I have a theory about MOS. You know how Star Wars and the Nolan Bat films, they both have an optimistic, postive feeling first film, in which the main character grows from youth/niavety, becomes the hero and wins a victory leaving you feeling upbeat. And then a challenging, bleaker second film that leaves you questioning everything and wondering if it's worth it. I think MOS tried to be the "traditional hero trilogy" first movie and second movie in one, and that is why it feels crammed and muddled to so many. I am not against this series having the destruction or situation of him being forced to kill, but it should have come later after hero is established and found his place in the world, not so soon, in the supposedly hopeful origin movie.
What are your complaints? What would you do differently? *SPOILERS* - Part 1
- Thread starter Thread Manager
- Start date
That's one of the things that bugged me about the Zod resolution (and before anybody goes there, no, it had nothing to do with Superman being a boyscout who doesn't kill his enemies). He lets out a howl for a genocidal nutjob, but where was the sorrow and reflection for the people of Metropolis? I think it's fair to say that they deserved it far more than Zod ever did. It just seemed very unfounded and awkward to me, especially since his outlook on killing was never explored throughout the movie. The next few scenes certainly didn't help in this regard either, as it made the entire situation seem forgettable and tacked on(as it likely was, considering the state of the writing).
Persistence
Civilian
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2014
- Messages
- 596
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 11
Agreed with all...although I may be forgiving of 4 depending on how its narrated in the proper context. I pretty much agree the world Snyder creates doesn't really need Superman until Superman accidentally triggers his fellow Kryptonians to attack Earth.
sf2
Superhero
- Joined
- May 2, 2005
- Messages
- 6,591
- Reaction score
- 15
- Points
- 58
??? Does our world (the real world) need superman???
you want a Gotham-like world, and "here comes superman; the new god saving all these pitiful people, worship him" kinda approach?
most audience don't buy that anymore.
Batmannerism
Super-unknown
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2012
- Messages
- 7,096
- Reaction score
- 4,770
- Points
- 103
I've replied to that post before, and while I respect other people's opinions, there's quite a bit in it that's not quite correct - not as an opinion but a matter of fact, particularly in Superman saving people, because if you count them,
who else could he have saved ?
But since you brought it up again, here was my reply.... you may disagree and I respect that, but a lot of the things that were pulled up as criticisms actually make MOS terrific for a lot of others, myself included.
1. Long kryptonian sequence:
An awesome action sequence on a reimagined Krypton that broke with the visual tradition of previous films. Furthermore it set up the future conflict between Zod and Superman, and was a better explanation for why Krypton was destroyed than any previous film or comic book - basically they ruined their own environment and their society stagnated due to eugenics. They destroyed themselves.
2. Exposition well acted out by strong performers:
A visually engaging, and well-timed exposition sequence that allowed Cavill and Crowe to share the screen, and was at least as good, if not better than the Marlon Brando acid-trip, from Superman the movie. Furthermore, it was absolutely necessary for Clark to learn about and connect with his origins, it was a turning point in the story, and for the character, who if you noticed Cavill plays with more confidence from that point onward (note, after this point we see Superman start to smile, something young Clark didn't do).
3. Codex plot and Biogineering plot:
An interesting way to make Superman literally the "Last Son of Krypton" but also for him to make it possible for Krypton live again - this of course fed Zod's madness and made the motivation for him coming to Earth completely understandable.
Furthermore, the very fact of his "natural" birth made Clark able to choose his own future, something kryptonians are incapable of doing.
5. Fate of Colonies:
Again, no way for Zod to restart Krypton without Kal El, thus reinforcing the need to get to Earth, and further developed the history of Krypton as mentioned by Jor El, in the opening and exposition scenes - nice sense of continuity. Also explains where Zod got the world engine, as he certainly didn't bring it back from the Phantom Zone.
6. Reactive Superman:
This film was a different interpretation of Superman, he's a very conflicted character who doesn't know his place in the world. Also, he's trying to hide his true identity and abilities from the world, as suggested by Jonathan Kent, until the world is ready. As such, if he goes out looking for trouble, he has a greater chance of exposing himself.
In fact, the depiction of him as a regular guy who is just trying to work out his place in the world, and helps out when he can, makes him more relatable. He's not a saint, he's just a guy....until he finds out that it's his role to save the world.
The story of the hero who hides from his destiny is a very old one, but its been around a long time, because it's a classic.
7. Does the world really need Superman?:
Luckily Clark was there when that oil rig was on fire, and those kids went into the river (and we can surmise that there were more events like that in his childhood, which Pete's mom hinted at).
True, Superman has to rise up to face Zod, and Zod is on Earth looking for Superman. It's a bit circular. However, the idea is that Superman changes everything, once he's out in the open the world changes, and other super-heroes start appearing.
This argument could be, and often is applied to Batman as well since his worst enemy, the Joker, only exists because he does.
It's true that this crisis was truly "A job for Superman" but then does the world need him afterwards, this is a comic book movie, and as such some new threat is sure to emerge.
8.Fathers Plot:
Man of Steel took the Father's plot from Superman the movie and turned it on its head. Jor El told Kal that he was forbidden to interfere in human history, but here he wants Kal to actively lead humanity towards a better tomorrow. In fact it's suggested that he wanted Kal to re-start Krypton, but in peaceful coexistance with humans.
As far as Jonathan Kent, he didn't have the benefit of knowing about Clark's true origins, other than that he was an alien. That whole speech about how the world would change if Clark's origins were ever discovered, was true. Jonathan could see the big picture.
Perhaps Jonathan's death could have been done a bit differently, perhaps using teenage Clark (Dylan Spraybury) would have worked better. But if nothing else it shows us that Superman's Earth parents raised him to be capable of loving other people and caring for them.
9. Great Character arc:
Clark has been rescuing people from his early teens, sometimes against his father's advice. He continues to do so in adulthood, as he wanders the Earth, trying to find a place to fit in.
Finally, he meets his true father and his world changes. He returns "home" smiling for the first time, happy at last -not only does he know who he really is, but why he's here in the first place.
The hero is later forced to make a choice between his original people and his adopted home. A tough choice that affects him deeply.
At the end of the film he's completely accepted his destiny, hence the double meaning of the words "Welcome to the Planet"
And the suit, well at last he's got some clothing that will survive all the heroics (unlike his pants after the oil rig fire).
10.Great Character moments:.
-
- The bus crash, no dialogue necessary, just a few looks and you know everything you need to about what those kids were thinking.
- "You're the answer son"
- Clark/Kal meets Jor El "Kal....that's my name ?" first smile in the film.
- Flight, nothing is easy for Clark, even learning to fly. Again no dialogue necessary, an epic voice-over and Cavill's expressions.
- "I found them, my parents, my people."
- "Take a leap of faith."
- " A good death is it's own reward."
- "And now I have no people..." utter despair
11 Uplifting moments:
It was great seeing Clark develop from troubled loner into superhero. That was uplifting.
Especially seeing Superman learn to fly. That was awesome.
Particularly from a kid who was picked on and bullied to standing up for himself (and his planet).
Those character moments listed above were pretty uplifting.
12.World Reaction:
Saved something for subsequent films. Although a little bit of reaction would have gone a long way, we're left guessing and that's something to look forward to in the sequel.
13. Secret Identity:
Fantastic, they got rid of the ridiculous idea that an investigative journalist is fooled by a suit and pair of glasses.
The very fact that Lois discovered Clark, and calls him "Clark" vastly improves her as a character, and makes so much more sense for their relationship.
All of Smallville probably know about Clark Kent.
14. Humor:
A much more serious Superman, someone burdened by his gifts and who carries enormous responsibility. It makes him a bit more heroic that he bears these burdens and is still a regular guy.
There are a few light moments, but they're few and far between. It's a departure from previous films, but it still works.
15. Superman saving People
In this film Superman saves Lois Lane at least twice, a busload of kids, a bunch of oil roughnecks, a helicopter gunner, a family in a train station, and of course the entire human race.
Superman literally saves the world, well at least humanity from extinction. Pretty good for his first film.
In fact that he's a jeans-wearing-budweiser-drinking-manual labour job-watching NFL-helping mom with the dishes-beard and chest hair sporting-Superman is a fantastic change. A total departure from the suit wearing bumbling Clark Kent, who was brilliantly portrayed by Chris Reeve (and absolutely ruined by Brandon Routh).
Big ups to Snyder/Nolan and co for having the balls to do something different with Superman -that's what re-interpretations/reimaginings are all about (like the newer Battlestar Galactica) they make us look at our heroes in a new way.
If you didn't like the film, fair call, I respect your opinion.
These are just some suggestions about an alternate interpretation of the things you list as weaknesses or mistakes - because for some people, they were what made the movie great.
spiderral
Sidekick
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2008
- Messages
- 1,180
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 31
I wanted MoS to feel more like a "Superman" film; it just felt like an alien, putting on a suit, and then endlessly fighting other aliens. That's how I felt towards the 2nd half of the film anyway; the first half was good but felt dragged on a little too much.
the last son
Superhero
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,349
- Reaction score
- 77
- Points
- 33
Instead of destroying the truck, Clark should've dragged the trucker out by his collar manhandling him.
DrexBat21
A hero can be anyone
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Messages
- 500
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 11
"I've been here 33 years...I haven't affected anybody yet."
"I grew up in Kansas"
Couldn't we find out Supes' true identity with these 2 facts alone?
Also, is the MOS film the first time we find out that the "S" stands for a Hope and is not simply the letter "S", or is it stated anytime in a comic book issue?
Thanks.
"I grew up in Kansas"
Couldn't we find out Supes' true identity with these 2 facts alone?
Also, is the MOS film the first time we find out that the "S" stands for a Hope and is not simply the letter "S", or is it stated anytime in a comic book issue?
Thanks.
WBwins
Sidekick
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,160
- Reaction score
- 63
- Points
- 73
Thanks.Thought long and hard on them
Not a Gotham-Like world.A Gotham Like world would need Batman not Superman.
Batman is a Crimefighter-So naturally the world that needs him will be one that suffers Crime i.e Gotham.
Superman is a Rescueworker-So naturally the world that needs him is one that needs Rescuing from Disasters-Eathquake,Tsunamis,freak storms the like.
Imagine if MOS had potrayed the world like that-a world frequently suffering natural disasters.That would be a world that is crying out in need for Superman and when Superman shows up it would mean hope-hope for the people of Earth to see another Future.
Im not sure what part of my post isnt correct.I was stating my opinion on various segments of the movie I disliked.On the Superman saves -I mean i disappionted with the Superman rescue count-and i mean Superman in suit rescue count.He only saved lois,his mom,and a pilot.And I mean rescues Superman rescuing people from physical danger on screen.
As for your rebuttals tomy list-Thats clearly your opinion so i cant reply it.What I and others saw as weaknesses you saw as a strength.Not much to say there
First off I scored this movie 7/10 that means I liked it DESPITE it being a flawed film.Unlike some MOS lovers I can seethe flaws clearly without Bias
I actually LOVED the potrayal of Clark.Yes I loved the he's a jeans-wearing-budweiser-drinking-manual labour job-watching NFL-helping mom with the dishes-beard and chest hair sporting-Superman.
Batmannerism
Super-unknown
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2012
- Messages
- 7,096
- Reaction score
- 4,770
- Points
- 103
Very true, those were opinions, not really rebuttals, just a different way of looking at those same things -from the perspective of someone who found them as strengths in the film, rather than weaknesses.
As for the correct bit, well that's specifically in terms of Superman saving people. Your opinions, I completely respect. But on this particular point, I have trouble seeing where you're coming from.
In the film Superman saves.....
- the busload of kids and the oil workers (while not wearing the Super suit).
- Lois (twice), his mom, the helicopter gunner, the family in the train station, and the entire human race (while wearing the Super suit)
I struggle with the criticism that Superman didn't save enough people. By destroying the world engine (and also by killing Zod) he saved the human race from imminent extinction.
Just something to think about. The idea that Superman is a rescue worker IMO comes from Superman the movie, and in that it's great (I loved the helicopter bit with Lois Lane, it's magic !), because in that film all he does is rescue people - why, because there's no physical match for him to fight, due to the story.
However, in the comics Superman still does that sort of stuff, but spends the majority of the time battling the forces of evil, which he usually does by punching them in the face ( watch the 75 years of Superman short, and count the number of punches he throws) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebXB0lBoaQ0
Given that Superman does actually prevent the extinction of humanity in this film, I find it very hard to reconcile with complaints that he didn't save enough people - that would be a lot more than Reeve saved in Superman the Movie.
To be honest I am totally biased, having been a Superman fan since I was a kid. That doesn't mean I automatically am going to like any film that has Superman in it (because I HATED Superman Returns).
All films have flaws, even the Godfather, The Dark Knight, The Empire STrikes Back and definitely MOS. Even so, I still don't see anything you mentioned as a flaw, in fact it was that stuff that made me enjoy it so much - if that makes me biased, well, I can live with that.
Probably the one thing I would change about MOS, if I could have, would have been the Tornado scene, because while it worked for me, I feel like it could have been done better. What would have really made it something powerful, is if they'd used Dylan Spraybury instead of Henry Cavill. That would have made it work better IMO.
Interestingly, I went into MOS expecting to hate it, so nobody was more surprised than me when I ended up loving it, after the first viewing !
The Question
Objectivism doesn't work.
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2005
- Messages
- 40,541
- Reaction score
- 30
- Points
- 58
The problem with Superman saving people or not saving people in Man of Steel has nothing to do with total numbers. The problem is that he makes no attempt to minimize collateral damage in the final fight with Zod and he doesn't express any kind of emotional reaction to the collateral damage during that sequence. This is a problem in the movie because it is inconsistent characterization on the part of Clark, it rings false as it does not feel like a genuine human reaction to that kind of situation from the kind of person Clark has been established to be, and it denotes a lack of awareness of the gravitas and the meaning of the kinds of events being portrayed by the storytellers, all of which take people out of the film. Also, the justification/rational for that lack of concern that people use, that Superman saved the entire human race so the collateral damage was justified (which doesn't even address the complaint, as the complaint has nothing to do with the practicality of tactics and everything to do with how effectively the film conveyed genuine human emotion and the meaning and ramifications of huge situations, and the notion of moral sacrifice and the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few wasn't even brought up at any point in the film in that context, so it's not like that justification is something that's actually present in the movie) is reflective of a kind of pragmatic militaristic moral flexibility that has been used to justify all manner of atrocities and oppressive regimes in the past and that people find in of itself morally repugnant. That's what people mean when they say that Superman doesn't save enough people, it has absolutely nothing to do with tallying the total number of saves and everything to do with the way in which the matter is framed and presented in the narrative.
Last edited:
smallville fan
Hero
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2009
- Messages
- 5,207
- Reaction score
- 134
- Points
- 73
Superman didn't have time to do any of that, besides the sequel does plan on addressing that.
The Question
Objectivism doesn't work.
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2005
- Messages
- 40,541
- Reaction score
- 30
- Points
- 58
1: As I already said in the very text you are quoting, the practicality of Superman's tactics has absolutely nothing to do with the complaint. The complaint isn't about practicality or tactics, it's about how effectively the film conveys genuine human emotion that feels natural to the audience. The character did not have any kind of emotional reaction to what was going on around him that would have been in-line with how he had been established up until that point or otherwise believable for a person in such a horrific situation who had never before experienced anything like it.
Also, the film never addressed his not having time to save people or react to what was happening as being a factor. We never see a change in his attitude as he takes a moment to look at the consequences of his and Zod's actions once he has time to reflect on the catastrophe that happened around him. We never see the utter devastation and death that he was in the center of actually sink in for him once things slow down and get quiet. It's not a justification that exists within the film.
You're absolutely right that Superman didn't have time to do any of those things. But a major flaw in the movie is that we never saw him try to do those things and fail. That would have been a truly genuine emotional reaction that would have roped the audience into that scene and that character's dilemma and amped up the stakes of the film so much more.
And I would like to point out that you are using the very same morally dubious and not especially applicable "ends justify the means" argument that I mentioned in my post.
2: The fact that something that was missing from a movie will be in another movie does not retroactively rectify its absence in the first movie. It's still not in Man of Steel, and that film suffers for it.
Last edited:
WBwins
Sidekick
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,160
- Reaction score
- 63
- Points
- 73
Exactly.
The same thing can be said about the lack of the World reaction in the movie.Saving it for the next movie doesnt make MOS better for it.We should have seen how the world reacts to Superman throughout the movie.
Ive really been tempted to do rewrite of MOS script-just to show what could havebeen
Batmannerism
Super-unknown
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2012
- Messages
- 7,096
- Reaction score
- 4,770
- Points
- 103
You can ask anyone I've posted a reply to, I make it a rule to be civil, particularly when I disagree with people.
So, having said that, I respect your opinion - which seems to be that
you didn't like the film- but I find the extent of your criticism a bit hard
to take seriously, given the genre you're talking about.
First, comic book film. Second he was kind of busy, fighting Zod, minimizing collateral damage was not something he really had time for, nor was there having a big cry about the possible casualties. Besides, there were bigger concerns at stake, like the distinct possibility that Zod, had just vowed to wipe out humanity.
Besides, in the Smallville battle, we see precisely what happens when Superman tries to save someone in the middle of a battle (like when he saves the copter gunner) POW ! he gets nailed, and the bad guys are free
to slaughter more innocents.
If you want to complain about collateral damage, maybe you should point towards those jets who were strafing down the main street, or perhaps the jet pilots who launched missiles at the kryptonian ship, while it was directly over a heavily populated area.......oh wait, maybe they should have tried to minimize collateral damage, or expressed some emotional reaction to it.
I don't often resort to sarcasm, but you are aware this is a Superhero film ?
"gravitas and the meaning of the kinds of events being portrayed" well, what kind of emotion would you consider genuine for a genocidal alien terraforming attack ? What would you base that reaction on......since that kind of stuff only happens in movies and comic books ? I think you're in the wrong genre friend if you're looking for gravitas and meaning. Have you read many Superman comics ? It's tough to talk about gravitas and meaning when the central character wears a skintight suit and a red cape, and can fly.
Did you complain this much when Thor and Iron man didn't have a huge emotional reaction when they were wiping out Chitauri left and right, or when Thor fried those flying monsters, over a heavily populated area...... and what did the Hulk do to minimize collateral damage ?
How much gravitas was there in Avengers, when they were fighting ? Not a lot, but why would their be ? It's a comic book film !
Well, to be honest, I don't think they needed to actually point out the justification. It's just kind of obvious (especially when one of the characters
actually says " He saved us." ).
As for the film conveying emotion, well you might not have thought so but there was plenty of it in a lot of different scenes, particularly in Superman's reaction after he has to kill Zod.
Again, a super-hero film, where the main character saves the human race, and that somehow goes alongside the moral repugnance you mention. So, you're saying that Superman's actions were militaristic pragmatism ?
Are you comparing Superman saving humanity to oppressive regimes or an atrocity ? I think the slightly less justified atrocity would have been letting Zod wipe out the human race. They were pretty explicit about that too, with the dream sequence full of skulls.
Did you hate Star Wars ? When Luke Skywalker blows up the death star, thousands of crew died, probably plenty of guys who just oiled the machines, worked in the cafeteria, or polished Vader's helmet collection.
And that bastard Luke, who's meant to be one of the most noble and pure humans in the galaxy, what does he do ? Does he try and minimize the collateral damage, or have an emotional reaction ? He cheers......how terrible !
So, it doesn't matter that Superman saved billions of lives, you just don't like the way he did it ?
Okay, that's your opinion and I try really hard to respect others opinions, but with yours I'm struggling, because you are taking a comic book film, too damn seriously. If you don't like the film, that I can respect, but I think you have gone a bit OTT with some of your statements. I don't mean any disrespect to you personally, and I appreciate that you express yourself in a very articulate manner. It sounds like you are looking for stuff within the genre that you should be looking someplace else for.
Dude you really need to lighten up. Watch this video, it's funny.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJ2yRTRlMFU
So, having said that, I respect your opinion - which seems to be that
you didn't like the film- but I find the extent of your criticism a bit hard
to take seriously, given the genre you're talking about.
First, comic book film. Second he was kind of busy, fighting Zod, minimizing collateral damage was not something he really had time for, nor was there having a big cry about the possible casualties. Besides, there were bigger concerns at stake, like the distinct possibility that Zod, had just vowed to wipe out humanity.
Besides, in the Smallville battle, we see precisely what happens when Superman tries to save someone in the middle of a battle (like when he saves the copter gunner) POW ! he gets nailed, and the bad guys are free
to slaughter more innocents.
If you want to complain about collateral damage, maybe you should point towards those jets who were strafing down the main street, or perhaps the jet pilots who launched missiles at the kryptonian ship, while it was directly over a heavily populated area.......oh wait, maybe they should have tried to minimize collateral damage, or expressed some emotional reaction to it.
I don't often resort to sarcasm, but you are aware this is a Superhero film ?
"gravitas and the meaning of the kinds of events being portrayed" well, what kind of emotion would you consider genuine for a genocidal alien terraforming attack ? What would you base that reaction on......since that kind of stuff only happens in movies and comic books ? I think you're in the wrong genre friend if you're looking for gravitas and meaning. Have you read many Superman comics ? It's tough to talk about gravitas and meaning when the central character wears a skintight suit and a red cape, and can fly.
Did you complain this much when Thor and Iron man didn't have a huge emotional reaction when they were wiping out Chitauri left and right, or when Thor fried those flying monsters, over a heavily populated area...... and what did the Hulk do to minimize collateral damage ?
How much gravitas was there in Avengers, when they were fighting ? Not a lot, but why would their be ? It's a comic book film !
Well, to be honest, I don't think they needed to actually point out the justification. It's just kind of obvious (especially when one of the characters
actually says " He saved us." ).
As for the film conveying emotion, well you might not have thought so but there was plenty of it in a lot of different scenes, particularly in Superman's reaction after he has to kill Zod.
Again, a super-hero film, where the main character saves the human race, and that somehow goes alongside the moral repugnance you mention. So, you're saying that Superman's actions were militaristic pragmatism ?
Are you comparing Superman saving humanity to oppressive regimes or an atrocity ? I think the slightly less justified atrocity would have been letting Zod wipe out the human race. They were pretty explicit about that too, with the dream sequence full of skulls.
Did you hate Star Wars ? When Luke Skywalker blows up the death star, thousands of crew died, probably plenty of guys who just oiled the machines, worked in the cafeteria, or polished Vader's helmet collection.
And that bastard Luke, who's meant to be one of the most noble and pure humans in the galaxy, what does he do ? Does he try and minimize the collateral damage, or have an emotional reaction ? He cheers......how terrible !
So, it doesn't matter that Superman saved billions of lives, you just don't like the way he did it ?
Okay, that's your opinion and I try really hard to respect others opinions, but with yours I'm struggling, because you are taking a comic book film, too damn seriously. If you don't like the film, that I can respect, but I think you have gone a bit OTT with some of your statements. I don't mean any disrespect to you personally, and I appreciate that you express yourself in a very articulate manner. It sounds like you are looking for stuff within the genre that you should be looking someplace else for.
Dude you really need to lighten up. Watch this video, it's funny.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJ2yRTRlMFU
Last edited:
The Question
Objectivism doesn't work.
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2005
- Messages
- 40,541
- Reaction score
- 30
- Points
- 58
1: "It's a superhero movie" is not a justification. The film's genre has nothing to do with it. Genuinely conveying human emotion and the meaning and consequences of events isn't something that is only to be found in Terrence Mallick films, it's a fundamental quality of all good storytelling. And, it is something that other superhero movies have managed to pull off. The Avengers, Chris Nolan's Batman Movies, Sam Raimi's Spider-Man movies, the X-Men franchise, the Richard Donner Superman films, the Iron Man movies, and the Captain America movies all did it. Even the Thor movies and The Incredible Hulk, which weren't very good for other reasons, understood that characters have to react genuinely to events and that the significance of events has to be addressed in order to create a meaningful movie going experience.
I find it interesting that you cite The avengers as an example of another film that also doesn't do these thing that Man of Steel didn't do, because The Avengers did all of those things. That film showed The Avengers taking the loss of civilian life into account in their tactics, it showed the emotional toll that the battle was taking on all the participants, it focused on the effect this devastation had on the people of New York, the fear and the tragedy of their experience, and the film took the time to reflect on the seriousness of the events that took place, both the joy of victory and the tragedy of loss as well as the implications these events have for the future, through the news video montage that followed the battle.
2: Your Star Wars argument isn't exactly appropriate. The complaint here isn't one of literal moral outrage aimed and an actual person, neither Superman nor Star Wars are real and none of these things actually happened. The complaint is about how effectively the fun portrays genuine human reactions to extreme situations and how effectively the film addresses the seriousness of serious things and their consequences. Star Wars did both of those things near perfectly. People reacted to things the way that people would react to those things and things that were big deals were tested with seriousness and reverence. Star Wars did portray the enemy soldiers as nameless faceless expendable goons, which is kind of iffy, but that's a separate issue.
Also, I don't dislike Man of Steel solely because of this one failing. Man of Steel has MANY failings, many more failings than successes. This is just the one we're talking about now.
3: Of course the film needed to point out the justification. A highly empathetic humanitarian who has spent the entire movie talking about how he wants to save people suddenly giving no thought to collateral damage and having no reaction of any kind to destruction going on around him that is obviously causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people is a huge character moment. Not addressing the importance of that character moment is an enormous storytelling oversight.
Batmannerism
Super-unknown
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2012
- Messages
- 7,096
- Reaction score
- 4,770
- Points
- 103
I take your point that good storytelling involves some kind of reaction to significant events, but I disagree that MOS didn't do that - true, it didn't show an extended reaction either by the general populace or Superman, to the destruction of metropolis. Of course, Superman does show a reaction, once he gets a second to catch his breath, after killing Zod.
Fair point about the news montage, to show the rest of the world's reaction to the Avengers. But not the Avengers' reaction though. Do they even have one ? BTW this is not me criticizing the Avengers, they just do what they have to do. Which is pretty much what Superman does.
In terms of the Avengers taking civilian life into account in their tactics,
maybe Captain America did in the bank scene- but then he wasn't fighting a single being that was attacking him full on, and had the power to wipe out the human race - who could demolish a skyscraper with a punch or burst of heat vision. Instead he was fighting lots of faceless goons, none of whom was even close to his equal.
( hmmmm....stormtroopers anyone ?). As for Hulk and Thor, where was their emotional reaction to the destruction (or any of the other Avengers for that mattter, where does Hawkeye shed a tear for the fallen? Nowhere, he's too busy putting arrows into every invader he sees? )
Does Thor take time out from Squashing Chitauri to search the rubble for
survivors.....nope, because he can't he's too busy preventing more casualties by fighting the invaders.
In fact, Superman shows more reaction to the death of the one person he has to kill in the film, than any of the Avengers show towards the to the hundreds of Chitauri they Avengers slaughter.
After Iron Man throws a nuclear weapon at the Chitauri mothership, killing how many of them, his emotional reaction is..........the shwarma joke. Which is fair, because its totally in character.
In terms of moral outrage. Well, you're the one who claimed the greater good argument (which is applied here in the context of Superman saving the entire human race ) was just militaristic pragmatism, used to justify atrocities and oppressive regimes, sounds like moral outrage to me.
Seriousness and reverence in Star Wars? Woohoo I just blew up the death star. That's pretty serious, but Luke is overjoyed, why a) because it's in character !
b) because he's just saved all his friends.
Now the personal stuff in Star Wars ..."No, I am your father" that stuff is dealt with brilliantly. In fact MOS deals with the personal stuff too, eg Superman's scenes with his mom, his reaction at Zod's death etc. I won't say it does it as well as Star Wars, because those scenes in Star Wars are just so iconic. I do think that MOS did them effectively. In particular, when Clark comes back from the Arctic, he's a changed man, more confident and upbeat and happy at last, having uncovered his identity - something Cavill and Snyder portrayed very well.
By the way, in Star Wars, how did they deal with the end of the Empire ? Seriousness and reverence ?
They had a rave with the Ewoks, kind of cheesy, given that its the end of tyrrany for trillions of people. It's a celebration........kind of like when Clark and Martha visit Jonathan's grave, to affirm that Clark's parents always knew he would change the world, and in this case, save it.
That's fair, I disagree, but I respect your opinion. If you didn't like it, fair enough.
Really ? I'm sure you figured out the justification for yourself without having to be told. And of course, there was the chorus of secondary
(human) characters, one of whom actually says "He saved us."
In terms of Superman having a reaction to the destruction around him.... he's simply too busy. It's hard to focus on the big picture issues when you're engaged in a fight to the death with an enemy who's your equal. I argue that by Superman not taking account of stuff going on around him, that's actually a better reflection of what fist-fights are actually like - especially against somebody who's as strong as you, and particularly if they've told you at the outset that one of you isn't going to survive.
Superman was simply too engaged in his death-match with Zod in order to show the kind of reaction that you're looking for. In the fist fights I've been involved in I didn't really have time to react to the moral issues at hand, or think about collateral damage as I was somewhat distracted by being punched in the face (and returning the favour).
I really struggle to see the bit where Superman's supposed to have this
big reaction to the carnage. The fight was too fast and furious for any of that.
There are a couple of character moments though, when Superman has a second or two to react. First, when he destroys Zod's command chair,
which causes the ship to crash. He takes a moment before he does so, because he knows that he's making the ultimate decision between his biological species, and his adopted species, hence "Krypton had its chance." Character moment !
The next big character moment does come though when Superman finally gains a reprieve by killing Zod. Then we see him react to the magnitude of what he's done, and possibly the senselessnes of it all.
After that would probably have been the time to put in some kind of reaction montage from the rest of the world- as even I found the sudden transition to the drone crash a bit jarring. I don't say MOS didn't have flaws, every film does, but IMO they are far outweighed by its merits.
sf2
Superhero
- Joined
- May 2, 2005
- Messages
- 6,591
- Reaction score
- 15
- Points
- 58
so a basically "the 2012 movie with superman in it"??? ya, it could be exciting to watch too.
however, i think MOS has offered much more. and it has gone beyond the safety zone and challenged most of our "believe" and "setting" for the character of superman. and i like it.
WBwins
Sidekick
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,160
- Reaction score
- 63
- Points
- 73
so a basically "the 2012 movie with superman in it"??? ya, it could be exciting to watch too.
however, i think MOS has offered much more. and it has gone beyond the safety zone and challenged most of our "believe" and "setting" for the character of superman. and i like it.
More like a 2012/Independence day movie with superman in it.
And i Disagree MOS offered much more than this.But to each his own
Batmannerism
Super-unknown
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2012
- Messages
- 7,096
- Reaction score
- 4,770
- Points
- 103
so a basically "the 2012 movie with superman in it"??? ya, it could be exciting to watch too.
however, i think MOS has offered much more. and it has gone beyond the safety zone and challenged most of our "believe" and "setting" for the character of superman. and i like it.
Totally Agree !
I've said it before, big ups to Snyder/Nolan for having the balls
to do something different, because when someone tries to emulate
Donner and does it badly.....well the result is Superman Returns (barf !).
I liked that MOS raised the threat level to global apocalypse, because
when Superman gets involved the stakes should be very high.
That's why it's a "job for Superman !" The menaces that he deals with
should be on the "2012" scale.
It's like Morrison said " Somewhere, in our darkest night, we made up the story of a man who will never let us down..."
Llama_Shepherd
Superhero
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2010
- Messages
- 9,713
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
But Grant Morrison didn't really like Man of Steel that much. It's not like his saying because his Superman says "When you're facing impossible odds- do the impossible. There's always a way" and the fact that he let down Zod and the Kryptonians.
You can like Snyder's Superman, but don't try and force other, more readily well recieved, Superman incarnations into its mould.
You can like Snyder's Superman, but don't try and force other, more readily well recieved, Superman incarnations into its mould.
Llama_Shepherd
Superhero
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2010
- Messages
- 9,713
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
In a contextually incorrect manner (regarding the content of Man of Steel).
Man of Steel does not fit Morrison's view on Superman. There's nothing wrong with that, so don't force it, let it stand upon what it brings to the table itself.
Man of Steel does not fit Morrison's view on Superman. There's nothing wrong with that, so don't force it, let it stand upon what it brings to the table itself.
The Question
Objectivism doesn't work.
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2005
- Messages
- 40,541
- Reaction score
- 30
- Points
- 58
I take your point that good storytelling involves some kind of reaction to significant events, but I disagree that MOS didn't do that - true, it didn't show an extended reaction either by the general populace or Superman, to the destruction of metropolis. Of course, Superman does show a reaction, once he gets a second to catch his breath, after killing Zod.
Fair point about the news montage, to show the rest of the world's reaction to the Avengers. But not the Avengers' reaction though. Do they even have one ? BTW this is not me criticizing the Avengers, they just do what they have to do. Which is pretty much what Superman does.
In terms of the Avengers taking civilian life into account in their tactics,
maybe Captain America did in the bank scene- but then he wasn't fighting a single being that was attacking him full on, and had the power to wipe out the human race - who could demolish a skyscraper with a punch or burst of heat vision. Instead he was fighting lots of faceless goons, none of whom was even close to his equal.
( hmmmm....stormtroopers anyone ?). As for Hulk and Thor, where was their emotional reaction to the destruction (or any of the other Avengers for that mattter, where does Hawkeye shed a tear for the fallen? Nowhere, he's too busy putting arrows into every invader he sees? )
Does Thor take time out from Squashing Chitauri to search the rubble for
survivors.....nope, because he can't he's too busy preventing more casualties by fighting the invaders.
In fact, Superman shows more reaction to the death of the one person he has to kill in the film, than any of the Avengers show towards the to the hundreds of Chitauri they Avengers slaughter.
After Iron Man throws a nuclear weapon at the Chitauri mothership, killing how many of them, his emotional reaction is..........the shwarma joke. Which is fair, because its totally in character.
In terms of moral outrage. Well, you're the one who claimed the greater good argument (which is applied here in the context of Superman saving the entire human race ) was just militaristic pragmatism, used to justify atrocities and oppressive regimes, sounds like moral outrage to me.
Seriousness and reverence in Star Wars? Woohoo I just blew up the death star. That's pretty serious, but Luke is overjoyed, why a) because it's in character !
b) because he's just saved all his friends.
Now the personal stuff in Star Wars ..."No, I am your father" that stuff is dealt with brilliantly. In fact MOS deals with the personal stuff too, eg Superman's scenes with his mom, his reaction at Zod's death etc. I won't say it does it as well as Star Wars, because those scenes in Star Wars are just so iconic. I do think that MOS did them effectively. In particular, when Clark comes back from the Arctic, he's a changed man, more confident and upbeat and happy at last, having uncovered his identity - something Cavill and Snyder portrayed very well.
By the way, in Star Wars, how did they deal with the end of the Empire ? Seriousness and reverence ?
They had a rave with the Ewoks, kind of cheesy, given that its the end of tyrrany for trillions of people. It's a celebration........kind of like when Clark and Martha visit Jonathan's grave, to affirm that Clark's parents always knew he would change the world, and in this case, save it.
That's fair, I disagree, but I respect your opinion. If you didn't like it, fair enough.
Really ? I'm sure you figured out the justification for yourself without having to be told. And of course, there was the chorus of secondary
(human) characters, one of whom actually says "He saved us."
In terms of Superman having a reaction to the destruction around him.... he's simply too busy. It's hard to focus on the big picture issues when you're engaged in a fight to the death with an enemy who's your equal. I argue that by Superman not taking account of stuff going on around him, that's actually a better reflection of what fist-fights are actually like - especially against somebody who's as strong as you, and particularly if they've told you at the outset that one of you isn't going to survive.
Superman was simply too engaged in his death-match with Zod in order to show the kind of reaction that you're looking for. In the fist fights I've been involved in I didn't really have time to react to the moral issues at hand, or think about collateral damage as I was somewhat distracted by being punched in the face (and returning the favour).
I really struggle to see the bit where Superman's supposed to have this
big reaction to the carnage. The fight was too fast and furious for any of that.
There are a couple of character moments though, when Superman has a second or two to react. First, when he destroys Zod's command chair,
which causes the ship to crash. He takes a moment before he does so, because he knows that he's making the ultimate decision between his biological species, and his adopted species, hence "Krypton had its chance." Character moment !
The next big character moment does come though when Superman finally gains a reprieve by killing Zod. Then we see him react to the magnitude of what he's done, and possibly the senselessnes of it all.
After that would probably have been the time to put in some kind of reaction montage from the rest of the world- as even I found the sudden transition to the drone crash a bit jarring. I don't say MOS didn't have flaws, every film does, but IMO they are far outweighed by its merits.
1: Superman's emotional reaction to his killing Zod was just that, a reaction to Zod's death. It had very little to with the devastation of the final act. The way it was framed, the focus was entirely on Zod's death. And even if one does read it as a reaction to everything, the fact is that it comes at the tail end of an extended sequence where Superman has no such reaction. Too little, to late.
2: You keep saying that there wasn't enough time. Superman didn't have enough time to rescue people. Superman didn't have enough time to minimize the damage. Superman didn't have enough time to react.
That does not matter.
The logical and practical details of the film don't matter in this context. Hell, I'd argue that they only barely matter in any context. You say that Superman acted in the most prudent way possible for that situation. That's fine, I'm not sure I agree, but I also don't care because that has absolutely nothing to do with what's wrong with the scene.
The issue isn't wether or not Clark made the most logical or ethical choices during that fight, the issue is with what the filmmakers chose to focus on and how they framed the information presented to the audience.
In this battle between two extraterrestrial titans, death and and destruction on an apocalyptic scale is treated as background decoration. Our hero, through who's eyes the audience explores this world, pays it no more mind than if it were rain in his eyes. Hundreds of thousands of people are dying in this carnage, and the movie doesn't even notice.
It's hollow. It's cheap. It feels disingenuous. It doesn't create an immersive experience that feels real, because the scene fails to address the reality of its own events.
Where could they have fit all of this stuff in? Well, for starters, Superman and Lois could have reacted to the destruction right after the world engine was destroyed instead of making out and making that truly horribly unfunny joke.
But during he Zod fight itself? How about when Zod kicks that oil truck at Superman and Superman jumps over it, causing it to crash into the building behind him and take out the first two floors when it explodes. Just add one little moment where Superman turn and looks with a look of shock and horror on his face, followed by Zod taking advantage of this moment and striking from behind. It's probably not a smart move in a fight, but it is a very genuine human reaction. Or, how about have Superman actively trying to minimize damage and rescue civilians early on in the fight, and have him be on the loosing end of the fight at first due to his split focus. That would even be a better reason for Zod to suddenly be on equal terms with Superman than the contrivance of his powers suddenly increasing exponentially, and it would fix the other huge problem with that scene:
That fight has absolutely no tension.
Throughout the whole fight, no one gains the upper hand at any point. No one shows any signs of being tired or in pain or injured. Everything that happens between the start of the fight and when they crash into the train station is a complete waste if time because it's just two indestructible guys smashing into each other with no consequences and nothing progressing.
Having Superman's focus split by his desire to protect civilians might have helped create the illusion that he could have possibly lost, and it would have lent his decision to ultimately kill Zod in order to protect civilians much more weight.
3: First, I want to say that The Avengers took civilians into account consistently throughout the battle, not just in the bank scene. Hawk eye and Black Widow rescued those people from that bus, Captain America initiated evacuation procedures with the NYPD, Captain America's battle strategy involved keeping the aliens contained within a three block radius to keep them away from the civilian population as much as possible, the Hulk actively saved all the people in that office building from the Leviathan, and as for emotional reactions there were all if those shots of all of the Avengers looking horrified and emotionally drained by the battle.
But that's slightly less important than this:
Your whole argument about The Avengers not caring about all the Chitauri they kill is entirely inapplicable.
The issue was never with the morality with the characters, at least, not really. There is a whole separate issue about Man of Steel reinforcing the very dangerous and very morally dubious notion that any damage done in order to secure general safety is justified, but that's really not my beef with the scene, at least not the one I'm talking about right now. And, of course, the morality of the characters informs the reality of the scene. But the big issue I'm criticizing right now is, once again, that of genuine reactions and of acknowledging the nature and severity of what is being depicted. The Avengers' reaction to the chaos and destruction around them is completely genuine. And when your cast is made up of four battle hardened soldiers, a freaky monster man, and a hyper pragmatic anti-hero, not weeping as they kill enemy soldiers in a war feels very genuine, ESPECIALLY, when those enemy soldiers are inhuman looking cyborg monster men that exist in a hive mind and possibly don't even have personalities if their own.
Now, of course, people have written dozens of books and essays about the moral implications of expendable enemy mooks in genre fiction, especially the potentially racist and imperialist undertones of portraying the enemy mooks as inhuman monster men that are genetically predisposed towards evil, and that is a legitimate criticism one could lob at The Avengers, but it has nothing to do with the criticisms I'm lobbing at Man of Steel.
The Avengers acknowledged the severity of the events it depicted. Man of Steel did not.
4: Star Wars, same deal.
5: As for how Man of Steel handles the character moments, I have to disagree. They weren't handled well at all. All of the big character moments, all if the dialogue scenes in general, we're rushed through at a break neck speed, with no time to sit with the emotions or let them sink in. And as for Zod's death, while a nice idea, it had no set up and no pay off. It wasn't even mentioned again after it happened. It left no impact on the film itself.
Last edited:
sf2
Superhero
- Joined
- May 2, 2005
- Messages
- 6,591
- Reaction score
- 15
- Points
- 58
"independence day" isn't almost the same as MOS??? alien invasion, massive destruction, but with superman saved the day in the end in MOS???
btw i wonder if it goes "2012", you know the beginning is the same, but the 3rd act is numerous massive disasters' attack, natural or consequence of villain's act (like what you love to see), and superman saves the day in the end of course. will it do better in the box office??? will the audience prefer it better??? or will the audience say meh too and regard in as lack of creativity and boring...
what do you think?
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
Staff online
-
SwordOfMorningSuper Moderator -
Lily Adler🎃 Pumpkin Spice ☕
