BvS "The Dissolve" does "Man of Steel: One Year Later"

Yet another article that goes on about MOS being a disappointment. It basically just says it's slightly less disappointing now, seriously tired of seeing these articles.

 

Yeah, I mean... the article raises some good points, but it's all stuff were heard before numerous times. Just... let it go already. Fine, the movie disappointed you. Congratulations, I guess that means you had better taste than those of us who liked it.

 

this should be in the MOS thread... not here.. i'm tired of discussing MOS

 

Articles like this one tend to baffle me. It makes some interesting points and then drops the ball by stating a completely mistaken observation, and reiterating it pointedly. They repeat that Superman did not save Jenny, that he left the city in danger while going away to the Indian Ocean.

Was MOS really THAT hard to understand? REALLY?

Was Jenny not about to get squished alongside Perry and Lombard until the gravity beam was suddenly stopped by Superman destroying the world engine? How did they think the destruction of the city stopped? Do they understand cause and effect?

Again, IS IT REALLY THAT HARD?

 

DINGDINGDING, we have a winner! My thoughts exactly. Besides, at that givin' time, that dude must have missed Supes saving Lois for the 3rd time, catching her out of mid-air and flying out of the gravity beam in the process with Lois in hand. All Lombard did was get Jenny out of the rubble. Humanly capable! I can see how some things can irritate some fans in MoS (since the MoS-team knew what they were changing and wasn't afraid to do so) but IMHO, I believe some people just misunderstand the movie overall. Ohwell.

 

So wait, if there was an article that popped up and said "MOS...still the best CBM of all time" how are people not allowed to get annoyed at that, but annoyed at this? It's just another opinion out there, why all the hate?

 

Was just about to post this.

 

With MoS, I certainly take the good with the bad. My point being, people and fans, whether they agree or disasgree about MoS or not, are talking HEAVILY about Superman again and I think that's exactly what the character needed to succeed in this new franchise when it comes to how people view him. MoS got many of people's attention, even if some of it was bad so many will have interest to see where this goes and how Supes is handled, especially up against the Bat. BvS is the time to address the controversy and fix some things. I think the MoS team will do just that.

As for the question "Why the hate!??!!?" Come on. Seriously? Look around. The past year and a month or so we've been beatin' down with said-arguments. It's now more annoying than ever, especially with the next installment in the works.

 

then don't… lol I will never understand posts like this. Every discussion requires voluntary participation on this site. No one has to talk about... anything. t:

 

I really enjoyed MoS, but I beleive it failed in portraying Superman as hero.

 

The thing people misinterpret is that this origin of Superman is a flawed version of him. People just don't grasp that but it's one of the main reasons why I loved MoS so much. It broke away from the usual norm that people took for granted with the character to begin with.

I don't believe MoS failed portraying Superman as a hero. He was just put in one helluva situation, one where he couldn't solve so easily that needed an immediate reaction. Supes struggled in MoS but it will only help progress the character further that when Supes DOES do things we're use to seeing, it will be a bigger impact.

 

But I'm not sure that's a good thing. One can ask: is that the point of Superman? Whatever the reasons you can find, Man of Steel legacy is much closer to "Superman destroyed Metropolis" than it is to "Superman saved the world". And that to me is evidence that something went wrong.

 

MOS rocks. End of.

 

Its not hate, but bewilderment at someone doing a "revisit" to a movie and getting wrong a factual event in the movie. They can surely express their dislike and say that indeed, as many say, the portrayed Superman failed to live up to the perfect hero model that to many IS Superman, and THAT is an opinion. But when they explicitly support that opinion by stating and RE-STATING a factual mistake in how things happened in the film, ex: Superman saving or not Jenny when about to get crushed by the gravity beam, and the need for Superman to stop the machine generating the gravity beam, you are supporting a valid opinion with factually mistaken data, which renders the opinion invalid, as well, and undermines what is otherwise a perfectly acceptable article.

And when this is done by posters here or in informal blogs by people whose memories have been changed to better match their distaste its no big thing, but when it is, as DA_Champion observed "well written and posted on an influential discussion site", then it becomes more bothersome, because it bugs me with the question what are their minds registering while watching a movie.

So I am asking a question here: If MOS had problems of pacing, abridged characterization, forced plot developments, and general tone in both thematic and visual issues, do these make the basic PLOT too hard for a normally non-moronic mind to understand? Really?

I mean, I am not asking if people caught the probable subtext debate between utilitarism and Kantian idealism, or the recursive postmodern elements. I am asking if the movie was too convoluted for people to remember later who did what and how things were achieved, you know, the stuff of how things play out in comics and cartoons, and this movie.

 

For example, I was reading a review where the poster mentioned that he could have accepted the whole final scene and its level of catastrophic damage if at some point Superman had shown some kind of awareness that it was a hard choice but the expedient, necessary thing to do for the greater good, or some kind of such ethical position.

So I ask, you mean a scene where previously Superman is fighting the enemy and trying to save human soldiers at the same time and is basically beaten up because of trying to do both these things at once, and the enemy outright tells him: "For each one you save we will kill a million more." Something like that?

Were these people napping during parts of the movie? Are they unable to add plot elements one to the other unless explicitly referenced again and again? I thought that was something for which they criticized Nolan previously.

 

Yes, I agree completely that unfortunately, the focus on the extreme violence at the end, while narratively justified, in terms of the general sense of character accomplishment left in the audience, was not positive enough.

I am sure that the filmmakers simply misjudged the emotional impact of such an extensive, violent fight. In fact, I think the final scene would have benefited a lot from Superman forced to shift his attention constantly to giving chances to people to get away, making efforts constantly to redirect the fight, because that would give emotional reinforcement to how hard it was to fight an equally powered menace needing to do more than fight for himself and the overall picture. It would have also provided more visual narrative variety to the fight, which ran the risk of becoming too mono-thematic and abstract in execution, ala a video game.

If I recall correctly, when the allied troops invaded Europe in D-Day, more French locals were killed by the colllateral damage of the allied attack that had been killed previously by the Nazi forces' occupation. That is a hard fact to face, but one cannot say that it was not necessary to turn the course of the war that way. But Superheroes are more about idealized results. We wanted Superman to save us all. So I understand that people disliked the more pragmatic but less morally satisfying portrayal.

But while MOS was flawed in execution and its virtues may have not seemed significant to some because of their particular tastes and expectations, to later try to paint a worse picture by making up or misunderstanding basic plot events is rather aggravation. It actually weakens the overall argument, the way a strawman fallacy may do.

 

Honestly, I think it's really good for Superman. MoS's entire point was to tear down Superman to the point of building him back up. The destruction that was caused in MoS is a reality to the world of superheros. In every medium and especially in the comics, that destruction is there, but it's always covered up. In MoS, they werent afraid to show that and they never apologized for it.

Like I said, MoS was meant to tear Superman down. As long as they have a plan to build him back up, I think MoS and its purpose will make much more sense.

 

Really don't get how you can say this.

 

Exactly!!!
The citizen of metropolis didn’t see superman stopping the world machine/engine. They should not regard him as hero. In fact, they should see him as a frightening alien. They should ask the government to take down the super powerful alien by any means. then, Lex should raise...

 

The citizens may have not seen Supes physically destroy the World Engine, but they DID see him pound on the guy that was responsible for the alien invasion relentlessly and repeatedly. Doesn't that count for something? I mean, Jenny even figured it out with the "He saved us.." line.

I bet people will still fear him in a way but others will make a stand for him as well, setting the stage for Lex, etc.

 

I didn't actually see any of the events of 9/11 with my own eyes either - but I know what terrible tragedy happened through a wonderful new invention called 24hr news (See Anchorman 2 for historic references).

A lot of Metropolis citizens would have seen Superman stopping the world engine through their TV screens/laptops etc., and after the event it would have been global news!

Anyway, in my opinion MOS is the greatest superhero movie to date! I loved TDK and Captain America: TFA – but for me MOS is the most enjoyable, which I can watch over again and not get bored. I loved the flashbacks and jumping from time periods, it treated the viewer with the intelligence to be able to follow the story. I have no problem with the destruction - in fact I was glad that somebody finally showed the devastation that beings with such power would cause.

 

MOS is not getting a sequel, not because it didn't make a profit as it did, but because the negative reaction which remains to this day scared WB off. IMO.

The reviews made a difference and the divisiveness is something WB could not accept apparently.

The good news, folks wanted a great Superman film as opening weekend showed.

Where WB goes now is a question. Do they reboot Superman out of BvS and JL?