued after the World Engine fight. That would have been great.

Again, fight scenes usually require a lot of handwaving in films, so the fact that Superman didn't pant or act exhausted doesn't bother me. Clearly this is more of a matter of opinion than anything else.

My problem with it is that it removes the illusion that there's any risk of failure.

Several shots. We see people being killed by the gravity beam, as well as many people running from, or watching the fight. I even remember seeing a police officer attempting to direct people to safety.

The gravity beam was a separate sequence. I'm specifically talking about the Zod fight. In that fight, I remember one shot of people looking up and running away. And that is not the same as showing a human emotional reaction to the scene. Compare and contrast with the cutaways to civilians in The Avengers. We stay with them for a moment or two and see their sense of helplessness and fear. Very different. Man of Steel did a little bit of that some of the Daily Planet staff during the gravity beam sequence, although I thought its execution was a bit clunkier. There may have been more that I do not remember, however.

 

[Tempest]

This raises the question, why did you find it entertaining? I'm not asking this in bad faith, I'm very curious to know why you found Man of Steel more entertaining and why I found The Avengers more entertaining and what that says about us, the people who might agree or disagree with us on various points, and the films themselves.

I understand you question. I do not know. But here's the thing; at least MOS made an impression on you, for good or bad. The Avengers is a film where I am barely able to conjure any information about.

Maybe it's because I hadn't seen every one of the other films? I just thought the characters were uninteresting, the general plot seemed kind of dull...although I am not entirely sure what the whole point was in the first place. What was the goal? Loki was going to be King of the World or something? And what about the alien things? Did he do that on purpose, and then wasn't able to control them, or was he controlling them the whole time?

MOS hit some of my emotional triggers. A lot of people have said it's shallow, and emotionless, but it really worked for me. I do have a tendency to get caught up in things. Like, I have a huge embarrassment squick in films and shows; I don't like to see people humiliated. I also hate to see animals die. Even though I love Fantasia, I can't ever watch the part with the dinosaurs, because it makes me too sad.

I know, I know. I'm ridiculous.

It depends to a degree on the genre and tone of the film and what function of the fight scene is within the narrative, but it's almost always a serious problem with fight scenes in general. The narrative purpose of a fight scene is to generate tension around the notion that one or both of these characters might die, as well as being a physical manifestation of whatever it is they are fighting over, and signs that one or both of them might die during the fight speak to what's at stake in the wider context of the narrative. Fight scenes that are all spectacle where characters don't suffer injury or fatigue and are basically in a stalemate until one of them just wins are inherently dull and lack tension.

Could you give me an example of a fight sequence that you feel shows what you mean? I'm not saying that to be snarky, but I still am not sure what you're after. Generally speaking in film, there is hardly ever a concern whether the main character is going to live or not.

Like, compare and contrast the lightsaber duels in the original Star Wars trilogy with the duels in the prequels. You'll see what I'm talking about.

Oh lord. I can hardly handle the prequels. Is there one particular fight you could recommend so I can try to find it on youtube?

Having to shake things off isn't the same as what I'm talking about. The fight should have taken an accumulative toll on both characters.

I agree a little blood and wear and tear would have been nice. But I don't find it necessary, particularly since it's a comic book film.

He should have been injured and fatigued after the World Engine fight. That would have been great.

Well, yeah. As a fangirl, I am all for what we lovingly call the 'whump' of characters.

My problem with it is that it removes the illusion that there's any risk of failure.

Well, again, most main characters aren't likely to die. So there's not a lot of fear of that happening. I get your point, but unless they are minor characters, where their victory or defeat might serve a purpose in pushing the plot forward, most fight sequences are there to be enjoyed.

The gravity beam was a separate sequence. I'm specifically talking about the Zod fight. In that fight, I remember one shot of people looking up and running away. And that is not the same as showing a human emotional reaction to the scene. Compare and contrast with the cutaways to civilians in The Avengers. We stay with them for a moment or two and see their sense of helplessness and fear. Very different. Man of Steel did a little bit of that some of the Daily Planet staff during the gravity beam sequence, although I thought its execution was a bit clunkier. There may have been more that I do not remember, however.

Uhhh, what did the civilians in Avengers do? I don't remember.

 

[DA_Champion]

It's very much communicated that Zod wants to rebuild Krypton.

For example his actions, he pursues lost Kryptonian outposts across the Galaxy, he seeks to bring back the codex rather than use traditional procreation methods, and he attempts to turn Earth into Krypton.

 

[Flint Marko]

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.


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.

And what consequences were present in MoS? Yes superman made the hard decision of snapping Zods neck, but did we actually see the consequences? Did we see the fallout of that, or anything that took place in the climax? Or did it immediately cut to a scene of him destroying more government property and smarting off to a general and that's the end of it?
I'm not going to pretend the avengers is above criticism but that movie clearly got a lot more right than man of steel did.
And as the question already brought up, people bring up the wanton needless destruction in man of steel as a bad thing more times than not so that doesn't really help out your argument.

 

[Tempest]

And what consequences were present in MoS? Yes superman made the hard decision of snapping Zods neck, but did we actually see the consequences? Did we see the fallout of that, or anything that took place in the climax? Or did it immediately cut to a scene of him destroying more government property and smarting off to a general and that's the end of it?
I'm not going to pretend the avengers is above criticism but that movie clearly got a lot more right than man of steel did.
And as the question already brought up, people bring up the wanton needless destruction in man of steel as a bad thing more times than not so that doesn't really help out your argument.

Is the neck snap the climax? I thought the climax was when Clark chose the people of Earth over his biological people, and the rest of the film was about the consequences.

The fallout of the climax would be the Kryptonians being sucked into the phantom zone and Zod's death.

Apparently I've forgotten how to type this evening. My apologies.

 

[DA_Champion]

JMC,

I think it's true that the film will ultimately depend on Snyder's ability to interpret and apply, but I think it's worth reiterating that a better screenwriter than Goyer, which many of us assume Terrio to be, will help make BvS automatically better than MoS in a few regards.

The first and trivially obvious improvement will be the absence of cringeworthy dialogue. "That only applies to humans", and "he's kind of hot", and "You're a monster, and I'm going to stop you" are less likely to proliferate themselves within the movie. If we're fortunate, we might not just get an absence of bad dialogue but also a surge in good dialogue (as opposed to just mediocre dialogue). MoS had some, such as "I'm debating its merits with a ghost", and more would be better. No, this doesn't fix the whole movie, lol, but it's worth having if it's available.

The second and more challenging change would be in terms of what drives the story. The story of MoS is largely driven by Jor-El and Zod, they're the ones who made the decisions that drove the actual plot. Clark's main decision in the movie is apparently supposed to be choosing Earth over Krypton, that's how the story is structured, and to be honest I'm skeptical that any director can make that work. So that's a problem intrinsic to the script.

Some of the decisions need to be made by the protagonist (either Superman or Batman), and they have to drive the story. In Interstellar (recent example) the break between the first act and the second act occurs when Cooper decides to leave Earth go to space. The break between the penultimate and final act occurs when Cooper decides to drop into the black hole, with the character we care about making decisions and these decisions driving the story. That's how a screenplay should ideally be written. MoS' screenplay was not like that, but hopefully that of BvS would be.

Which is not to say at all that these changes would guarantee a great film, but I think that they improve the expected value of the final product and thus the odds of a great film.

 

[DA_Champion]

And what consequences were present in MoS? Yes superman made the hard decision of snapping Zods neck, but did we actually see the consequences? Did we see the fallout of that, or anything that took place in the climax? Or did it immediately cut to a scene of him destroying more government property and smarting off to a general and that's the end of it?
I'm not going to pretend the avengers is above criticism but that movie clearly got a lot more right than man of steel did.
And as the question already brought up, people bring up the wanton needless destruction in man of steel as a bad thing more times than not so that doesn't really help out your argument.

What -- were you not able to find where I respond to these points in the 20 and 30 posts of back and forth with The Question?



The consequences are that:

1) Superman's soul is damaged ;
2) The world and people are suspicious of Superman as demonstrated by the drone, and logically following from the Battle of Metropolis and other events ;
3) Krypton is totally destroyed. For the time being, no fortress of solitude, no genesis chambers, no survivors, no Ghost-El, nothing. I think Kal-El failed in this mission from Jor-El.

 

[jmc]

JMC,

I think it's true that the film will ultimately depend on Snyder's ability to interpret and apply, but I think it's worth reiterating that a better screenwriter than Goyer, which many of us assume Terrio to be, will help make BvS automatically better than MoS in a few regards.

The first and trivially obvious improvement will be the absence of cringeworthy dialogue. "That only applies to humans", and "he's kind of hot", and "You're a monster, and I'm going to stop you" are less likely to proliferate themselves within the movie. If we're fortunate, we might not just get an absence of bad dialogue but also a surge in good dialogue (as opposed to just mediocre dialogue). MoS had some, such as "I'm debating its merits with a ghost", and more would be better. No, this doesn't fix the whole movie, lol, but it's worth having if it's available.

The second and more challenging change would be in terms of what drives the story. The story of MoS is largely driven by Jor-El and Zod, they're the ones who made the decisions that drove the actual plot. Clark's main decision in the movie is apparently supposed to be choosing Earth over Krypton, that's how the story is structured, and to be honest I'm skeptical that any director can make that work. So that's a problem intrinsic to the script.

Some of the decisions need to be made by the protagonist (either Superman or Batman), and they have to drive the story. In Interstellar (recent example) the break between the first act and the second act occurs when Cooper decides to leave Earth go to space. The break between the penultimate and final act occurs when Cooper decides to drop into the black hole, with the character we care about making decisions and these decisions driving the story. That's how a screenplay should ideally be written. MoS' screenplay was not like that, but hopefully that of BvS would be.

Which is not to say at all that these changes would guarantee a great film, but I think that they improve the expected value of the final product and thus the odds of a great film.

I don't mean to downplay Terrio because Argo was a good film, but the truth is he's only done one screenplay and we don't know whether this is the type of film he's suited to writing. There's all this faith that Terrio is going to be one to solve the issues with Snyder, it could very well be the case that superheroes aren't Terrio's strongest area and if that's the case you could be ending up with a situation that is bad for everyone.

 

[DA_Champion]

There's always risk with trying out new talent, but I argue there's also the possibility of greater, like assigning Batman Begins to the barely tested Christopher Nolan or giving Guardians of the Galaxy to James Gunn who had no blockbuster directing experience.

But regardless, I think that the two points I listed (quality of dialogue and decisions by protagonists needing to drive the plot) are generic to all or nearly all writing and not just superheroes. What writing skills are specific to superheroes that a writer might not be able to understood or pull off?

Is it the requirement to encompass as much mythology as possible to set up seeds for future sequels and spinoffs? Is it the boundary condition that the main protagonist cannot be morally compromised? I'm guessing that the first one is trivial but the second one might be difficult to pull off.

 

[jmc]

When you're dealing with fantastical concepts not every creative person is comfortable working with said concepts. It's easy to say there's no difference between Superman and a character based on a real person but the truth is it's a vastly different creative process, it's like asking a portrait painter to create a fantasy landscape, they could probably do a decent job because many of the principles are the same, but it might not be the best artwork you can get either because they're not use to that style of painting. All creative people have their strengths and weaknesses, some have bias towards a particular type of story telling, others can flourish in a multiple of styles, some struggle to take on different styles. The truth is we don't know what influence Terrio's script will actually have on Snyder or vice versa.

 

[DA_Champion]

I agree, it's a risk, but it's been my opinion for a while that the best decision studios can make with these blockbusters is to assign them to young creatives at the start of their career who have only proven a little bit and have a lot more to prove. That's swinging for the fences.

Terrio is a risk, but he's the right kind of risk.

I am hoping that WB/DC also bring in fresh talent for their other properties.

 

[hitmanyr2k]

And what consequences were present in MoS? Yes superman made the hard decision of snapping Zods neck, but did we actually see the consequences? Did we see the fallout of that, or anything that took place in the climax? Or did it immediately cut to a scene of him destroying more government property and smarting off to a general and that's the end of it?
I'm not going to pretend the avengers is above criticism but that movie clearly got a lot more right than man of steel did.
And as the question already brought up, people bring up the wanton needless destruction in man of steel as a bad thing more times than not so that doesn't really help out your argument.

Agreed. I had the same criticisms about the movie a long time ago....

http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=28525193&postcount=301

A movie as dumb and half-baked as MOS doesn't deserve to be in the 70's. I think its 50's rating is well deserved. People say TASM was influenced by TDK to go the darker route but MOS just pretty much rips off Batman Begins and tries to turn Kal-El into Bruce Wayne by making him a so-serious brooder, traveling the globe thinking of life lessons learned from his father via flashbacks. All that was missing was a flashback scene of "why do we fall Kal?". The 2nd half of the movie is nothing more than Michael Bay-esque action scene after action scene and after seeing a Kryptonian get thrown into an exploding object for the umpteenth time it got stale.

Everything they tried to set up in the first half got ditched. Pa Kent beat the audience over the head for the first 30-45 minutes of the film fearing how the world would accept Kal-El and it's all for nothing. There's no aftermath. We don't see what anyone thinks of Superman. No news coverage. No scenes of Superman's reaction to the damage that's been done or the lives that have been lost. Instead we get to see Superman knock down a drone, have some dumb military chick talk about how hot he is and Clark arriving at the Planet with a big smile. It was just amateurish and sh** writing all the way. That movie gets dumber the more I think about it.

 

[Keehar]

I always assumed we were going to see the consequences of him killing Zod in the sequel. But with the cluster mess of characters that is the sequel, I don't think it's going to go there.

 

[Boy Scout]

I don't think there are going to be that many characters receiving significant attention.

 

[Longshot777]

Well this movie started the DC Cinematic Universe which is better than Ironman which started the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

So I say DC had a better start.

Marvel is great but Incredible Hulk, Ironman 2 and 3, Thor Dark World are average at best. But marvel fanboys propaganda has made those movies better than what they really are.

I can see DC catching up.

 

[NewYorkSpider]

It's still average for me. It does a lot of things right, but in the end, it fails to really deliver.

 

[Joeyjojo72]

Well this movie started the DC Cinematic Universe which is better than Ironman which started the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

So I say DC had a better start.

Marvel is great but Incredible Hulk, Ironman 2 and 3, Thor Dark World are average at best. But marvel fanboys propaganda has made those movies better than what they really are.

I can see DC catching up.

The overwhelming majority of Marvel fans on the Hype acknowledge that IH, IM2 and TDW are lesser MCU films - average or maybe a bit above average at best (of course there are exceptions). IM3 tends to run the gamut . Your "propaganda" comment is completely - and obviously - inaccurate.

 

[The Question]

I understand you question. I do not know. But here's the thing; at least MOS made an impression on you, for good or bad. The Avengers is a film where I am barely able to conjure any information about.

Maybe it's because I hadn't seen every one of the other films? I just thought the characters were uninteresting, the general plot seemed kind of dull...although I am not entirely sure what the whole point was in the first place. What was the goal? Loki was going to be King of the World or something? And what about the alien things? Did he do that on purpose, and then wasn't able to control them, or was he controlling them the whole time?

1: Yeah, Loki's goal was pretty much to be the king of the world. Loki's whole deal is that he's deeply insecure and anti-social and he believes that everyone owes him love and respect while he has no idea how to actually get it from people or how to recognize it when he does. He rationalizes this attitude by convincing himself that he needs to force everyone to submit to his will and that he needs to control everyone's lives to fix the world. This is in contrast with The Avengers, who are all just as neurotic as Loki but who recognize that people need to work past their baggage and come together to solve problems. I know I'm making it sound like I think it's the deepest film in the world, and I really don't, it is overall a fairly fluffy adventure, but that is the central theme that connects it all together.

2: As for your question about the aliens, kind of neither? The aliens were his army that he was going to use to conquer the world. He summed them, he was commanding them, and they were doing what he wanted them to do, but he wasn't literally controlling their each and every action with his mind. They were just following general orders.

3: The Avengers left a huge (positive) impact on me. I remember it very vividly.

MOS hit some of my emotional triggers. A lot of people have said it's shallow, and emotionless, but it really worked for me. I do have a tendency to get caught up in things. Like, I have a huge embarrassment squick in films and shows; I don't like to see people humiliated. I also hate to see animals die. Even though I love Fantasia, I can't ever watch the part with the dinosaurs, because it makes me too sad.

I know, I know. I'm ridiculous.

That's something I notice a lot in discussions about this. There are folks who are very deeply moved by seeing a representation of something tragic on screen, and then there are folks (like me) who aren't because they're too aware of the artifice of what they're watching, and they need something else added on top of that to make them forget that artifice.

Could you give me an example of a fight sequence that you feel shows what you mean? I'm not saying that to be snarky, but I still am not sure what you're after. Generally speaking in film, there is hardly ever a concern whether the main character is going to live or not.

A few classic nerd culture examples:

Luke VS. Darth Vader in The Empire Strikes Back. Luke is on the defensive for the entire fight. As Vader deflects everything Luke throws at him and deals back much worse, Luke gets more tired and desperate. By the end, he's exhausted, bloody, and had his hand cut off. And all of this is the physical manifestation of Luke's own struggle to enter adulthood and define himself in the shadow of his father's legacy, and how that turns out to be much harder and much more emotionally harrowing than he was anticipating.

Luke VS. Darth Vader in Return of the Jedi. Luke and Vader both show signs of the fight taking its toll throughout the sequence, and by the end Vader is battered and broken and, in a reverse of the last film, gets his hand cut off by Luke. Luke's anger and ferocity slowly increase as the fight goes on, until he is just wailing on Vader and pounding him into submission, a release of all of the pent up frustration and turmoil that he's had stewing for the past three films.

Buffy VS. Faith in the penultimate episode of Buffy The Vampire Slayer's third season. Buffy and Faith are two former friends, who's friendship ended when Faith betrayed Buffy to the main villains. Furthermore, Faith poisoned Buffy's boyfriend, and Faith's blood is the only antedate for the poison. This fight, the culmination of all of the hurt and resentment that has built up between these characters, is brutal as hell. Buffy is fighting for both the life of the man she loves and to get revenge on the woman who betrayed her trust, and Faith is venting all of her own insecurities and self loathing that she's decided to project onto Buffy since going dark side. This absolutely shows. They throw each other across the room and absolutely nock the **** out of each other. With every blow, there is a very real sense that these two women are fighting with the intent to kill, and one or both of them might die. By the end of the fight, Faith has fallen off of a building with a knife wound in her gut, and Buffy slinks away at a snail's pace with cost and bruises on her face and a nearly broken arm.

This is the kind of thing that makes fights good. This is what creates a real sense of tension and lets us know what exactly is at stake. The Man of Steel fight with Zod didn't have these things, and thus is didn't have any tension.

Oh lord. I can hardly handle the prequels. Is there one particular fight you could recommend so I can try to find it on youtube?

Really, compare any of the prequel duels to the two Luke/Vader duels in the original trilogy. The contrast is glaring on so many levels.

I agree a little blood and wear and tear would have been nice. But I don't find it necessary, particularly since it's a comic book film.

The best comic book fights are the ones that show the toll the battle is taking on the characters. Most of Spider-Man's great fight scenes are like that.

Well, again, most main characters aren't likely to die. So there's not a lot of fear of that happening. I get your point, but unless they are minor characters, where their victory or defeat might serve a purpose in pushing the plot forward, most fight sequences are there to be enjoyed.

1: That is why what I'm talking about is so important. You need to add all of these elements in order to create the illusion that the characters might die. Good storytelling is all about making the audience forget, for a moment, that it's all pretend.

2: If what you're saying is true, then Man of Steel's fight still didn't have any tension, because no CBM fight does.

3: What exactly is there to be enjoyed about a fight sequence besides a sense of tension and what's at stake?

Uhhh, what did the civilians in Avengers do? I don't remember.

During the whole invasion sequence, the film regularly cut to moments where saw all of the destruction and death from the POV of the civilians and really got a sense of their emotional state. There was that whole scene with Cap saving the people in the bank and watching the rescue efforts afterwards.

 

[Steamteck]

^ Honestly, if Nolan directed MOS, with that same script from Goyer, it would've probably been a better movie than Snyder's version.

I cannot adequately express how strongly I disagree. I like MOS so much better than any of Nolan's stuff.

 

[Steamteck]

1: That's something I notice a lot in discussions about this. There are folks who are very deeply moved by seeing a representation of something tragic on screen, and then there are folks (like me) who aren't because they're too aware of the artifice of what they're watching, and they need something else added on top of that to make them forget that artifice.

.

I actually feel kind of sorry for you.

Interestingly except for buffy, non of your examples stand out to me as great and tense fight scenes. I guess I see different things. in MOS, I saw Kal in real trouble against this maniac and outclassed by this guy . the pain he showed and having to steal his resolve to continue more than once gave me the tension pretty well.

 

[The Question]

I actually feel kind of sorry for you.

Why? All it means is that films that use shortcuts instead of really earning their pathos don't phase me. It means that I get more enjoyment out of things that try a lot harder and have a little more depth to them.

Interestingly except for buffy, non of your examples stand out to me as great and tense fight scenes. I guess I see different things. in MOS, I saw Kal in real trouble against this maniac and outclassed by this guy . the pain he showed and having to steal his resolve to continue more than once gave me the tension pretty well.

How was he outclassed? They were evenly matched throughout the entire fight.

 

[Tempest]

1: Yeah, Loki's goal was pretty much to be the king of the world. Loki's whole deal is that he's deeply insecure and anti-social and he believes that everyone owes him love and respect while he has no idea how to actually get it from people or how to recognize it when he does. He rationalizes this attitude by convincing himself that he needs to force everyone to submit to his will and that he needs to control everyone's lives to fix the world. This is in contrast with The Avengers, who are all just as neurotic as Loki but who recognize that people need to work past their baggage and come together to solve problems. I know I'm making it sound like I think it's the deepest film in the world, and I really don't, it is overall a fairly fluffy adventure, but that is the central theme that connects it all together.

Ah ok. That makes sense.

2: As for your question about the aliens, kind of neither? The aliens were his army that he was going to use to conquer the world. He summed them, he was commanding them, and they were doing what he wanted them to do, but he wasn't literally controlling their each and every action with his mind. They were just following general orders.

3: The Avengers left a huge (positive) impact on me. I remember it very vividly.

Ok, the one really big alien ship was cool. I remember that much at least. And I'm very happy you enjoyed the film.

That's something I notice a lot in discussions about this. There are folks who are very deeply moved by seeing a representation of something tragic on screen, and then there are folks (like me) who aren't because they're too aware of the artifice of what they're watching, and they need something else added on top of that to make them forget that artifice.

But I'm not generally moved by people dying. Animals, yes. I am a sobbing mess. I can watch (fictional) people die all day on screen and not bat an eye. And there have been other films or books where sad things happen and I laughed. (Sirius Black from Harry Potter, Anakin Skywalker's mom, Rachel from Batman...) Yes, I am that terrible.

So it's not just as simple as sayng, "Tempest sees something sad, so she'll be sad". Nope.

I am not saying MOS was the greatest, deepest film of all time. I'm just not sure that it deserves quite so much disdain. You are entitled to your opinion, and I am in no way bashing that opinion.

Cut for length:

A few classic nerd culture examples:

Luke VS. Darth Vader in The Empire Strikes Back.....

Luke VS. Darth Vader in Return of the Jedi.....

Buffy VS. Faith in the penultimate episode of Buffy The Vampire Slayer's third season.....

Ok, at least I know these fight sequences. I see what you mean, but I will say in defense of MOS, we have a different group of people fighting. It's not just awesome human vs. awesome human. It's aliens who are tough and who are made nearly impervious to physical harm fighting.

Also, I think we're back to how we interpret things, because to me I felt that MOS showed us not only how Superman was inexperienced, but how he was dazed and tired, several times in all the fight sequences.

This is the kind of thing that makes fights good. This is what creates a real sense of tension and lets us know what exactly is at stake. The Man of Steel fight with Zod didn't have these things, and thus is didn't have any tension.

...cut for length....


1: That is why what I'm talking about is so important. You need to add all of these elements in order to create the illusion that the characters might die. Good storytelling is all about making the audience forget, for a moment, that it's all pretend.

2: If what you're saying is true, then Man of Steel's fight still didn't have any tension, because no CBM fight does.

3: What exactly is there to be enjoyed about a fight sequence besides a sense of tension and what's at stake?

It's a Superman movie, and the first one in a new verse. I wasn't ever going to be concerned if Superman was going to die. Like I said, most main characters will make it to the end of the film just fine.

For example, I wasn't worried when Buffy fought Faith. I was only curious about a possible plot twist. There was no actual tension in the fight, because you can't really have a Buffy show without Buffy.

Fight scenes are mostly for aesthetics and to enjoy watching. They're cool, and can be beautiful. Sometimes they even further the plot, by things that happen during the battle.

During the whole invasion sequence, the film regularly cut to moments where saw all of the destruction and death from the POV of the civilians and really got a sense of their emotional state. There was that whole scene with Cap saving the people in the bank and watching the rescue efforts afterwards.

I totally don't remember the bank scene at all. The main things I remember are Scarlett Johansen's hot bod, Captain America's ass, being surprised that I kind of liked the Hulk, and being disappointed that I ran out of food and drink before the film was over. Also I recall thinking that it was really, really, really long.

But you enjoyed it! So there's my bright spot.

 

[Steamteck]

Why? All it means is that films that use shortcuts instead of really earning their pathos don't phase me. It means that I get more enjoyment out of things that try a lot harder and have a little more depth to them.



How was he outclassed? They were evenly matched throughout the entire fight.

See they earn the pathos just fine for me. It seems to me you need an artificial jump to get your emotions going

I honestly don't see how anyone can think they were evenly matched. if you're that unreceptive to Snyder's directing and the actors performances I see how it didn't work for you.