The Dark Knight Rises The TDKR General Discussion Thread - Part 150

[Green Goblin]

I didn't like MOS but some criticisms are down right bizzare.

 

[kvz5]

I was browsing some of the pictures I've taken during my past vacations and I found these. Snapped them at a hotel in Macau when I went there for a vacation with family back in late 2012. I definitely wasn't expecting a DC store there of all places so that was a (pleasant) surprise.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Yes, because massive death and destruction is what I need in a Superman movie.
I don't know, maybe it's me. I guess I'm not cynical enough to a get kick out of that in superhero movie.

So you prefer your citywide destruction sanitized and consequence free, so that you can keep the illusion that somehow miraculously no one was harmed?

It has nothing to do with cynicism. People are only mad at MOS because it showed them the actual destruction instead of hiding it and pretending it never happened.

 

[Brother Jack]

So you prefer your citywide destruction sanitized and consequence free, so that you can keep the illusion that somehow miraculously no one was harmed?

It has nothing to do with cynicism. People are only mad at MOS because it showed them the actual destruction instead of hiding it and pretending it never happened.

Actually, one of my problems with the film is that after it happens the destruction is forgotten about. We go from Superman killing Zod to a crack about Clark being hot in the span of minutes. And the very end of the movie has life pretty much going back to normal in Metropolis. Didn't feel sound to me after such heavy devastation on an environmental and character level.

 

[ThePhantasm]

I'll grant that point, and agree.

But while the actual destruction was happening, the film didn't pull any punches.

Honestly the Joker kills a lot of people in TDK, and Bane kills a lot of people in TDKR. Joker gassed and killed an entire crowd in Batman 89. I'm not sure why widespread destruction in MOS makes it such an awful film while those others are considered A-okay.

 

[Brother Jack]

I didn't have a problem with the destruction in it. It was Superman's apparent indifference toward it that felt wrong. But that's a whole other can of worms.

 

[ThePhantasm]

I didn't see indifference when Zod was about to heat ray an innocent family and Superman was crying for him to please stop, and then broke his neck...

 

[Brother Jack]

I didn't see indifference when Zod was about to heat ray an innocent family and Superman was crying for him to please stop, and then broke his neck...

No, but I felt it was inconsistent with what was shown before. Superman not attempting to move the fight out of the city, the earlier fight in Smallville, etc. Obviously the whole reason he was fighting Zod in the first place was to stop him from killing people but the wanton action didn't paint Superman as the most compassionate figure. Again, for me.

 

[Reek]

a friend of mine is going to make my jetski look like the batpod. ill post pics when its done... i plan on wearing my Dominoes TDK batmask and a cape and ride around in a bathing suit.

 

[The Shape]

a friend of mine is going to make my jetski look like the batpod. ill post pics when its done... i plan on wearing my Dominoes TDK batmask and a cape and ride around in a bathing suit.

Alrighty then.

 

[BlueLightning]

About the Man of Steel topic.

I like the film. But the message the film conveys is not a clear one. The turning point for me is perhaps the aforementioned neck-snapping of Zod, I think it was well depicted character wise. As we learn in the film, it's the first time Clark is doing superheroics. He isn't a trained man, unlike Zod. He is a farm person, and a peaceful one. Zod is a general with combat experience. The only advantage that Clark had over the Kryptonians was that he was already adapted to Earth's environment, and could use other sensory powers over them.

When Zod willingly gains a level of mastery over those abilities, then all bets are off. The thing is, Clark isn't able to hold a fight with Zod for very long, and when Zod's target isn't Clark but innocent bystanders, trying to move to fight out of town is pointless. The same can be said about the Smallville fight.

However, was it really necessary? I mean the world established by the film allow these events to happen, so it doesn't have incongruity. But, it was worth it to allow this world to be. It is the choices the writers made that are a little doubtful. It is clear that Superman isn't a killer, but I don't know if it was worth to put him on that predicament in the first place. Ultimately, Superman ends doing what Zod told him "There's only one way this ends, Kal. Either you die, or I do" At the end, Superman proves Zod is right. Not a very hopeful message.

Also in that line, the Kryptonians are sent to the Phantom Zone by turning Superman's ship into a wormhole generator. A weaponized cradle. Again, the message here is very muddled. And for all we know, Emil Hamilton dies. If that's true, it is a huge mistake.

We don't get to see the aftermath of the destruction either. I though it would be a good excuse to bring Luthor to the sequel. He now would have ammunition against the hero, in this case for their first time a valid concern. And yes, much to my chagrin, Batman too. What we get is a rushed ending, almost a coda, in which the status quo is set and it does in a uplifting way. It isn't well connected to the destruction seen earlier. Perhaps an scene or two of news reports of Superman helping to the victims of the disaster, or helping rebuild the city... and then the ending.

That's why the revelation of the statue resonates with me. Are the people of Earth going to trust this man? After all that happened? I mean, we know that he saved the Earth, but the people of Earth have conscience of this. It isn't well established, a "He saved us" from the Olsen lady isn't going to cut it.

As some poster said before, a Superman film is about hope, but the film only talks about hope. It doesn't show what hope is about. The fact that the sequel is more of an event film than a progression of the Superman franchise diminishes my own hope that the sequel would use these caveats and turning them in a good thing in the bigger scheme of things.

 

[shauner111]

The final scenes of MOS seem to just ignore everything that came before it. As if it was from a different movie. Good scenes on their own, a good ending to a Superman origin film, but it makes no sense in context.

A lot of the destruction was fine, same with the fights. But there were moments when Zod and Superman are fighting, where it becomes too much. Throwing each other through buildings over and over without some breathing room is not the best idea in the world, because it leaves you numb to the destruction. Same with the amount of times a spaceship falls to the ground causing chaos. If there was a little more balance with these scenes, then people wouldn't be blaming Snyder for pulling a Michael Bay with all of that "destruction porn".

Other than that, and perhaps a couple of cheesy lines of dialogue, the movie was very solid. It had the potential to be GREAT. Really. Im talking 5/5 great because there were amazing scenes throughout this movie. But now i just give it a 3/5.

The score was also fantastic. I was never a fan of the John Williams score so it was my cup of tea.

Still, MOS could have been even better than Batman Begins but i feel like it fell flat. It was coming after Iron Man 3 and The Dark Knight Rises. I thought it slaughtered IM but didn't come near Rises. There were some technical things that bothered me but it wasn't enough to stop me from enjoying a good blockbuster movie. Directing decisions (constant snap zooms: i hate those things) and a messy tone (Star Wars opening into attempted Batman Begins territory into Independance Day back into Batman Begins then into Avengers/Transformers then finally ending it on a happy Superman note).

 

[BatLobster]

a friend of mine is going to make my jetski look like the batpod. ill post pics when its done... i plan on wearing my Dominoes TDK batmask and a cape and ride around in a bathing suit.

You have a jetski? Damn I'm jelly.

As for MoS, yeah I think it's that disconnect between the utter devastation of the third act and the coda at the end. If you compare it to Batman Begins, it's not quite the same...there aren't mass casualties. The Narrows is lost, some people are probably screwed up from the toxin, but they at least established that they have an antidote. With Man of Steel it would seem that there were high casualties from all that destruction. And Clark just went through the agony of murdering the last remaining Kryptonian other than himself. It's a lot of heavy stuff, then the tone shifts quite a bit. The scene with Martha and Clark is nice, I think overall they just needed a beat where it's clearly expressed that the world is going to be needing someone/something to lift their spirits after such devastation and Clark knows he has to be the one to do that.

 

[Travesty]

a friend of mine is going to make my jetski look like the batpod. ill post pics when its done... i plan on wearing my Dominoes TDK batmask and a cape and ride around in a bathing suit.

 

[Gray Ghost]

I agree with what Happy Jack (is this a The Who reference?) and BlueLightning wrote and then there is this:

The final scenes of MOS seem to just ignore everything that came before it. As if it was from a different movie. Good scenes on their own, a good ending to a Superman origin film, but it makes no sense in context.

Exactly. It's like they accidently filmed the ending of a different screenplay.
Metropolis is reduced to a post-apocalyptic wasteland and the movie skips right to "He's hot" and "I've got court-side tickets for tonight". It's jarring.

So you prefer your citywide destruction sanitized and consequence free, so that you can keep the illusion that somehow miraculously no one was harmed?

I'm honestly tired of citywide destruction in general. I prefer it to be done like in The Avengers where it happens sort of in the periphery while the focus is on the characters rather than the destruction for the sake of destruction in MoS.

 

[I Am The Knight]

It's like the film was missing a scene between Superman screaming in agony and the drone scene. It's kinda weird. I don't know whose's idea was to just not address what happened in the film at all. I understand it's juicy material for a sequel, but I mean, you have to give the audience something. It was too catastrophic. I don't remember how much destruction there was in the Avengers, but I don't think it was comparable to the destruction depicted in Man of Steel.

Honestly, for me, just a quick montage of Superman helping the city back on it's feet would have sufficed. You could still have Luthor manipulating the media in the sequel, because, let's face it, it seems like Earth was a whole lot safer before Kal-El landed here. Superman should be a response to what's going in the world, not be the reason why the world was going to end. Indirectly, of course.

 

[shauner111]

Yeah and now a year after the events of MOS, Metropolis is honoring Superman with a statue? They better reference or show us through flashbacks, all the things he's done in the meantime to help the city. Because if they gave him a statue based on the end of MOS, that's ridiculous. I would guess that more people would think like Lex Luthor..that he's cost them money and lives just from his presence alone. Of course some will side with him and see him as the hero, but the haters should outweigh them after what happened with Zod.

I feel like the statue is not well-deserved yet. Rises did it right. A Superman statue should be placed at the end of Batman vs Superman once people stop believing Lex and they see Superman help them like a pure hero. But like i said, if they acknowledge a tremendous amount of good deeds Supes has done between MOS & BvS, then im fine with it.

 

[Travesty]

Batman saves Gotham from a nuke? A well deserved statue.

Superman saves the entire world from complete annihilation? Not deserved yet.

 

[shauner111]

Batman saves Gotham from a nuke? A well deserved statue.

Superman saves the entire world from complete annihilation? Not deserved yet.

Absolutely. When you put it like that then you're right, but what about the details? He is an alien, it's his fault that earth was in danger in the first place. It's all on him whether it was intentional or not. He tried to save the planet and did, but the government should want to take his ass out after MOS. He's the cause of everything. Get rid of him. For all they know he's going to attract more aliens who may still be out there. And that's why i said, if they show him doing good deeds, helping the entire planet over the course of two years before Batman vs Superman starts up, then yes he deserves a statue. Deserves to be praised by the city AND the world. But praise based on the end of MOS? I dont buy it.

 

[Kane52630]

By that logic, it's all Batman's fault for Bane and Talia showing up in TDKR. And going by the comics, Batman's the cause of every villain who breaks out of Arkham.

 

[shauner111]

Higher ups from different countries, on the other side of the planet should be thinking of taking action against Superman. The statue thing feels rushed after we just got the origin story.

 

[The Shape]

A statue for Superman 2 years after the events of MOS can make perfect sense. It's not hard to imagine all the good Superman will have done for the world within that 2-year period. It's not as if Man of Steel happened, then Superman went away for 2 years and pops up again for BvS.

 

[shauner111]

By that logic, it's all Batman's fault for Bane and Talia showing up in TDKR. And going by the comics, Batman's the cause of every villain who breaks out of Arkham.

It is, but the public doesn't know that. They never will. They dont know about Batmans ties to the league of shadows. So that's irrelevant to my point since the whole world knows Superman is an alien who is the reason behind the invasion. Zod tells the world they're there for him.

They have also gone through many years where they painted Batman as the villain with no trust at all. Then they find out that Batman took the blame for something he didnt do, just so they can have peace. PLUS he saves the city at the end. Damn right he deserves that statue.

 

[shauner111]

A statue for Superman 2 years after the events of MOS can make perfect sense. It's not hard to imagine all the good Superman will have done for the world within that 2-year period. It's not as if Man of Steel happened, then Superman went away for 2 years and pops up again for BvS.

Exactly, and that's what im saying. I just ask that they show what he's done, or at least go into detail about it at the start of the movie.

What i dont want is a scene showing this statue and all of Metropolis have glossy eyes as they stare at it and celebrate Superman, then we hear the Mayor or somebody talk about how the statue has been there in honor of Superman saving the planet the night Zod died. Then they brush the rest off. I dont want that happening.

 

[The Shape]

Exactly, and that's what im saying. I just ask that they show what he's done, or at least go into detail about it at the start of the movie.

What i dont want is a scene showing this statue and all of Metropolis have glossy eyes as they stare at it and celebrate Superman, then we hear the Mayor or somebody talk about how the statue has been there in honor of Superman saving the planet the night Zod died. Then they brush the rest off. I dont want that happening.

I don't think that will happen.