I see, cause I'm pretty sure Zod talking away superman's advantage and showing that he is in fact a physical match was the purpose of that. Guess they failed.
It really boils down to the matter of show, don't tell. Yes, Zod displays flight and heat vision, and that's supposed to tell us that the stakes have been raised and the threat is more serious. But after that point they don't show Superman having any harder of a time battling Zod than he did before. He struggles just as much and he takes Zod's blows just as well. It tells us that there's an escalation, but we're not actually shown an escalation.
1. Superman had to fly around the city to find him.
2. Superman got thrown though 8 buildings by his cape after an arial twirl move
3. zod no longer had to shimmy at walls to engage
4. The fight went into space(and superman couldn't leave him there).
5. Superman couldn't simply fly him out of the city
5.3. Superman couldn't move him away from the family at the end.
etc.
Being arial and going into space is just a change of scenery, it isn't an escalation of the tension. Superman still isn't shown to be having a harder time fighting Zod than he had before.
The only point in the fight sequence where the tension and the stakes escalate is in the train station, and that comes after 5 minutes of fighting that could have been 30 seconds with nothing lost.
I'm talking about the damage after the blows by the metal tentacles. He shook those off.
And he also got progressively more injured. By the end of those fights he was really messed up.
Fast recovery doesn't betray tangible hero. He can be put down he can be killed/stopped or taken prisoner.
Fast recovery completely deflates the tension. It's like "oh, I guess he's okay now. Never mind." The audience is never worried for his well being if he always gets back up with no signs of injury. In the Spider-Man movies, he's always shown to be pretty beat up at the end of each fight. Not so here.
This is an interesting prospect I must say. I personally see what you are getting at but I'm not as absolute as you. If a green lantern is struggling to save a planet I don't need any info other than that it's full of a human like intelligent life and I'm right there with him. If his girlfriend and superman are on the planet and in danger, things go up from there. But I start from the former. That's probably people care about the people in "The battle for HongKong," without seeing a single one of them in Prim.
Different stokes.
There's more to getting an audience to care about the lives of nameless background characters than finding a direct way to personalize it. I mean to say, that's not the only way to go about doing it.
Pacific Rim is actually a great example of this. The movie spends the entire opening sequences building up the human toll the Kaiju War has taken on the world. We see the aftermath of destruction, we see the somber, gut wrenching grief over lives lost, and we see the chaos, confusion, and radical shifts in culture and politics that it's caused. When the battle of Hong Kong rolls around, we care what happens because it has been well established just how much the Kaiju have ****ed up the world.
Pacific Rim also does a lot to personalize the threat of the Kaiju with the two main characters. First, when the male lead's brother dies, making one of our earliest encounters with the destruction the Kaiju cause a very personal tragedy for our lead character, and then when we have Mako's extended flashback sequence, where we not only once again personalize the tragedy the Kaiju leave in their wake, but we also see that tragedy not from the perspective of a soldier in the field of battle, but from the perspective of a civilian who's life is destroyed for no reason. In those ways, the film does a lot to personalize the threat of the Kaiju well before the battle of Hong Kong.
Another approach to getting the audience to care is to show that a character the audience likes cares, usually the main, and to show why that person cares. The Spider-Man tram sequence is also a great example of this. Throughout the whole film we've built up the sense of responsibility that Peter is burdened with. We've seen his guilt over his uncle's death, we've seen how that guilt has transformed him into a less selfish person, we've seen him take up the responsibility of protecting those in need, we've seen how that responsibility has worn him down and brought misery to his life, and we've seen him carry on in spite of that because he believes it to be the right thing to do. And so when we get to the tram sequence, even though we don't spend a lot of time with those kids, we care because Peter cares and because we understand why he cares. And all throughout that sequence, he displays his caring, we see him desperately struggling to find a way to protect those kids, protect Mary Jane, and fight the Green Goblin all at the same time. It's his emotions in that scene that ratchet up the tension.
And that's why Superman not emoting concern for the destruction caused in his fight with Zod is problematic. Yes, he fights Zod because Zod is a threat to innocent people and we know and have been told that Superman cares about innocent people. But since the only thing Superman is focusing on is Zod himself, those innocent lives are abstract. What Superman is fighting for isn't on screen, only the fight itself is on screen. We don't see the character we've come to identify with caring about what's at stake, and so our ability to empathize with what's going on is diminished.
I never thought spidey might fail, super hero movies are usually about about the hero saving everyone. Till nolan showed up.
Sure, on a logical intellectual level you knew the hero would win. But drama doesn't work unless you
feel like he might lose.
I suppose that means as a singular film(tdkr) this element fails.
The Dark Knight Rises is not by any stretch of the imagination a stand alone film, it's a direct continuation of elements of the first two movies. People who never saw the first two and then just sat down and watched Rises would be at a loss for
several reasons.
Where batman has gotham as something he's invested in, Superman has the world he's been investing in emotionally. He can't lose it, the dream sequence does a good job at selling this to me.
I disagree with that assessment. We're told that Clark cares about the world and the human race, but we're never actually shown why he has an emotional investment in it. The relationships he's formed with his parents and the people in Smallville are under developed, and we never see him express any joy in or emotional connection with any aspect of living as a human on Earth. We never see what Smallville means to him, we never see any interests or passions he has, we never see him longing for or relishing in basic human social interaction. We never see how he, as an alien raised on Earth and out in the world, related to or fails to relate to the people around him. All we see is him walking the earth and being quiet and introverted and feeling conflicted without a well defined internal conflict. Yes, he cares about the world and he wants to save it, but that caring is never defined and it's never given anything tangible for the audience to latch onto. He just cares because he's a good guy and he's supposed to. And that's good morality, sure, and ultimately him having morals should be the core reason he wants to do right by the world, but by itself, without something personal to ground it in an emotional framework, it isn't a great way to get your audience invested in what the lead shows an interest in.
Again superman doesn't witness any buildings blow up and is then directly shown to have no reaction. That would be one thing. But it doesn't happen. I feel like you are being disturbed by things you yourself are putting into the film rather than just things that are lacking.
Sure, they're not going out of their way to show no reaction. But I never said they were. I said they were failing to show an adequate reaction.
There are no innocents superman has a missed opportunity of saving in that last scene(consciously anyways). I would equate it to batman carrying that nuke out of the city, blowing up the top of that empty building and continuing on in righteous purpose. It's just damage.
First of all, you have to admit that for a lot of people, when they see buildings falling over in the middle of a catastrophe that only started earlier that day within the film's timeline, their first thought is going to be that there were likely quite a few people in those buildings. They never showed mass evacuation procedures being put into place so that's what most people are going to assume at first. And that makes Superman look very callous and cold to a lot of people.
Second, you hit the core of the problem right on the head: It's just damage. Damage with no substance. Damage without the narrative paying any mind to the human element of the whole thing. That's a problem.
And yes, there are no innocents in that sequence that Superman had a missed opportunity of saving. But I'm saying they should have been written into that sequence. It would have only increased the tension and strengthened the audience's emotional investment while also easing the minds of some people who felt Superman came off as cold and reckless upon reflecting on the broader implications of the destruction in that sequence.
Ignoring that he does this on 3 separate occasions in smallville so you know it's established in his characterization already.
But that's in Smallville. We're talking about the fight with Zod in Metropolis and what it, as a sequence, was lacking.
I can see how it adds things but it not being there is like you subtracting a bonus, it adds, no one can argue that I guess, but it's not necessary for a fight to be compelling. Again see the fight where superman is killed by doomsday, for compelling stop and catch free action all that fight took was the possibility that superman finally met a match he couldn't beat and alot of lois.
The fight with Doomsday was quite a bit different from the fight with Zod and it was compelling for other reasons. For starters, Superman actually showed signs of injury and struggle during the fight. He was bruised, he was bloody, he was tired, and as the fight went on it seemed more and more likely that he might lose. Secondly, it came at the end of a long slow build. Doomsday was introduced as a mysterious unknown threat. As the story progressed he slowly made his way toward civilization and completely annihilated every obstacle that crossed his path, including the Justice League of America. By the time he got to Metropolis and Superman stood in his way, there was an enormous amount of desperation surrounding this thing.
Those factors weren't present in the Man of Steel fight, although the former absolutely should have in some way.
Adding a human emotional element of some kind of the fight would have made it so much more effective.
I really don't agree about this abstract assertion. Him fighting in a holo-deck is abstract, him eating a bowl of cheerios for the fate of the planet..The very ugly decision to have Superman fight for the fate of the planet in a populated city with real casualties(especially the ending) is not abstract by my measure. The fact that people claim they were disturbed by the film is a testament to how present it was. I think it's pretty clear who and what he's fighting for and you don't need him to stop and catch some random person to make the point. Very tangible.
First of all, the people who were disturbed were disturbed by the implications, not the emotional reality of the film.
Second, the threat absolutely was not tangible. A city was put in danger without establishing why we should care about it using any of the methods I talked about above. And throughout the fight, our hero only showed concern with beating the bad guy and not with protecting the thing he's fighting him to protect. The threat from Zod is made, but why that's a real thing with real emotional consequences that should mean something to us is never addressed until the very end of the fight, which comes after five minutes of punching.
It's abstract because it's saying "Zod is going to destroy the city, and you should care because cities getting destroyed is bad." Using any or all of the methods I described above would make the threat tangible, because either we would be made to care about what happens through some personal connection in the story, or we would be made to care through our caring about what the protagonist cares about, and the emotions he expresses and the emotional arc he goes through would dictate out reactions. You can't do that when his emotional state throughout the vast majority of the fight is "focus on punching the bad guy."
There are pros and cons to it.
For example, I know the flash can deal with Gorilla Grood and save people from all sort of things at the same time. Granted him saving people "helps" the drama.
I know that the flash can't do that when he fights a well do Professor Zoom(reverse flash). Mainly cause that guy is as fast it not faster than him. Well it seems we have lost that element of saving people drama but what have gained? The delicious stakes of a present threat that is unyielding and relentless.
If the goal is drama there are a few ways to go about it, a fully engaged flash that can be matched blow for blow is the price and the price is no more stop and catch saves. Fair dramatic trade off I say.
I don't see why it's a strict binary. I don't see why The Flash struggling to save innocents caught in the crossfire while Zoom kicks the crap out of him isn't a thing you could write that would be super compelling. In fact I think there are Flash stories that do just that.
If superman can't fly any more I don't expect him to still be able to save people in space. The context changes and I use my logic to still understand and celebrate his heroism. I don't simply keep demanding it has the same face, that's my logic.
Okay. So why does that mean that you then shouldn't change your logical standards when the context changes? I'm confused.
So it's not the scale, it's the ability? That's different. You were focusing on the damage done by superman/zod blows and all that stuff.
I was focusing on both.
Sure, all films can seemingly implement elements that increase that stuff, the skies the limit. Spiderman can be a hero with 12 gun shots wounds and be empty on web fluid and no shirt on his back for an entire film. It comes down to what's needed for the film to work. I'd argue that it's all here but could have been executed better. I wouldn't put it in the hole as you seemed to have however. If people were affected by the city destruction imagery I'd argue that to be a point for the dramatic tension on display. Especially when people were mostly laughing through the other film.
What other film?
Also,
There is something to be said for how much a film needs to make sense. You want to take as many opportunities to dramatize as you can sure, but things like plot holes and character logic are also just as important to the film going experience.
They're important, but I think that they're a lot less important than being grounded in an emotional reality and effectively communicating information to the audience. Plot holes, at least smaller ones, matter a lot less when the film is emotionally and thematically satisfying.
I see your point loud and clear. Take this for example.
A great opportunity taken. However if you were to take this same character(ignore that this is maybe the most seasoned superman ever presented), and give him 6 seconds to save six jumpers all with bombs on their backs and duped by luthor. I would expect this same ultra caring superman do go about that precise scene in a different way than hugs and giggles. It is a missed opportunity from a writing front sure, is it an opportunity to see superman deal with a comic book threat in a super way and still be a super great guy? Indeed.
But nothing is stopping a writer from writing their story in such a way that they include a particular element. You say that Superman didn't have an opportunity to address civilian casualties directly in his fight with Zod. I'm saying that the fight should have been written in such a way that the opportunity was more present.
