What are your complaints? What would you do differently? *SPOILERS*

[The Question]

Did MoS need to show as much as they did? Where does this movie go from here? If Brainiac attacks then it is another alien attacking the city. I Think MoS bites off more than it can chew.

The trick with that is to not set topping the action set pieces as a goal. If Lex Luthor's the enemy in MOS2, you don't need to top the action. Luthor is a threat because of his intellect, not because of the physical force he wields. He can attempt to destroy the man without destroying the city. If the film focuses on the personal hell Luthor puts Superman through and the intellectual struggle between the two men, then you can scale back the literal action quite a bit and still be compelling.

 

[BlueLantern]

Which is hilarious when you think about it because those/these people telling us how bad it is are expressing opinions and nothing more.

It's not like this place is loaded with Oscar winning screenplay writers or anything, I mean really.

Besides, it's discussion, even when one side is so obviously limited in scope it's still something to participate in.

I might be expressing my opinion on the bad elements of the film but not for one second am I telling you to believe them. I'm just stating them.

Look at sf2, he's the epitome of the blind defender of this film where he makes no points in its defense whatsoever but just makes excuses instead.

Furthermore, I don't believe anyone needs to be an Oscar winning screenwriter to notice the flaws in this film or any other film.

So if that's your big defense on why I shouldn't be critical of the film, it's not working.

And like I said, leave the condescension on the side when discussing things or you'll continue coming off as a lemon.

Oh and limited in scope? How? That I believe this film tries so hard to be realistic and serious whilst taking a big **** on logic and then saying 'relax, it's only a film'?

 

[spider-neil]

When the Kryptonians are dragged into the PZ I genuinely thought the movie was over and then you have Zod (c'mon, how many of you were thinking the same thing?). The exact same thing with Star Trek: ID, the movie doesn't know when to end so subsequently you are just looking at your watch thinking 'Is there an end to this movie somewhere in my future?'.

They could have cut the entire Zod fight and I wouldn't have missed it and then devoted scenes to the rebuild of Metropolis and/or have scenes of young Clark discovering more of his powers. How powerful would it have been if as a child heat version explodes from Clark's eyes narrowly missing Ma or Pa and the two of them (Ma and Pa) coming to the realisation that they are raising a potential nuclear bomb and that their lives are in danger every day with every new power than manifests itself. But no, lets see two people punch each other for another 20 minutes, that's far more engaging.

 

[sf2]

a lot of people love the final fight...

i think the world engine destruction is a bit tedious though.

 

[br0adband]

I might be expressing my opinion on the bad elements of the film but not for one second am I telling you to believe them. I'm just stating them.

Look at sf2, he's the epitome of the blind defender of this film where he makes no points in its defense whatsoever but just makes excuses instead.

Furthermore, I don't believe anyone needs to be an Oscar winning screenwriter to notice the flaws in this film or any other film.

So if that's your big defense on why I shouldn't be critical of the film, it's not working.

And like I said, leave the condescension on the side when discussing things or you'll continue coming off as a lemon.

Oh and limited in scope? How? That I believe this film tries so hard to be realistic and serious whilst taking a big **** on logic and then saying 'relax, it's only a film'?

Well that's a perfect complaint post, certainly, and you're in the right place for it.

5 times, eh?

 

[BlueLantern]

Yup. Problem?

 

[spider-neil]

a lot of people love the final fight...

i think the world engine destruction is a bit tedious though.

You like what you like but the final fight for me is like when Zeo was fighting the 100 agents Smiths. The fight starts and it's kinda fun and then it keeps going and going and going. How can anyone be engaged by that? You are essentially seeing the same thing over and over again.

Look at SM2; Clocktower fight - Train fight - Stop the train
Clear progression with weight and stakes.
'Meh', as I said people like what they like.

 

[sf2]

You like what you like but the final fight for me is like when Zeo was fighting the 100 agents Smiths. The fight starts and it's kinda fun and then it keeps going and going and going. How can anyone be engaged by that? You are essentially seeing the same thing over and over again.

Look at SM2; Clocktower fight - Train fight - Stop the train
Clear progression with weight and stakes.
'Meh', as I said people like what they like.

to sum it... lack of drama, isn't it?
to show that the people in the movie care about their savior / hero, so that we can relate to them or they can influence us emotionally to care about the hero.

 

[Marvin]

The important part being "if you never knew who Superman is." And I agree with that. Now, the problem is that nobody goes to see this movie without having known or at least heard who Superman is.

I disagree, when measuring how functional a self contained film is I look to the walk in casuals. It's the people with preconceived notions that can fill in the gaps for themselves. I can't tell you how many times when watching a film with my less comicbook savvy buddy I'm asked a question about how something works and I tell him something from the book.

This is made more clear when looking at the way these two types of audiences respond to the likes of Game Of Thrones. Is it self contained...

Pretty sure if you read superman, you'd have to think that the rest of the "planet" buys into the disguise. What's the point of questioning this. Next we'll be question if Luthor exists given he's such a big player and they didn't show him once...

Actually in MOS we didn't get anything pother than Clark wears glasses. And glasses that, as never before, are completely useless at the moment of disguising his face. I get that Lois knows who he is (which to me is already bad), but I don't know if anybody else that has seen or will see Superman will be fooled by this poor disguise. Lois is far from being the only one who needs (needed) to be fooled in the past.

So your problem is with the source material?
As for lois? I don't understand how this is a bad thing, care to expand on that?

Well, all of Clark's schoolmates know about it. I'm sure the ones in the school bus didn't just go home. Their families know, and probably more than just their families. Small town, religious people claiming it was an act of God. We even saw some other bullies trying to get him fight back just to see what would happen. And if that is not enough, Lois had little problem tracking Clark to his very home. On top, the army knows he lives in Kansas.

I personally don't remember anyone on that bus outside of lana seeing clark at the bottom of a bus that just happened to emerge from the lake. But that's my memory of it. We have Pete ross as well.

As for the rest of the kids, do you honestly believe the reason those bullies messed with clark is because they think he's a super strong alien? I was under the impression they just thought he was a freak loser wimp who spazzed out every now and then and needed his mom to come in every now and then. I suppose we can just chalk this confusion up to Snyder's bad direction(like the rest of the things that don't click).

Sure, but you can see the rest of the movie and Zod's promise is not a scenario that needed further explanation. Although I would have liked the movie ending the way it was originally scripted.

It needed further exploration for me. Chekhov's gun and all that.

 

[spider-neil]

to sum it... lack of drama, isn't it?
to show that the people in the movie care about their savior / hero, so that we can relate to them or they can influence us emotionally to care about the hero.

For me it's the difference between the Obi 1 vs Vader fight in Star Wars which, let's be honest here, is pretty slow and ponderous compared to the fight with Obi 1 vs Maul in PM. The latter fight is a lot faster paced, has lots more action and goes on a lot longer but the former fight has weight and has you EMOTIONALLY invested. As I said, 'Meh', this is only my opinion and people like what they like.

 

[BlueLantern]

Exactly.

 

[Marvin]

If Superman had said 'If you want the Codex let's take this fight to the moon!', 'some' Kryptonians have followed him but that would still leave the World Engine.

And they would have responded with?
Pretty sure that's the type of "plot hole/logic jump" you see in the 80's and are familiar with. I personally do not think the movie would have been better with that simple line utterance.

"um mind you, we can't fly like you but, are you going to give us the codex on the moon? If not, why shouldn't we just fight here and now?"
I mean didn't faora just acknowledge that for every life Superman saved they WOULD kill a million more? Unless you think they have some sense of honor or something, but I'm pretty sure superman has other enemies for that sort of approach. Ruthless soldiers with evolutionary elitism...

 

[Marvin]

For me it's the difference between the Obi 1 vs Vader fight in Star Wars which, let's be honest here, is pretty slow and ponderous compared to the fight with Obi 1 vs Maul in PM. The latter fight is a lot faster paced, has lots more action and goes on a lot longer but the former fight has weight and has you EMOTIONALLY invested. As I said, 'Meh', this is only my opinion and people like what they like.

Exactly.

And what are your guys thoughts on the first time Obi fought Anakin?
Seems like the more accurate comparison one would think.

 

[spider-neil]

And they would have responded with?
Pretty sure that's the type of "plot hole/logic jump" you see in the 80's and are familiar with. I personally do not think the movie would have been better with that simple line utterance.

"um mind you, we can't fly like you but, are you going to give us the codex on the moon? If not, why shouldn't we just fight here and now?"
I mean didn't faora just acknowledge that for every life Superman saved they WOULD kill a million more? Unless you think they have some sense of honor or something, but I'm pretty sure superman has other enemies for that sort of approach. Ruthless soldiers with evolutionary elitism...

My point is the destruction of Metropolis would have happened even if Superman attempted to take the fight elsewhere. My point is if he had TRIED, if he looked like he gave a **** then I would feel more connected to him and the character would feel more like Superman.

Imagine if there is a scene where there is a break in the action and he is saying words to the effect of 'What have I done...?' Then I would feel emotionally connected to the action because the protagonist is emotionally connected to the action.

 

[BlueLantern]

There's plenty of problems with Revenge of the Sith but the duels aren't one of them. The music, choreography and emotional stakes are all there in those two duels and it's actually the lead-in to them and the post-mortem that are significantly weaker.

 

[The Question]

There's plenty of problems with Revenge of the Sith but the duels aren't one of them. The music, choreography and emotional stakes are all there in those two duels and it's actually the lead-in to them and the post-mortem that are significantly weaker.

Honestly I think the duels in Revenge of the Sith went on way too long.

 

[spider-neil]

There's plenty of problems with Revenge of the Sith but the duels aren't one of them. The music, choreography and emotional stakes are all there in those two duels and it's actually the lead-in to them and the post-mortem that are significantly weaker.

Didn't like any of the fights in RotS because I was completely taken out of the scene by the use of gratuitous CG and the fights go on forever, not unlike MoS.

 

[BlueLantern]

They probably were, Q. But the bigger issue was the excessive reliance on CGI.

 

[Marvin]

Scenes that would have really helped my viewing experience.

1. Jor-El telling Kal about the World Engine ahead of time and then Superman going to the military and telling them to evacuate the city.
That way at least when the ridiculous amount of collateral damage happens you (the audience) can fool yourself that those buildings and cars are empty.

2. Superman begging the Kryptonians not to hurt anyone, obviously going to fall on deaf ears but you'd at least get that scene where Superman is acting like he gives a **** about people.

3. An extended scene of city wide mass mourning with Superman at the head of the procession.

Not enough time for this scenes? Well CUT SOME THE FORTY MINUTE FINAL FIGHT.

I suppose it comes down to why those things are needed.
For all the complaints, and there are plenty, about the sad, less than up beat tone needed for a good superman movie, one would imagine a 3. An extended scene of city wide mass mourning with Superman at the head of the procession. Wouldn't do the film any favors. I would think an up beat ending would be more akin to the donner realm. There was no need for a procession in those older films either and one has to assume there were plenty of lives lost. Then again, given the nature of those films, it's very possible superman saved everyone.

You make a good point about the military evacuation of the city. However there is this question of how much time they had, probably plenty but there is also the question of why superman would have to be the one to tell the national guard such a thing...You would think they would have a clue how to do their job.

I tend to agree that superman could have shown a greater concern for the reason that people used to seeing that would have been more satisfied but this idea that it would show that "he gives a ****"
Because you didn't get that idea throughout the film? From his childhood to his submitting to Zod's initial demand to his reaction to zods dream, to fighting for the planet to what forced him to kill the man....I get that there could have been even more(because that's essential to some) but this hyperbole to the opposite that we are seeing all over the place(from the detractors) just seems...false imo.
The worst part of it all is that in Superman's many depicted battles with the likes of Doomsday, things go down almost the exact same way, and he's very much not in his first appearance at that point.

I recall batman's first appearance in year one yielding less than the most efficient results...

 

[spider-neil]

I suppose it comes down to why those things are needed.
For all the complaints, and there are plenty, about the sad, less than up beat tone needed for a good superman movie, one would imagine a 3. An extended scene of city wide mass mourning with Superman at the head of the procession. Wouldn't do the film any favors. I would think an up beat ending would be more akin to the donner realm. There was no need for a procession in those older films either and one has to assume there were plenty of lives lost. Then again, given the nature of those films, it's very possible superman saved everyone.

You make a good point about the military evacuation of the city. However there is this question of how much time they had, probably plenty but there is also the question of why superman would have to be the one to tell the national guard such a thing...You would think they would have a clue how to do their job.

I tend to agree that superman could have shown a greater concern for the reason that people used to seeing that would have been more satisfied but this idea that it would show that "he gives a ****"
Because you didn't get that idea throughout the film? From his childhood to his submitting to Zod's initial demand to his reaction to zods dream, to fighting for the planet to what forced him to kill the man....I get that there could have been even more(because that's essential to some) but this hyperbole to the opposite that we are seeing all over the place(from the detractors) just seems...false imo.
The worst part of it all is that in Superman's many depicted battles with the likes of Doomsday, things go down almost the exact same way, and he's very much not in his first appearance at that point.

I recall batman's first appearance in year one yielding less than the most efficient results...

If I were directing the mass mourning scene, I would set it at night and everyone would have candles (for all the lives lost) ha ha very preachy and heavy handed but who cares, it would at least show the city acknowledged the dead and Superman being involved would show the city doesn't hold Superman responsible (even though it's kinda his fault the Kryptonians show up on Earth in the first but shhh, keep that on the down low.

 

[Marvin]

My point is the destruction of Metropolis would have happened even if Superman attempted to take the fight elsewhere. My point is if he had TRIED, if he looked like he gave a **** then I would feel more connected to him and the character would feel more like Superman.

Imagine if there is a scene where there is a break in the action and he is saying words to the effect of 'What have I done...?' Then I would feel emotionally connected to the action because the protagonist is emotionally connected to the action.

And if there wasn't a break in the action and he didn't say that? Then I suppose would have to assume what he would say based on prior characterization.

However that's not going to get us anywhere, I'm curious about this idea that emotionally investing in a superhero comes from such things as you mentioned. I gotta make this discreet other wise old man Sexton will accuse me of dragging marvels name though the mud, but I'm sure we all walk away from ironman fully emotionally invested, I assume this because I've never ever ever hear anyone say the opposite. I've also noticed we never get those sorts of scenes from him either, if anything we get quite the opposite from him in those UI close up scenes.

This begs the question of it is actually needed for character investment or is superman a specific character that needs this to basically work?

Now granted Spiderman does have plenty of saving during his fights, surprised this doesn't get bought up more often. Thought it's also pretty evident that Spidey is often in a very different situation. I suppose that's the point.

 

[Marvin]

Didn't like any of the fights in RotS because I was completely taken out of the scene by the use of gratuitous CG and the fights go on forever, not unlike MoS.

The comparison was that of emotional investment and weight.
That's what you said was missing int the darth maul fight. The cgi and all that other stuff can be clumped into what's wrong with the prequels.

I just figured if you wanted to make a more fair comparison it would be of the fight time though two dual and there was plenty going on as opposed to when young obi fought a empty faced villain...

 

[Marvin]

even though it's kinda his fault the Kryptonians show up on Earth in the first but shhh, keep that on the down low.

His dad sent him to earth though? His dad put the codex in him...all he did help the situation best way he could, but yes no one would know that.
Apparently not even the audience

 

[BlueLantern]

The emotional investment was there in the Obi Wan vs Anakin duel. The former was nice because it was the first of its kind and Qui-Gon dying was felt emotionally.

 

[spider-neil]

And if there wasn't a break in the action and he didn't say that? Then I suppose would have to assume what he would say based on prior characterization.

However that's not going to get us anywhere, I'm curious about this idea that emotionally investing in a superhero comes from such things as you mentioned. I gotta make this discreet other wise old man Sexton will accuse me of dragging marvels name though the mud, but I'm sure we all walk away from ironman fully emotionally invested, I assume this because I've never ever ever hear anyone say the opposite. I've also noticed we never get those sorts of scenes from him either, if anything we get quite the opposite from him in those UI close up scenes.

This begs the question of it is actually needed for character investment or is superman a specific character that needs this to basically work?

Now granted Spiderman does have plenty of saving during his fights, surprised this doesn't get bought up more often. Thought it's also pretty evident that Spidey is often in a very different situation. I suppose that's the point.

Two scenes;
Superman 2
Ursa and Non are about to throw a bus
Superman - 'No, don't do it! The people!'
It doesn't change the situation as the bus is still thrown but the hero is concerned about the people in the bus and so am I.

IM3
The skydive save.
You see the concern on Starks face when Jarvis tells him he can only save 4 people. The hero is concerned and so am I.

I just don't feel that with Superman, he just doesn't seem bothered by the collateral damage.