Printable View
So this is out both sides of the Atlantic later this week. Put all your before/after viewing thoughts here!
On the downside, I don't much like Zack Snyder. Plus the track record for Superman films so far is one and a half good films out of five. On the upside, Amy Adams and Michael Shannon are both brilliant and if nothing else I hope we get a great villain in Shannon's Zod.
We got 5 days to go sheesh hold on. I can only maintain my erection for so long. Specially after that last trailer.
ohhhhh man, so excited!
Who needs little blue pills when you've got Henry Cavill in that blue suit?Quote:
Originally Posted by McLovin'
Oh, I'm seeing this Friday! Zack did his thing with 300, decent with Watchmen, and terrible with Sucker Punch, but Nolan is overseeing this so I know it's going to be da bomb!
I don't think the actor playing Superman looks the role at all. Maybe he'll be able to act the role, I dunno, but not impressed with any of the trailers.
Are you serious?? He looks smurfing perfect.Quote:
Originally Posted by theundeadhero
But then again, I've always had a girl boner for Henry Cavill.
He doesn't look like the traditional Superman, but he does look like the type of Superman that will make for a good movie. It's really hard to do Superman correctly, but I have hopes for this movie.
Too cocky looking for one. And smug, Superman was never smug.
Not even that one time there was a fire.
Just saw it an hour agao and my good savior lord, was it brilliant. The movie achieved its goals. it humanized Clark in a way that all the other films weren't able to achieve. It was full of depth and also full of action. It made Clark relate able. He was just a man who grew up in the world where he felt he was an outcast and couldn't find his purpose in the world until the time came. The battles were oh so fierce. I mean trout was epic. General Zod's female henchman, she was a beast!
I'm going to definitely see this again.
9.5/10
P.S. The ending , oh man the ending Man of Steel EndingThey made Superman kill Zod, but even though that's what he's against I can understand why he did it. He basically didn't have a choice. If he tried to throw Zod while he had him in the lock he would've risked hitting the civilians anyway. Killing Zod tore him up though and I expect it to haunt him in a future film. I also like how they nailed his secret identity. Not cheesy like in the comics or old movies.
Don't threaten Superman's mom. There's a lot of surpressed rage there to let out :p
Saw this last night at the midnight showing. Holy trout, finally a good Superman flick. Didn't even feel as long as it was. My only criticism was some of the fight scenes got a bit too ridiculous but honestly that's a really minor point at best. There's also loads of DC Comics easter eggs in there so keep your eyes open!
I know right! She was an absolute beast.Quote:
Originally Posted by Depression Moon
yeah it was pretty good
frick he's ripped
things i thought were weird
(SPOILER)the baby maker shells were empty in the old ship? they never specified so i wasn't sure if supes was blowing up babies or not when he brought the ship down. and i think they made them ambiguously shaded too
the 'i just think he's hot' at the end was unneccesary. a) we know, so do we, b) of course the only woman in the military is smiling because the guy's hot not because he brought down a drone as a statement
i actually didn't think the fight scenes were outrageous because i mean
it's superman and his villains
anyway overall quite good
great main theme
The first half of the movie felt very disjointed for me, largely as a consequence of trying to cover as much ground as they did. Going from the destruction of Krypton through the first 33 years of Clark's life is an awful lot of exposition to get through. All things considered, they did a fairly good job of that, although I'm not convinced that the heavy reliance on flashbacks was the best way to do it. The choreography and filmography in the second half of the movie, however, were absolutely top notch. While the movie as a whole had a dissonant narrative, it was a hell of a lot of fun to watch, and that's what I most expect out of a superhero movie anyway.
(SPOILER)I'm torn on the results of killing Zod. On the one hand, I think it's brilliant to force Superman's hand that way. Now he's not just the last Kryptonian. He's the last Kryptonian because he had to kill the only other one with his bare hands. DC more so than Marvel is rampant full of characters too noble to kill, and forcing Superman--the supposed paragon of virtue in the DC-universe--to kill his enemy in the debut of a new continuity is about as bold as it gets.
On the other hand, where exactly do we go from here? Unless they immediately launch into the Justice League (which has been stated as a goal), Superman is now left without a major foe who can match him physically--at least one that audiences at large are going to recognize and embrace. There's Darkseid and Doomsday, I suppose, but most people are going to expect Lex Luthor as a villain. Frankly, Superman is at his best on the big screen when he's up against enemies who can give him a run for his money in a fist-fight. This movie was exciting because all the villains were just as strong, just as fast, and just as invulnerable as Superman. Previous Superman movies have been boring because they've had to avoid Superman going head-to-head against his enemies at full strength, because there's no justifiable way that he might lose. Unless it involves Kryptonite, and that turns him into a puddle on the floor without leaving room for action.
I thought it was a solid B movie.
It was entertaining and mostly good, but there were some serious issues I thought with pacing and editing and character development. And the dialogue was really crappy at times.
Strangely enough, I thought that they really underused Henry Cavill. I felt like Jor-El got more screen time (non CGI, flying through buildings screentime) and more dialogue than Superman did. Which was weird. I thought that we needed to spend more time with the Kents to see how Superman got his moral center. Because from what we saw in the movie, Jonathan Kent wasn't very good in instilling values of courage and goodness into his son.
Maybe I should spoiler tag the rest of this? (SPOILER)It really bothered me that after the bus incident, he made it sound like Clark should have let them die. I mean, wtf? And his death was just beyond ridiculous.
Too much collateral damage for my tastes. And it really really bothered me that during the fights, Superman made no attempts to save the people who were being killed by the thousands. Really, you're gonna save Lois falling from the sky but NO ONE ELSE?!
The kiss was cringeworthy. As was the line following it. The line about Superman being hot was terrible as well. The movie was really sprinkled with these bad one liners. I also didn't like the line (or maybe it was just the delivery?) of "this man is not our enemy". So cheesy.
I thought the constant flashing back and forth made for a disjointed film. I also thought that it wasn't one cohesive story and they were trying to do to much in one film. It really felt like they tried to smash in movies 1 and 2 of a trilogy into one movie.
Now for the good stuff.
I thought that Cavill did SUCH A GOOD JOB!!! I thought he was perfect and I only wish he had more to work with. I don't feel like his Superman was developed enough, but that's not Cavill's fault. With what he was given, he was just fantastic. And my goodness the man is gorgeous.
I loved all the stuff with Krypton and Russel Crowe was fantastic as well.
I thought it was just a beautiful movie to look at. Like, wow. I also loved the way they showcased Superman's powers. Everything felt real which is so hard to do with a guy who has god like powers. Amy Adams was ok. I liked Diane Lane as Martha Kent. For the most part, I also really liked the score, although sometimes it did feel like it was getting repetitive. But it was lovely Han Zimmer stuff.
Overall entertaining. Not sure if I would watch again, but I am super interested to see how they carry on with the following movies.
In Henry Cavill we trust. I have had a girl boner for this dude since that crap show Tudors. He is by far the best looking Superman and the most fitting. He may not be as tall as his predecessors, but he makes up for it in other areas. The areas of looking amazing.Quote:
Originally Posted by theundeadhero
No Superman movie has ever been impressive to me so low expectations for this one as well. At least it will be visually stunning.
I came out of this with a bit of a headache which kind of sums things up really.
(SPOILER)
- It was probably appropriate the film started with Russell Crowe, the world's most humourless actor in a very po-faced film.
- The opening segment on Krypton seemed to go too long in my opinion.
- I thought Henry Cavill was a perfectly good Clark/Superman, though he must be hoping for better luck in his career than his predecessors.
- It goes without saying but Michael Shannon was excellent, hopefully he gets a lot more attention from the wider world after this.
- Amy Adams *swoons*
- The action stuff was definitely impressive, even if after a while it started to feel like I'd been bludgeoned over the head repeatedly.
- Clark's father died because he went back to rescue the dog?!
- I know a kiss is obligatory in these films but this one seemed especially crowbarred in, surely they could have found a better place for it.
- Superman killing Zod? I can see why it's annoyed some people, but at the same time you could see the anguish it caused him to do it.
Overall, I'm not too sure. Not a bad film by any means, but something was missing for me.
I can agree about Krypton. To me (SPOILER)Jor-El's death didn't feel impacting because we didn't get to see Krypton before it was discovered that it was about to implode.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ouch!
I can also agree about the "I just think he's hot" quote was silly, but those stupid little things happen in movies all the time, that I just throw it off. Not even sure why these directors, put corny trout like that in there.
I think we can give Lex more credit than that. I mean the Joker is a notable villain that had a successful movie and he isn't someone that can challenge Batman physically. Joker and Lex Luthor challenge the morals and existence of those characters. if they do it well, it'll be good.Quote:
(SPOILER)I'm torn on the results of killing Zod. On the one hand, I think it's brilliant to force Superman's hand that way. Now he's not just the last Kryptonian. He's the last Kryptonian because he had to kill the only other one with his bare hands. DC more so than Marvel is rampant full of characters too noble to kill, and forcing Superman--the supposed paragon of virtue in the DC-universe--to kill his enemy in the debut of a new continuity is about as bold as it gets.
On the other hand, where exactly do we go from here? Unless they immediately launch into the Justice League (which has been stated as a goal), Superman is now left without a major foe who can match him physically--at least one that audiences at large are going to recognize and embrace. There's Darkseid and Doomsday, I suppose, but most people are going to expect Lex Luthor as a villain. Frankly, Superman is at his best on the big screen when he's up against enemies who can give him a run for his money in a fist-fight. This movie was exciting because all the villains were just as strong, just as fast, and just as invulnerable as Superman. Previous Superman movies have been boring because they've had to avoid Superman going head-to-head against his enemies at full strength, because there's no justifiable way that he might lose. Unless it involves Kryptonite, and that turns him into a puddle on the floor without leaving room for action.
I watched it on Friday. It was a lot of fun. Way more (silly) action in it than I was expecting.
I was much less impressed than most people here, maybe because I actually let myself have pretty high expectations. I will say that it was a good Superman movie, but considering Superman movies are awful, that's not a very high standard. Otherwise, it was a solid 6-7/10, but no better.
Main criticisms: (spoiler alert)
-Too much focus on big, city-destroying fight scenes, very little on dialogue and character interaction (outside of the Krypton scene, which was silly and just an excuse to have a Jor-El/Zod chase and action sequence, and pretty much the whole thing could have been cut or very much condensed with no loss to the film). I think Clark and Lois had a combined 5 minutes together before their kiss, which was topped by painfully cheesy dialogue.
-For Superman to have been so hard on himself about killing Zod, he sure felt little hesitation about fighting in a major city and killing untold thousands of people in the process -- and all for the sake of having flashier, more destructive fight scenes. No hesitation or even the barest attempt to try to take the fighting elsewhere. And the fight scenes lasted forever.
-It seems like the Kryptonians demanded Lois come along with Superman onto their ship just as a plot device so that she could use Jor-El's key on their ship (and she was conveniently held in a place with the appropriate port).
-What little development there was in the present of the film (not flashbacks) was frantically paced -- until you reached a fight scene. Lois had a couple of sassy lines before she was relegated to continual damsel in distress. The story parts of the movie could have been two movies, if properly paced. Or at least an extra 30-40 minutes on this one, with the Krypton part and some action scenes condensed.
-I have never seen someone so smug about his own entirely unnecessary death as Jonathan Kent.
Much more minor nitpick: I know that the damsel-falling-into-Superman's-arms trope is as old as the Superman comic itself, but I still find myself wondering what the difference is between concrete and invulnerable superarms. Both are perfectly capable of killing someone when contacted at 200+ mph.
But the movie had upsides, and was definitely worth seeing. Superman's actor was pretty much spot-on, and the acting overall was great. The plot was notably good for a Superman film, just weirdly paced. And the action scenes were very well done, if also over-done. It was a good summer blockbuster, and very entertaining.
Did you just happen to miss the the fact that (SPOILER)every time people are "dying by the thousands", Superman happened to be fighting one or more Kryptonians at the same time?Quote:
Originally Posted by Miriel
You make it sound as though taking the fight elsewhere when you're fighting someone who's about as powerful as you are, is a better fighter than you are and who wants to kill as many people as possible is the easiest thing in the world. Try picking a fight with someone and guiding them somewhere else while still fighting them and see how that works out for you. What was he supposed to do though? Honestly? Moreover, who's to say he wasn't trying? It's not like he can just grab Zod or the other Kryptonians and just fly away?Quote:
Originally Posted by Raistlin
For that matter, we don't know how many people had gotten out of those skyscrapers and were well on their way to getting as far from the city as possible. But Superman would probably have some idea. Honestly, aside from Perry, Jenny and that other guy, there didn't seem to be many people running around downtown by the time Zod's ship was destroyed.
I wasn't asking for much: just a thought or sign that it mattered in the slightest to Superman, even if he couldn't successfully change the venue of the fight. Just some indication that he gave a crap and understood what was happening.
You're right about one thing (though not in the way you intended): the consequences of the urban fighting were very white-washed. The whole city could not have been evacuated in minutes, and thousands, tens of thousands, must have died. But we don't see it, and it certainly didn't matter to any of the characters onscreen. It was very G-rated, senseless, consequence-free action, which is a bit weird given that Christopher Nolan had a hand in it.
It's not about Lex, it's about Superman. The dynamic between the Joker and Batman works so well even though the Joker can't challenge him physical because Batman is interesting as a character even when he isn't beating peoples' heads in. Batman is a detective. He's cerebral. Pitting him against someone who challenges him in a non-physical manner is interesting because of the way his character is capable of responding. The problem is that no matter how interesting Luther is, Superman is boring when he's challenged in any way other than physical. Unless a villain poses a physical threat to Superman, things get boring fast. And when kryptonite is used as the only means to bring Superman down, it's boring because there's not much that he can do against it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Depression Moon
I did fall asleep during one part, but it still proved to be an enjoyable movie. I don't get Amy Adam's appeal and wish they would find someone with less of a bitchface to play Lois Lane, but other than that I liked it. I guess though technically Lois Lane has traditionally had a bitchface though so fair enough. I liked how they gave General Zod more of a reason so that he just wasn't inherently evil. It was entirely possible for them to coexist, but people always gotta be cray.
Although one thing that does always piss me off in these movies... WHY THE HELL DO THEY WRECK EVERYTHING TO DESTROY A FEW VILLAINS? Keep your fights in the same area or knock him a smurfing field. Yeah let's go destroy some schools and museums. I was less pissed when I remembered what the moms said, "it's only stuff, Clark". So yeah true, it is only stuff, but still wtf especially considering people definitely died in those buildings that they smurfed up. And why oh why were people in a museum when they knew danger was imminent? I'm pretty sure what was happening in Kansas was all over the news worldwide. Also why does he magically not have a beard after he puts the suit on for the first time? Do aliens have invisible razors?
Basically the best Superman movie out of them all which isn't saying much because those other ones blew. This made it up for it with it's action which is exactly what I want when I go to see a super hero movie. And if you're seeing a super hero movie going "too much action" then go watch The Notebook or some other sissy movie. This is a friggin' super hero movie.
Also Michael Shannon is great and if this movie were done about fifteen years ago I could easily see Gary Oldman playing his part just like he did. Damn that would've been awesome.
She's one of the best actresses working today, there's the appeal. And I have no idea what a 'bitchface' is, but what an unpleasant (and unnecessary) comment to make.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiny
That's what her marketing during the academy wanted you to think. She is a subpar actress who always plays herself. Just because you think she's hot doesn't mean she's a good actress.
Also:
http://cdn.mos.totalfilm.com/images/...746-470-75.jpg
Bitchface
And with that note, Henry Cavill is a hot too, but also doesn't make him good. I cringed at a few of hus line deliveries. I have to remember that Clark Kent is really wholesome Kansas farmer boy so some of that line delivery was accurately cheesy.
Vivi22 (aka Mr. Loves to create reasons to defend poor decisions made by movie characters), are you seriously gonna try and ignore ALL the various instances throughout the movie where there was outrageously over the top and gratuitous collateral damage with Superman (once he became Superman, not when he was Clark Kent) seemingly being indifferent to the deaths of anyone aside from a speaking role character? Really? Even just a quick throwaway line or any kind of small action to try and save lives or minimize damage would have been nice. Avengers had a huge amount of collatoral damage too, but at least they acknowledged it a few times with the Avengers assigning people to help the civilians escape, as well as the montage in the aftermath showing the people grieving over the loss of lives and the destruction of the city. But in Man of Steel, there was barely any recognition of that. If I'm remembering correctly, in the scene with Zod & Martha Kent, Superman comes pummeling into Zod and actually punched him INTO the middle of the town. I mean, wtf?? There's farmland everywhere!
Shiny - I actually had the opposite problem with Amy Adams (who I normally adore). I thought she was TOO smile-y and nice to be Lois Lane. I can't look at Amy Adams without thinking she's going to burst into song and dance. Also regarding the cheesy lines, I don't think it was Cavill's delivery that was the problem. He just had some truly cheesy lines to deal with. I think he actually delivered them better than can be expected. I thought he elevated the sub-par writing. Imagine what he could have done with Joss Whedon type dialogue instead.
Huh? All I said was the action stuff was impressive *confused*
And Shiny, who would you have rather play Lois Lane? Tell us some non-bitchface actresses who are more talented than Amy Adams. Thanks for providing a still of her (is that from The Master?) as concrete evidence though.
Ahh, sorry, was meant to be addressing Vivi22!
Overall, I liked it. I thought the beginning and ending were great, but it faltered some in the middle with pacing and continuity issues.
The opening stuff on Krypton was probably my favorite part. It went a little long, but I didn't mind. They did a great job of setting up Krypton as this doomed world, and I loved the brief glimpses of the wildlife to show what an utter tragedy the Kryptonions created for every living creature there. I thought Jor-El (Russell Crowe was great and I didn't mind that he got so much screen time - what a commanding presence), Zod, and Lara were very effective but what was up with the other Kryptonions? It's like they didn't even care, though I guess that was the point. I could probably go see a Superman prequel that takes place on Krypton and stars Russell Crowe. Call it The Fall of Krypton and bam, there's a half billion dollars. You can thank me later, DC.
I would have liked something more chronological with Clark growing up. It was way too disjointed in the film. I will give them some benefit and say it's a lot of time to cover, but I felt it could have been done a lot better. And Jonathan Kent was awful! Kevin Costner is not a good actor but this wasn't as much his fault as it was the writing for his character. Jonathan is not supposed to be this scared man, afraid of what the world might do with his son, willing to let people die to protect his secret. Jonathan is supposed to be Clark's moral compass, he is supposed to be the reason why Clark is the boy scout he is, always standing up for justice, why he turned out to be Superman and not another Zod. This Jonathan did none of that. The dad on Smallville was a lot better.
I really liked the action sequences though I agree the collateral damage was a bit much (but come on, it's Superman). Zod's female henchman (henchwoman?) was an absolute beast and I enjoyed every action scene she was in. The final fight was also pretty epic, though it was very uncharacteristic of Superman to just allow so much destruction haphazardly. Killing Zod at the end was an interesting attempt to have some psychological issues with Supes but it fell flat for me due to having lack of setup.
The kiss scene was the most awful part of the movie and I thought I was watching a Michael Bay movie during that scene. Lois in general was just ok.
I think this is a good cornerstone for the franchise and I'm excited to see where they go from here. I'm sure they want to do a Dark Knight-style villain movie with Lex but I'm not sure how that will work. I did like the Lexcorp logo on some of the destroyed trucks though. :D
How are y'all still complaining about collateral damage when it's been prevalent in the comics and cartoons for years?
Because we can't complain about something if it has existed before?
If it helps, [insert complaining about collateral damage in all previous incarnations of Superman, ever].
I think the advent of CGI has made collateral damage much more rampant in movies than it has been in the past. Sure, it already existed in the books and cartoons, but when you are seeing settings involving live people it has a different effect.
There wasn't really much Clark could have done to prevent the collateral damage in at least 90% of the cases where it happened. Nearly all the times he went through populated areas it's because someone else threw him there. The film's Clark Kent is not anywhere near fully in control of his powers; in fact, he's brand new to them, while the Kryptonians he's facing have mostly trained for their entire lives. It's also the first time he's ever fought anyone anywhere near his own power level, much less beyond it. As soon as Faora and the other Kryptonians show up, the battle is no longer on his terms, and it continues not to be on his terms for almost the entire remainder of the film.
The other thing worth pointing out is that, for a large chunk of the time he's fighting the Kryptonians, he's also trying to stop them from killing every living thing on Earth. I'm pretty sure that the genocide of every living thing on Earth would be much worse collateral damage than a few falling buildings, and anyone who blames the film's Clark for not saving every single person around him when he was in a race against time to stop a complete planetary apocalypse is thinking a bit myopically, to say the least.
I also don't think the film's collateral damage was particularly whitewashed. It was pretty obvious that large numbers of buildings were completely destroyed. They don't need to see people bleeding out from their wounds for it to be obvious that the conflict was destructive.
This is all addressed in much further detail here.
The film wasn't perfect, but I'd give it an 8/10 or so. I also think this film did a better job capturing what makes Superman special than any previous Superman film I've seen has: not that he believes in humanity, but that his belief in humanity itself inspires others to greatness.
Eh, he could have at least gotten them out of downtown or off of main street, 'new' (guy's in his 30s) to his powers or not.
I seriously doubt that. He was pretty clearly having a hard time even keeping up with the Kryptonians attacking him. What's he going to do, step away and tell people to get away? They'd kill other people while he was doing it. Yell warnings? Most of the time they threw him through buildings he had no advance warning they were going to do so, and he was thrown too far for the message to carry anyway.
And yes, he is "new" to his powers as far as actually fighting anyone at a comparable level of skill to him. He has effectively never had to defend himself before. No one was a plausible threat to him. His previous feats were things like rescuing his classmates from the lake and saving the people on the burning oil rig. Not exactly intense combat situations, those.
Some restraint would have been nice is all I'm saying. But yeah, he could have stepped away, gone to a nice little coffee shop, or off to Coney Island for a hotdog, etc. It's really disappointing how narrow-minded you're being. These are aliens from another planet. Let's think outside the box here.
I don't see how I'm being narrow-minded. If anything, I don't think you're taking into account how combat actually works when you're against an opponent who is: a. more powerful than you, and b. actively trying to kill you. Clark was doing everything he could to stay alive and prevent the Kryptonians from killing everyone on Earth. In a situation like that, I don't see how restraint is going to be anywhere near approaching a top priority.
I think you're just making excuses.
Superman can't do anything to help civilians? It MUST be because he has absolutely no way of doing so while in combat. It can't possibly be because the filmmakers simply wanted a massively impressive visual spectacle.
Pssh.
Superman took the fight with Zod away from the farm and INTO town. That was unnecessary. He was able to catch Lois while she fell from the sky, but NO ONE ELSE. And then he has time to kiss! There's probably hundreds or thousands trapped or dying and he has time to kiss! After the gravity thinger was shut down, him and Zod start to go at it in the non-destructed part of town. In the aftermath, I don't remember them even mentioning the destruction and rebuilding or rescue efforts. It was just smash smash smash, which just makes it rather empty.
In the Avengers, you had a quick montage of the missing people wall and the memorials and the questions being asked about how this devastation was allowed to happened. That all took, what, 1 minute? It doesn't take much to just acknowledge the human element in that destruction.
Hopefully in the next film they'll deal with the fact that Superman was part of the reason why so much destruction happened, even if he was the good guy here. Maybe that'll be Lex's motivation.
And I think you're just nitpicking.Quote:
I think you're just making excuses.
Yes because it's so realistic to expect a single untrained farm boy to be a tactical genius who can exert complete control in combat against a cadre of professional killers.Quote:
Superman can't do anything to help civilians? It MUST be because he has absolutely no way of doing so while in combat. It can't possibly be because the filmmakers simply wanted a massively impressive visual spectacle.
This is the first time that Superman has ever fought anyone. Ever. If anything is unrealistic about the way these fights were handled, it's that he was as competent as he was. The fact that there was lots of collateral damage is completely realistic even if he was trying his hardest to avoid it.
I wonder if you watched the same film I watched. I was looking pretty damn closely, and I only saw two times that Superman was responsible for something that might have endangered someone. One was when he chucked that enormous dude into the trainyard, and the other was when he smashed Zod's face against the end of the building that Zod was smashing him against. Every other time Clark's actions were potentially putting others in danger, it was because the Kryptonians threw Clark.Quote:
Superman took the fight with Zod away from the farm and INTO town. That was unnecessary.
Could he have done more to prevent destruction? Probably, yeah, at least if he had been in better control of his powers. But, as I said, untrained farm boy.
From the link in my first post, a thorough overview of the combat in the entire film and Clark's reasoning for the decisions he made:
Quote:
...this point needs to be made first - this film’s Superman is BRAND NEW to his powers. He’s never fought before, he hasn’t spent ANY of his life as the world’s savior, aside from doing right where he can in small ways, LONG before he gained the ability to fly, and he’s never actually been able to fight ANYONE before these conflicts. So the before you start accusing him of not doing more, remember that he’s BARELY become able to do what he accomplishes in the film. So, now let’s get into the fights themselves. The filme doesn’t give you any of the slow-motion fighting that’s so commonly used in film these days, so it’s easy to assume that things are happening that didn’t, because everything is just full-power, breakneck speed, militarily-trained Kryptonians going all out against Kal-El. We’ll start with the first conflict in Smallville, and work from there.
After saving Lois from the broken escape pod, Kal-El rushes over towards his home, and tackles Zod. This is the first building that Kal-El himself destroys. He plows directly through two grain silos, and drags Zod through a cornfield while punching him in the face and yelling at him for threatening his mother. The grain silos are more than likely unoccupied, as they’re just storage facilities. Zod rolls out and hurls Kal-El through an occupied gas station, causing people to flee. You’ll note that Zod comes walking out of the flames in the building, as Kal-El is lying on the pavement well outside the store. Considering that he’s fighting against militarily trained Kryptonians, there isn’t much he can do about that type of thing occurring. This is the first of many, MANY times that Superman gets used as a projectile that causes collateral damage, and one that’s easy to MISTAKE for him CAUSING the damage through his own action. Zod leaves with his mask broken, but Faora-Ul & her ENORMOUS Kryptonian compatriot step in, and Clark tells everyone to stay inside or leave.
The moment that the military arrives, and essentially locks in the conflict’s location within the town. Clark manages to save a man from falling to his death after the big Kryptonian hurls a van into his helicopter before the fighting REALLY breaks out, but after that he doesn’t have a moment to spare. In addition to the fact that the military is treating him like a threat, the two Kryptonians tag-team him and hurl him through buildings, or just smash him into the ground at just about every turn, and he’s barely managing to hold off their assault, let alone have enough time to leap to anyone’s aid. This is a battle that ISN’T on his terms - not to mention that he hasn’t even fought anyone before, let alone tried to micromanage combat and rescuing people. He gets hurled through buildings into a bank vault, pummeled relentlessly through an IHOP, and back to where he was before. This leads to the SECOND human structure that Clark destroys - he tosses the big Kryptonian into a train yard. Again, this is another area that’s likely abandoned (he would have had a pretty good view of it from the air, and ought to have been able to tell), but like the grain silo, it’s hard to say for certain. After, knocking down Faora-Ul, she delivers a rather heavy threat, “For every one you save, we’ll kill a million more.” and with these people, Kal-El can’t take his attention away from them, even for a moment, because they’re better than he is, and his biggest advantage here is that they’re not adapted to our atmosphere. After getting hit by a train hurled by the big Kryptonian from the aforementioned yard, there isn’t anything else significant that comes to mind that Clark is involved in (various gunfire, and Faora-Ul blocking a missile fired at her are collateral damage that he’s not directly involved in because he’s otherwise detained). This weakness leads to the next big conflict that deals in HEAVY collateral damage - Metropolis.
The World Engine is activated in the Indian Ocean, and is slaved to the Kryptonian’s Ship hovering over Metropolis. The World Engine is generating the gravity wave that’s causing the destruction and also serving as a protective barrier around their ship. In addition to this, the longer that the World Engine remains intact, the bigger the gravity wave will get, and the more of the atmosphere will be converted into Kryptonian-friendly and Earth-deadly fumes. This means that Superman HAS to tackle the World Engine first, in order to allow Lois and the military to send the rest of the Kryptonians into the Phantom Zone, as well as to ensure that it causes the least amount of damage possible.
Let me be clear here - by fighting that gigantic machine, Superman is saving more people than if he’d gone immediately to Metropolis - that ship is has somewhere around eight Kryptonians who we already know pose a threat to him if there’re just two of them fighting him. Two, even if he defeats them, the World Engine would be wrecking Metropolis THE ENTIRE TIME, if not causing global-scale damage. The World Engine is increasing the Earth’s mass, in order to make the world’s gravity more like that of Krypton (which is some sketchy science, but that’s something else entirely), and that ship is just localizing the effect to use it as a shield/weapon. Not to mention that after a fight against a whole slew of Kryptonians in fluctuating Gravity, he might not even be strong enough to break down the World Engine at all (since he barely managed to hold up against the gravity level where it was at when it was his first target, and it would be significantly stronger if he attempted to combat it later - not to mention, without the focus, it might just spread the effect across the entire world if they destroyed the Kryptonian ship first which would cause Global damage). So, now it should be clear that, Superman is saving more people by being halfway around the world than by being in Metropolis at the time, despite the fact that it feels counterintuitive.
Now let’s move on to his fight against Zod, which takes place in the non-ruined parts of Metropolis. Zod throws Kal-El through a LOT of buildings which are possibly and even likely occupied. We even see people near where debris is falling, but Superman isn’t doing anything to save them - this is again because this fight isn’t on his terms (and this isn’t the Superman who’s been using all of these powers to save people around the world before). Zod is a battle trained warrior who adapts to the issues Clark faced on Earth in a matter of hours. Clark is fighting as hard as he can just to get even a momentary advantage here. If he runs to try to change the battlefield - Zod probably won’t chase him, he’ll just start murdering people by the thousands, so he stays as close to Zod as possible, but that doesn’t do him any favors. He gets tossed through buildings, punched into space, and relentlessly pummeled. There is ONE SINGLE TIME DURING THIS ENTIRE FIGHT that Kal-El damages a building or any other structure that may have resulted in human injury - Zod is dragging him against a building (the same way Kal-El dragged him through the cornfield), and he flips around and drags Zod against the outside of the building for the last few feet. Aside from that, Kal-El DOESN’T DIRECTLY CAUSE ANY DAMAGE WITHIN METROPOLIS. There’s even a whole sequence of him punching Zod through the sky, moving through the city (assumedly in an attempt to move out of it), where he doesn’t hit Zod into anything and even specifically avoids all of the buildings, before Zod gets the better of him again. Overall, despite how it looks, Kal-El takes every opportunity to save people when he can - which is almost never, and when he can’t, he’s trying to ensure the least amount of damage possible. (On a related note, this is likely why this Superman takes up Metropolis as his ‘home city’ - because he feels that he owes them for everyone that he couldn’t save from the Kryptonian’s attacks).
It's almost as if you expect Superman to be a robot or something. He just went through a near-death experience. Are you honestly expecting him to exhibit Samaritan syndrome at this of all times? Kryptonians aren't Vulcans. And, for that matter, even Vulcans aren't as robotic as people think they are.Quote:
He was able to catch Lois while she fell from the sky, but NO ONE ELSE. And then he has time to kiss! There's probably hundreds or thousands trapped or dying and he has time to kiss!
Man of Steel made it pretty goddamn obvious that a troutload of buildings were collapsing. I don't think they need to beat you over the head with the fact that people are going to die in a situation like that. That's verging into Viewers Are Morons territory. Not that I'm complaining about the way the destruction was handled in The Avengers, since there was a good artistic purpose for it, but I see nothing to complain about in Man of Steel's treatment, either.Quote:
In the Avengers, you had a quick montage of the missing people wall and the memorials and the questions being asked about how this devastation was allowed to happened. That all took, what, 1 minute? It doesn't take much to just acknowledge the human element in that destruction.
Superman was only "part of the reason why so much destruction happened" if you blame him for being inexperienced and emotional. The actual reason so much destruction happened was the other Kryptonians. But, yes, I wouldn't be surprised if Superman gets blamed for the destruction anyway.Quote:
Hopefully in the next film they'll deal with the fact that Superman was part of the reason why so much destruction happened, even if he was the good guy here. Maybe that'll be Lex's motivation.
I agree with everything The Man has said on all points. The rest of you are nitpicky butttards.
I agree that Superman is going to get a big blame for everything. I also think that Lex might be a big part of rebuilding Metropolis. It would make for an interesting introduction to his character I think.
The excessive collateral damage is the most common and consistent criticism I've seen of this film.
And obviously, it's been mentioned enough times, by enough people to the point where someone felt that they had to write a damn essay trying to explain it all away. Just think about that for a sec.
There is a lot to nitpick about this movie if you really wanted to. Tons of stuff that just didn't make much sense. But the excessive collateral damage is not one of them. It's not a nitpick if it's a glaring obvious thing that many many viewers and critics noticed.
I seriously can't fathom how people can take a general criticism (and as far as I can tell in this thread, the people who mentioned it LIKED the movie!!!!!) and turn it into all these random explanations that just go on and on. Some of the stuff... I don't even want to touch it.
Why try so hard? Seriously? Are you guys literally incapable of enjoying a film if you can't do mental gymnastics to explain every single action? Do you experience some sort of cognitive dissonance?
Here, enjoy some Henry Cavill eye candy. Maybe that will keep you from spending time writing essays about this crap.
http://24.media.tumblr.com/3f51dfc65...kbspo3_500.gif
I am not sure what I find more annoying. His constant frown/determination face Amy Adams' or consistent bitchface. Oh well, at least he has nice man breasts.
Also that girl from that horrible movie Zero Dark Thirty would make a better Lois.
It's not a random explanation. Really. You have yet to explain what is convoluted or wrong about "Clark Kent has never fought before and is unable to prevent himself from being thrown by trained killers into higher-populated areas". In fact, you have yet to address this argument at all; you are simply going round in circles about how large numbers of people have made the argument you are making so it must be right. This is an appeal to popularity fallacy and all it means is that large numbers of people weren't paying much attention to Clark's background or what was happening in the fights. Nearly every time he goes into a higher populated area during the fight it is because he was thrown there. Really.Quote:
I seriously can't fathom how people can take a general criticism (and as far as I can tell in this thread, the people who mentioned it LIKED the movie!!!!!) and turn it into all these random explanations that just go on and on. Some of the stuff... I don't even want to touch it.
Honestly, I didn't address your arguments specifically because I read it and thought, "are you troutting me? this is so dumb"
That was my legit reaction which is why I didn't want to go line by line explaining why I think it's all so inane. There was so much REACHING. Just reaching reaching reaching to come up with explanations. And the biggest thing is, what makes you think that your explanations are more legitimate than the explanations other people come up with in their heads? Why is, "Oh, Superman was absolutely way too involved in the fights to help anyone else" any more legitimate than, "Big destructive action sequences are fun to watch!" Don't try and push your fan made explanations on me, I have my own explanations for why things happened the way things happened. I'm not trying to stop you from making up your own explanations if they make you happy. I do that all the time with movies and books and TV shows. Just don't go around acting like your explanations are canon. They're not. Not until the writers or the director flat out spell out that this was their intention, and even then, it might still be dubious.
Even your "appeal to popularity fallacy" crap is reaching. The very definition of nitpicking is to be overly critical of minor details. When many different people, separately and of their own accord notice and criticize something, then it's probably not minor and it's probably not being overly critical. So bringing up the fact that it's a notably common criticism expressed by many different people is god damn relevant when someone claims nitpicking. I mean, it kinda goes right to the heart of the meaning of the word.
Holy trout, Jessica Chastain would have been INSANE!! And now I am sad that this isn't a reality. I love her.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiny
So you're just going to insult my argument? That's it? You have nothing to say about Superman not being an experienced fighter? Nothing to say about the people he's facing being trained killers? Nothing to say about him being in a race against time to stop a genocide of all humans? Nothing to say about the detailed scene-by-scene overview of every fight scene in the film? All you have to say is "Those arguments are dumb"? Wow.Quote:
Honestly, I didn't address your arguments specifically because I read it and thought, "are you troutting me? this is so dumb"
That was my legit reaction which is why I didn't want to go line by line explaining why I think it's all so inane. There was so much REACHING. Just reaching reaching reaching to come up with explanations.
Apparently, you think bringing up canonical plot points of a film is dumb. Granted, I probably should have expected this after your behaviour in the Star Trek Into Darkness thread, where apparently it took a Cracked article for you to admit you were wrong.
In case it wasn't obvious, I'm pretty smurfing offended.
The fact that my explanations about Superman being inexperienced, the Kryptonians being experienced, Superman being in a race against time to stop genocide, etc., are, in most of these cases, EXPLICITLY STATED IN THE FILM, and in the first case, extremely smurfing obvious due to the fact that Superman has never fought a Kryptonian before the events of the film, and is pretty plainly way more powerful than any humans. If people fail to absorb crucial plot points revealed IN THE FILM ITSELF and come up with explanations that contradict those plot points, then yes, their explanations are incorrect.Quote:
And the biggest thing is, what makes you think that your explanations are more legitimate than the explanations other people come up with in their heads?
Well, if the alleged plot hole they claim to have found is explained in the story, which it is, then yes, it actually is minor, or rather, non-existent.Quote:
Even your "appeal to popularity fallacy" crap is reaching. The very definition of nitpicking is to be overly critical of minor details. When many different people, separately and of their own accord notice and criticize something, then it's probably not minor and it's probably not being overly critical.
http://media.tumblr.com/cd329865ca84...uCo1qz4rgp.gif
It's a fiilllllmmm!!! It's Supermaaaaan!
Wanna know why they're dumb? Ok, let's do this.
The dumbass explanations you came up with don't even touch on the points people made in this thread.
1) Too much collateral damage. That just means that there were a lot of buildings being destroyed, to the point where people got weary of it. You don't need long-winded explanations about aliens and the resulting catastrophe that would ensue. Duh. But there was SO MUCH of it that people noticed that the sequences dragged on, and remarked that there didn't need to be so much. So cram those long-winded explanations down the crap hole. This criticism doesn't even have anything to do with motivations or Superman or Zod, it has to do with god damn editing issues. Jesus christ.
2) Regarding Superman himself's apparent lack of initiative in helping people out during the trout storm that happened in Metropolis. So you have all these excuses about how Superman is so inexperienced and did you notice that he was being punched into builidings and how can we expect so much of him when he's being pummeled and losing a fight and also maybe he is trying and it's just not super clear and and and.
This is relevant:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miriel
So you're delving into all these psychological and physical issues when that's not even what we're talking about. We're talking about freakin' FILIMMAKING DECISIONS. They could have done a tiny little extra dialogue, or a few extra close up reaction shots from Superman, or even just a 2 second action shot to help make this particular criticism go away. People aren't questioning Superman's motives or his psyche, they're questioning the filmmaking. I mean, god. Is this not clear? This is the crux of why I think your arugments are dumb, because they're UNNECESSARYQuote:
Originally Posted by Raistlin
3) Superman only saving Lois during the trout storm. Your answer to this particular criticism I made is basically, "WHAT DO YOU EXPECT? VULCANS?" Can you really not see how ludicrous it is? Now we have to shoe-horn in explanations about how Superman had just had a traumatic experience, and you can't blame him and he just wants to feel his emotions? How about this for an explanation: Lois needed a way to get from Point A (plane) to Point B (ground) and Superman was the best way to do this. But in doing so, it made it seem like Superman only really cared to save Lois and not the other people simultaneously dying. And secondly, they hadn't kissed at this point yet and time was running out so they decided to do it then. Which resulted in a kiss happening after a near genocide, in the presence of dead/wounded/dying/etc.
There, I just wasted 10 minutes writing this up. Tra la la. Hope it helps you understand the "THIS IS DUMB" stamp I gave your arguments.
I'm not really sure why you think anything I said was supposed to be a response to there being "too much" collateral damage. That's pretty clearly a matter of taste. Extremely physically powerful and technologically advanced aliens invading our planet and trying to kill off every living human being is pretty smurfing close to an "end of the world" scenario, though, so I'm not sure why anyone wouldn't expect a lot of people to die in such a case. If anything, the past films that depicted such scenarios without lots of people dying are probably being a bit optimistic about how well humanity would actually fare.Quote:
1) Too much collateral damage. That just means that there were a lot of buildings being destroyed, to the point where people got weary of it. You don't need long-winded explanations about aliens and the resulting catastrophe that would ensue. Duh. But there was SO MUCH of it that people noticed that the sequences dragged on, and remarked that there didn't need to be so much. It is the most collateral damage I've seen in a movie outside of an end of the world movie. So cram those long-winded explanations down the crap hole. This criticism doesn't even have anything to do with motivations or Superman or Zod, it has to do with god damn editing issues. Jesus christ.
You complained about Superman "seemingly being indifferent to the deaths of anyone aside from a speaking role character". My point is that your assumption that he is indifferent is not warranted by the actual film.Quote:
2) Regarding Superman himself's apparent lack of initiative in helping people out during the trout storm that happened in Metropolis. So you have all these excuses about how Superman is so inexperienced and did you notice that he was being punched into builidings and how can we expect so much of him when he's being pummeled and losing a fight and also maybe he is trying and it's just not super clear and and and.
There was dialogue addressing this, as already addressed in the quoted text I posted above. Almost at the very beginning of the fighting, as mentioned at the end of the second paragraph, Clark tells everyone to stay inside or get the hell out of the way. After that point the pace of the fighting has picked up far too much for him issuing any further warnings to be plausible. I mean, they could have thrown in him trying to issue further warnings to people, but (1) the intended recipients probably wouldn't have heard them in time to get out of the way, due to the pace of the combat and Clark being thrown around so much, and (2) you probably wouldn't have been able to hear them over the fighting anyway.Quote:
So you're delving into all these psychological and physical issues when that's not even what we're talking about. We're talking about freakin' FILIMMAKING DECISIONS. They could have done a tiny little extra dialogue, or a few extra close up reaction shots from Superman, or even just a 2 second action shot to help make this particular criticism go away. People aren't questioning Superman's motives or his psyche, they're questioning the filmmaking. I mean, god. Is this not clear? This is the crux of why I think your arugments are dumb, because they're UNNECESSARY
First of all, Superman doesn't only save Lois; there's also the man he saves from falling to his death after the big Kryptonian destroys his helicopter. Again, discussed above in the long quoted text that you obviously didn't read very carefully or at all.Quote:
3) Superman only saving Lois during the trout storm. Your answer to this particular criticism I made is basically, "WHAT DO YOU EXPECT? VULCANS?" Can you really not see how ludicrous it is? Now we have to shoe-horn in explanations about how Superman had just had a traumatic experience, and you can't blame him and he just wants to feel his emotions? How about this for an explanation: Lois needed a way to get from Point A (plane) to Point B (ground) and Superman was the best way to do this. But in doing so, it made it seem like Superman only really cared to save Lois and not the other people simultaneously dying. And secondly, they hadn't kissed at this point yet and time was running out so they decided to do it then. Which resulted in a kiss happening after a near genocide, in the presence of dead/wounded/dying/etc.
Secondly, you apparently want to disregard Watsonian interpretations as much as possible for extremely cynical Doylism, to the point where you repeatedly outright dismiss Watsonian interpretations as "ludicrous" and "dumb" (if memory serves, you did it in the Star Trek thread too, even though the Watsonian interpretations turned out to be correct). And no, that isn't the entirety of my argument: the more important point is that for the overwhelming majority of the action he couldn't have saved anyone.
You're basically criticising the depiction of a character spending roughly thirty seconds indulging his emotions after surviving a battle to the death as though that is at all unrealistic. What if he stopped thirty seconds to catch his breath? Would that also have been Superman not giving a trout about saving others?
The simple fact is that, after surviving a battle to the death, the last thing anyone is going to be doing is thinking rationally.
And by the way, I have a pretty obvious Doylist explanation for why the film is the way it is, as well: they thought Superman being overmatched and unable to save people during the heat of combat, as well as being too drained after the fight to think about immediately rushing back to Metropolis to save people, would be obvious and didn't want to insult the viewers' intelligence.
I realize you're not technically directly referring to any person as dumb or a dumbass, but you're treading a very thin line here. Some people who don't have my thicker skin might even say you've already crossed it. Tone it down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Miriel
If you're criticism in this regard was a result of you simply being weary of seeing a lot of destruction then you'll have to forgive us for misinterpreting since you not only didn't make that clear, but you've also had this argument tangled up with other arguments about Superman not saving people and whatnot which are not simple matters of film goer taste. Regardless, I'm not going to debate your personal taste with you because I could care less what you got tired of seeing.Quote:
1) Too much collateral damage. That just means that there were a lot of buildings being destroyed, to the point where people got weary of it. You don't need long-winded explanations about aliens and the resulting catastrophe that would ensue. Duh. But there was SO MUCH of it that people noticed that the sequences dragged on, and remarked that there didn't need to be so much. So cram those long-winded explanations down the crap hole. This criticism doesn't even have anything to do with motivations or Superman or Zod, it has to do with god damn editing issues. Jesus christ.
The Man has already addressed your argument in this section so I won't retread it. But suffice it to say, when you don't make your actual argument clear in the first place, no, it's not clear. Particularly when you're actually wrong about things which were addressed in the film. Whether they were addressed in a way you liked isn't really the point.Quote:
I mean, god. Is this not clear?
So Superman had a case of tunnel vision when someone he cared about was in danger, and not 30 seconds later he was fighting for his life again and the lives of every human on the planet. Does it suck for the people who may be injured or dying (of which there aren't going to be many since most of the people hurt in Metropolis until that point would have been the ones crushed to death by the gravity beam)? Sure. Is it a piece of bad writing or a plot hole? Not unless you consider having a normal human reaction to be bad writing.Quote:
3) Superman only saving Lois during the trout storm. Your answer to this particular criticism I made is basically, "WHAT DO YOU EXPECT? VULCANS?" Can you really not see how ludicrous it is? Now we have to shoe-horn in explanations about how Superman had just had a traumatic experience, and you can't blame him and he just wants to feel his emotions? How about this for an explanation: Lois needed a way to get from Point A (plane) to Point B (ground) and Superman was the best way to do this. But in doing so, it made it seem like Superman only really cared to save Lois and not the other people simultaneously dying. And secondly, they hadn't kissed at this point yet and time was running out so they decided to do it then. Which resulted in a kiss happening after a near genocide, in the presence of dead/wounded/dying/etc.
When you're arguments rely on either personal taste or ignoring established events and facts in the movie, you might want to be a bit more conservative in what arguments you label dumb.Quote:
There, I just wasted 10 minutes writing this up. Tra la la. Hope it helps you understand the "THIS IS DUMB" stamp I gave your arguments.
The rationalizations in this thread are pretty painful. Do you people seriously believe that the filmmakers made a conscious choice of "oh, Superman is an inexperienced fighter and wouldn't think about or be able to change the venue of the fight" rather than "LET'S BLOW trout UP OH MAN THIS IS GONNA BE SO AWESOME"? Seriously? The former doesn't even begin to explain why Superman didn't even show any signs he cared through virtually the entire fight, or the complete white-washing of the death and destruction in Metropolis.
Miriel's tone may have been a bit much, but many of the so-called counterarguments here are just a rather bewildering series of "let's blatantly fabricate an ad hoc explanation so that the movie did no wrong." We're not criticizing your mother; it's a movie.
I think, considering the times we are in, it would be cool if they did Brainiac in the next movie. A rogue AI is an interesting match for Superman. And he could be played by Benedict Cumberpatch.
Yes, I think people who write films think pretty deeply about the motivations and limitations of their characters. That's kind of what you do when you're a writer.Quote:
Do you people seriously believe that the filmmakers made a conscious choice of "oh, Superman is an inexperienced fighter and wouldn't think about or be able to change the venue of the fight" rather than "LET'S BLOW trout UP OH MAN THIS IS GONNA BE SO AWESOME"? Seriously?
I already pointed out two segments where Superman did show signs he cared.Quote:
The former doesn't even begin to explain why Superman didn't even show any signs he cared through virtually the entire fight
Buildings were smurfing blowing up throughout almost the entire last forty-five minutes of the film. I'm not really sure how that counts as "whitewashed". Anyone who sees that and doesn't think death and destruction are going to result from that is not actually paying attention.Quote:
the complete white-washing of the death and destruction in Metropolis.
None of this is ad hoc. Almost all of my arguments rest directly on canonical elements of the film.Quote:
Miriel's tone may have been a bit much, but many of the so-called counterarguments here are just a rather bewildering series of "let's blatantly fabricate an ad hoc explanation so that the movie did no wrong." We're not criticizing your mother; it's a movie.
I pretty obviously don't think that "the movie did no wrong" because I rated it 8/10 and already pointed out that I think Superman even being as competent as he was against the Kryptonians is pretty unrealistic. That's not the only criticism I have, either. I just think these criticisms are unfounded.
I don't think anyone is saying there weren't things that could have been handled a bit better in the film. But could have been handled better is a far cry from weren't handled at all. Also, the fact that you think Superman should have at least tried to change the venue of the fight is laughable. What would that look like if he even tried it? Would it have been him trying to lead Zod away? Because I don't think a man who's stated goal is killing every person on the planet is simply going to be lead away rather than simply destroying the city until Superman can face him. It's not a huge stretch to believe that keeping the psychopath focused on trying to kill you rather than everyone else might be the best plan for saving more lives and buying time for people to get away.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raistlin
And showed no sign he cared about other people through the fight? Was he supposed to just stop fighting and emote for a second while getting punched through buildings by a literal god? There was maybe a full thirty seconds where he even had any downtime between destroying the terraforming machine and fighting Zod. Not to mention that his decision to become a killer to stop Zod from killing more people (something which goes against pretty much everything he believes in and stands for) kind of blows the idea that he never showed signs of caring through the entire fight out of the water. And we don't even need to get into the fact that he basically committed genocide against his own race to save humanity.
Why do you assume we're taking these arguments personally? Miriel's borderline insults we might take personally sure, but the argument? Not really. If anything, I'd say that I at least am being one of the calmer people here since I'm not the one dismissing arguments as dumb or accusing others of being butthurt because they don't agree with me. I'm just slightly surprised that you of all people are ignoring established facts in the movie to try and argue why some aspects are bad. If you want to say you didn't like how they handled some things that's fine. But demonstrating your factually incorrect in many of your assumptions isn't fabricating ad hoc explanations because "oh no, we can't handle the movie ever being wrong." It's paying attention to what was actually happening on screen and not glossing over or ignoring details to make a point the way you and Miriel have.Quote:
Miriel's tone may have been a bit much, but many of the so-called counterarguments here are just a rather bewildering series of "let's blatantly fabricate an ad hoc explanation so that the movie did no wrong." We're not criticizing your mother; it's a movie.
I'd be in favour of a Lex/Brainiac team up myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Del Murder
By the way, definite yes to Cumberbatch appearing as a villain. I don't even care which villain, as long as he shows up.
Just have Cumberbatch play all of the characters frankly. I'd be fine with that.
Here you are clearly fabricating an assumed result to justify your own desired conclusion. I am not saying Superman could have lured Zod away. I am not saying Superman clearly could have saved more lives. I am not assuming any particular result would have happened, based on my own ad hoc psychoanalysis of Superman and/or Zod. Superman could have done a ton of little things. Yes, he could have tried to lure Zod away, or punch him into the air, or, hell, even just looked at a building falling onto some people with a pained expression on his face. Instead, there was absolutely nothing for virtually all of the fighting, especially in Metropolis. I'm not assuming any particular result or reaction, but saying it would have been easy to add something to the Metropolis fighting to show Superman appreciated the wanton death and destruction the fight was causing. The fact that you are resisting even this very, very mild suggestion is utterly mind boggling.Quote:
I don't think anyone is saying there weren't things that could have been handled a bit better in the film. But could have been handled better is a far cry from weren't handled at all. Also, the fact that you think Superman should have at least tried to change the venue of the fight is laughable. What would that look like if he even tried it? Would it have been him trying to lead Zod away? Because I don't think a man who's stated goal is killing every person on the planet is simply going to be lead away rather than simply destroying the city until Superman can face him. It's not a huge stretch to believe that keeping the psychopath focused on trying to kill you rather than everyone else might be the best plan for saving more lives and buying time for people to get away.
Your distinction about "handled at all vs. not handled well" is completely arbitrary; I never even made such a distinction. Here: it was handled terribly. The one possible instance where Superman may have arguably shown he give a little bit of a damn (before most of the destruction in Metropolis, by the way) was unconvincing, and belied by his blissfully unaware conduct during most of the rest of the movie until Zod's death. If he cared, it was demonstrated very poorly and inconsistently, and the Metropolis fighting was blatant Michael Bay-esque fan service for a cool action sequence. Happy?
Your really valid point and i'm impressed by your thinking. example notwithstanding, did you completely miss the part where I said he cared so much about killing Zod, making his lack of apparent consideration for non-Lois human life during the Metropolis fight all the more strange?Quote:
And showed no sign he cared about other people through the fight? Was he supposed to just stop fighting and emote for a second while getting punched through buildings by a literal god? There was maybe a full thirty seconds where he even had any downtime between destroying the terraforming machine and fighting Zod. Not to mention that his decision to become a killer to stop Zod from killing more people (something which goes against pretty much everything he believes in and stands for) kind of blows the idea that he never showed signs of caring through the entire fight out of the water.
"Glossing over details"? What, the one instance Superman shouted "get inside" during the Smallville fighting? I pointed out one instance of blatant fabrication on your part in just this post. It's rather incredible that you of all people (nice personal touch there, btw) are entirely ignoring Occam's Razor, creating justifications that require assumptions about fictional character thoughts and reactions to hypothetical circumstances -- and resisting even the most mild criticisms to the contrary. Your rationalizations also focus on one or two tiny details, details of which are rather unconvincing when contrasted with the rest of the movie that contradicts the point allegedly being made by them, and you still have not provided any explanation for the lack of death shown in the Metropolis fight -- which, by the way, fits rather neatly into my "they just ignored it as much as possible in favor of big explosions and buildings falling" explanation.Quote:
If anything, I'd say that I at least am being one of the calmer people here since I'm not the one dismissing arguments as dumb or accusing others of being butthurt because they don't agree with me. I'm just slightly surprised that you of all people are ignoring established facts in the movie to try and argue why some aspects are bad. If you want to say you didn't like how they handled some things that's fine. But demonstrating your factually incorrect in many of your assumptions isn't fabricating ad hoc explanations because "oh no, we can't handle the movie ever being wrong." It's paying attention to what was actually happening on screen and not glossing over or ignoring details to make a point the way you and Miriel have.
This has gotten beyond silly; I was not aware simple criticism of a movie required a thesis defense. So this will be my last post on this subject.
I am not exactly sure how any of this could have been carried out in a believable fashion with the story that the film presented. Superman is consistently fighting off attempts on his life for every single second he is fighting in Metropolis (and, for that matter, for most of the Smallville fight as well). There is not even a second for him to pause, because the Kryptonians are consistently trying to kill him, and consistently trying to kill all of humanity as well. I think you're missing the point that Clark couldn't have lured Zod away or punched him into the air. Zod is a general. Superman has never fought before the events of the film. Zod not only has all of Superman's powers, but he is stronger than Superman and is far better trained. If Superman had tried to lure Zod away or punch him into the air, he would have been unsuccessful, and Zod would just have used that opportunity to slaughter more innocent people, as he himself explicitly told Clark. Even showing Clark glancing at a falling building with a pained expression on his face would have been unrealistic, because he would be looking away from his attackers, which is not something a person would be likely to do in a fight to the death. The second his attention was distracted could potentially have been fatal.Quote:
Here you are clearly fabricating an assumed result to justify your own desired conclusion. I am not saying Superman could have lured Zod away. I am not saying Superman clearly could have saved more lives. I am not assuming any particular result would have happened, based on my own ad hoc psychoanalysis of Superman and/or Zod. Superman could have done a ton of little things. Yes, he could have tried to lure Zod away, or punch him into the air, or, hell, even just looked at a building falling onto some people with a pained expression on his face. Instead, there was absolutely nothing for virtually all of the fighting, especially in Metropolis. I'm not assuming any particular result or reaction, but saying it would have been easy to add something to the Metropolis fighting to show Superman appreciated the wanton death and destruction the fight was causing. The fact that you are resisting even this very, very mild suggestion is utterly mind boggling.
And, as I have repeatedly mentioned now, Superman did save the life of the man in the helicopter, so this whole "Superman never showed that he gave a damn about anyone" argument you and Miriel have been repeatedly making is completely unfounded.
Assuming fictional characters are behaving like a predictable human being would behave when put into that circumstance is far from being in violation of Occam's Razor. If anything, it's ignoring Occam's Razor to disregard the tendencies of human behaviour.Quote:
It's rather incredible that you of all people (nice personal touch there, btw) are entirely ignoring Occam's Razor, creating justifications that require assumptions about fictional character thoughts and reactions to hypothetical circumstances -- and resisting even the most mild criticisms to the contrary.
You keep saying the Metropolis fight was whitewashed, but I'm not really sure how much more they could have done to show that the fight was ridiculously destructive and still maintained a PG-13 rating. They already evoked 9/11 about as blatantly as possible, with smoke coming out of the sides of toppling buildings and everything. As I've said, anyone who looks at this film and thinks "There must not have been much loss of life in Metropolis" is clearly not paying attention. They don't need to show buildings actually collapsing on top of living human beings for people to get the idea. People remember what happened in 9/11.Quote:
Your rationalizations also focus on one or two tiny details, details of which are rather unconvincing when contrasted with the rest of the movie that contradicts the point allegedly being made by them, and you still have not provided any explanation for the lack of death shown in the Metropolis fight -- which, by the way, fits rather neatly into my "they just ignored it as much as possible in favor of big explosions and buildings falling" explanation.
I hate how people complain so much about so many things. Just enjoy the movie for being a movie.
You two are a hoot. It's literally as if you have blinders on and don't even realize how silly it is, the things you're saying.
Except that you actually QUOTED me saying:Quote:
There was dialogue addressing this, as already addressed in the quoted text I posted above. Almost at the very beginning of the fighting, as mentioned at the end of the second paragraph, Clark tells everyone to stay inside or get the hell out of the way.
Yeah, he was a tad bit more proactive during the smallville scenes, definitely. Not so much in the Metropolis scenes, which is where the bulk of the collateral damage happens.Quote:
2) Regarding Superman himself's apparent lack of initiative in helping people out during the trout storm that happened in Metropolis.
Because they couldn't have written the scene so that the civilians would have heard or otherwise be helped by Superman. You see, writers have power like that. Whatever they want to happen, they put it in the script. And then Henry Cavill will read the script and do what it says. And then the extras will do what they're instructed to do as well. And then the whole scene comes together, you see?Quote:
I mean, they could have thrown in him trying to issue further warnings to people, but (1) the intended recipients probably wouldn't have heard them in time to get out of the way, due to the pace of the combat and Clark being thrown around so much, and (2) you probably wouldn't have been able to hear them over the fighting anyway.
Oh my god. He saves ONE other person besides Lois? That completely invalidates the point I was making! A single other character! My goodness what a huge difference that makes. Also, the rescuing again happens in the smallville scene. The falling Lois I was referencing was during the Metropolis battle. While he was scooping up Lois, I was mentally urging him to also look to the other citizens who were hurt or dying. He didn't. Thus the criticism.Quote:
First of all, Superman doesn't only save Lois; there's also the man he saves from falling to his death after the big Kryptonian destroys his helicopter. Again, discussed above in the long quoted text that you obviously didn't read very carefully or at all.
I'm curious to know what you would have thought if the writers went a different direction and DID have Superman show worry in the aftermath of the battle. Would you then have argued that this was not consistent with how a person would act after battle? That you wish Superman had been thinking less rationally? This is your interpretation. Like I said, it's fine if you think that the scene worked (or any other scene), for whatever reason. It should also be fine that others disagree, without you trying to push your rationalizations onto them.Quote:
The simple fact is that, after surviving a battle to the death, the last thing anyone is going to be doing is thinking rationally.
I think it was extremely clear that people were talking about there taste preference when it came to the collateral damage. And on top of that, the people who mentioned collatoral damage mentioned that it was just a little too much, not that they were angry it existed AT ALL. Do you need me to quote it? Ok.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miriel
Quote:
Originally Posted by Del Murder
Quote:
Although one thing that does always piss me off in these movies... WHY THE HELL DO THEY WRECK EVERYTHING TO DESTROY A FEW VILLAINS? Keep your fights in the same area or knock him a smurfing field. Yeah let's go destroy some schools and museums. I was less pissed when I remembered what the moms said, "it's only stuff, Clark".
Oh hi, I see you might be lost. We're actually currently in a thread where people post their OPINIONS about a movie they watched. Also, no one cares that you don't care. Seriously.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivi
That is EXACTLY the point in a thread where people post their OPINIONS about a movie. What other point is there?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivi
See this is the problem right here. You and the Man are coming up with your own interpretation of an event in the film and then trying to act like it is the only possible interpretation and that anyone who disagrees is simply refusing to accept the facts of the film. No. That is not how it works.Quote:
So Superman had a case of tunnel vision when someone he cared about was in danger, and not 30 seconds later he was fighting for his life again and the lives of every human on the planet. Does it suck for the people who may be injured or dying (of which there aren't going to be many since most of the people hurt in Metropolis until that point would have been the ones crushed to death by the gravity beam)? Sure. Is it a piece of bad writing or a plot hole? Not unless you consider having a normal human reaction to be bad writing.
You see it as showcasing "normal human reaction" and other people see it as, "contrived" or "indifferent". Who are you to try and invalidate those other interpretations, or try and shove down your theory of why it works out ok in your mind to people who obviously just disagree?
That is exactly how you and The Man are coming across.Quote:
I don't think anyone is saying there weren't things that could have been handled a bit better in the film.
I think you're misinterpreting what Raistlin said. I don't think he's suggesting that you are taking the arguments personally, but that you are taking the film too personally.Quote:
Why do you assume we're taking these arguments personally? Miriel's borderline insults we might take personally sure, but the argument? Not really. If anything, I'd say that I at least am being one of the calmer people here since I'm not the one dismissing arguments as dumb or accusing others of being butthurt because they don't agree with me.
Most of us here are posting about the film as though it were a film. Something that can be influenced by the writers and the directors. It is a work of fiction that can have flaws without those flaws being intentionally NOT flaws for x-and-y reason. But you and The Man are arguing your points as though Superman were a REAL person. As though a quick revision of a line or two couldn't have changed anything. As if editing or directing or any multitude of things can't change the outcome of a film. You're acting like Superman and Zod are people whose actions are set in stone and then listing the reasons why. Take the fight to another venue? That's laughable right? That could NEVER happen? Except it can. With the swish of a pen. It's that easy. You know why? Cause it's a god damn MOVIE.
And I wrote my most recent posts deliberately belligerent. Because I felt y'all deserved the hostility. I am hostile toward you two. Not being shy about it.
And, as I pointed out, at every single second during the Metropolis scenes, Superman is fighting off attacks from Kryptonians. What do you expect the writers to do? Write it so the Kryptonians let up for a few seconds so Clark's Samaritan syndrome can be demonstrated? Why the smurf would they do that? These are aliens who have explicitly stated their intention to annihilate every human being on earth. Having them let up so Clark can be a hero would break suspension of disbelief.Quote:
Not so much in the Metropolis scenes, which is where the bulk of the collateral damage happens.
Because they couldn't have written the scene so that the civilians would have heard or otherwise be helped by Superman. You see, writers have power like that. Whatever they want to happen, they put it in the script. And then Henry Cavill will read the script and do what it says. And then the extras will do what they're instructed to do as well. And then the whole scene comes together, you see?
I would think that it would be pretty unlikely for Superman's first instinct after getting out of the battle would be to fly away and save people's lives. At the bare minimum I would expect him to be shown catching his breath. If they did show him immediately flying off, I would suspect that they were intending to write him as uncannily emotionless.Quote:
I'm curious to know what you would have thought if the writers went a different direction and DID have Superman show worry in the aftermath of the battle. Would you then have argued that this was not consistent with how a person would act after battle? That you wish Superman had been thinking less rationally? This is your interpretation. Like I said, it's fine if you think that the scene worked (or any other scene), for whatever reason. It should also be fine that others disagree, without you trying to push your rationalizations onto them.
As I have already pointed out repeatedly, he does not spend very long kissing Lois Lane. Anyone who expects him to regain his Samaritan syndrome immediately after surviving a battle to the death is not being very generous.
I am not merely "coming up with my own interpretation of an event in the film". I have repeatedly pointed out events that you have been ignoring, and still have yet to address. And you're one to criticise people for being hard-headed about their interpretations of believable character behaviour when you've been doing exactly the same thing.Quote:
See this is the problem right here. You and the Man are coming up with your own interpretation of an event in the film and then trying to act like it is the only possible interpretation and that anyone who disagrees is simply refusing to accept the facts of the film. No. That is not how it works.
You see it as showcasing "normal human reaction" and other people see it as, "contrived" or "indifferent". Who are you to try and invalidate those other interpretations, or try and shove down your theory of why it works out ok in your mind to people who obviously just disagree?
Except that I already pointed out repeatedly that I think the film has flaws, and I even mentioned some of them. I simply think the flaw you and WesLY think you see is not actually a flaw.Quote:
That is exactly how you and The Man are coming across.
Sure, the writers can do whatever the smurf they want. But they can't do whatever the smurf they want and not break suspension of disbelief. Interrupting a battle to the death where the more powerful character has explicitly stated his intention to kill as many people as he can by having the less powerful character move the venue to another location, and then having the more powerful character follow, would break suspension of disbelief. It would explicitly contradict his stated intention from literally seconds earlier in the film. I am not sure why this point seems to be consistently flying over your head. It's not a very complicated point.Quote:
Most of us here are posting about the film as though it were a film. Something that can be influenced by the writers and the directors. It is a work of fiction. But you and The Man are arguing your points as though Superman were a REAL person. As though a quick revision of a line or two couldn't have changed anything. As if editing or directing or any multitude of things can't change the outcome of a film. You're acting like Superman and Zod are people whose actions are set in stone and then listing the reasons why. Take the fight to another venue? That's laughable right? That could NEVER happen? Except it can. With the swish of a pen. It's that easy. You know why? Cause it's a god damn MOVIE.
Omg. :lol:Quote:
But they can't do whatever the smurf they want and not break suspension of disbelief.
Alright man, I give up. Your interpretation is the only sound one. There were no flaws. Everything had exactly the right reasons for happening. How dare we question any of it. etc etc. I mean, I already said it's totally fine that you have your own interpretation of why the movie works. But you refuse to see it any other way, so whatevs, there's really no point in arguing with a wall. So let's be done.
Have you even been reading my posts? The one you just responded to said:Quote:
There were no flaws.
Quote:
Except that I already pointed out repeatedly that I think the film has flaws, and I even mentioned some of them. I simply think the flaw you and WesLY think you see is not actually a flaw.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Man
God damn, really? It's called hyperbole. Humor, poking fun at this whole thing.
Wow.
I'll never post in absolutes ever again. Ever.
Well, I mean, if you're not going to be even remotely charitable towards me, and in fact openly admit to being belligerent, then how the hell do you expect me to interpret it when you post such a flippant and dismissive response?
I don't mind that other people have their own interpretations of the film, as long as those interpretations acknowledge the facts. A lot of what you've been saying in this thread ignores pretty basic plot elements of the film, or simple rules of writing.
There are no facts in a comic book movie. Why do these popcorn flicks end up being more hotly debated than films with actual symbolism and emotional involvement?
Since you seemed to miss my last warning, I'll make myself abundantly clear: tone it down. Your behaviour in this thread and the way you're talking to other members has been bordering on unacceptable. Even worse is that you not only should already know this but your blatantly admitting to doing it on purpose. I'm not going to tell you again to knock it off because you should damn well know better. Hell, I probably shouldn't even be giving you a second warning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Miriel
As for the rest of your post, I think this about sums things up:
We're offering alternative interpretations of events you had a problem with to explain why we don't see them as being an issue. On the other hand, you've been the one to repeatedly dismiss our opinions as dumb, or us as dumbasses. Your entire reaction to the discussions in this thread is truly ironic when you're accusing me and The Man of taking the movie far too seriously, yet you are the one actually getting so worked up that you're toeing the line on outright insulting us because we disagree with you.Quote:
Who are you to try and invalidate those other interpretations, or try and shove down your theory of why it works out ok in your mind to people who obviously just disagree?
Regardless, I've said my piece on those scenes and continuing this discussion with you is clearly going to be fruitless for all parties involved so I'm finished with it. But make sure you keep things civil from here on out or I'm going to start deleting posts. And that goes for anyone in this thread, not just Miriel. Any more toeing the line and I'll just start nuking the lot of you until a civil discussion appears or the thread dies.
This debate over movie collateral damage has gotten more heated than some of the political debates we've had. For this reason, I suggest everyone watch this film on the subject that involves a former high-ranking government official.
Geeks for ya.
Hollywood Blockbusters Can?t Stop Evoking 9/11 -- Vulture
“Later, when Superman joins the fray, the movie turns into an orgy of gratuitous building-battering as Zod and Superman punch each other through several giant high-rises. It recalls a similar Metropolis fight between those two characters in 1980’s Superman II, only there, when Superman knocks a baddie into a building — an act that sends the skyscraper’s spire tumbling towards a crowd of people on the ground — Superman actually halts the fight to grab that spire before it lands, a quaint moment that still reminds us that the lives of innocent citizens are at stake. In Man of Steel, however, the superhero seems mostly unfazed by the people of Metropolis who are surely collateral damage to his big battle; similarly, director Zack Snyder seems to have waved it off. There is no acknowledgement that all of the buildings that are being destroyed might have people in them. It’s a bloodless massacre of concrete, 9/11 imagery erased of its most haunting factor: the loss of life.”
Yeah that pretty much sums it up for me. Never really connected it to 9/11 but it's a good point.
If you don't go in to a movie about a super hero with your beliefs dispended, then you are doing it wrong. Although that article krissy linked is completely right. My problem with the film and even Avengers is just that: there is no forethought of all the destruction; it is just mindless ramapage of cities without the concern for its inhabitants.
I must admit as someone who hasn't read a single one of the comic books or seen more than a handful of episodes of the 1990s TV show I really liked the way he killed... the bad guy who's name I forgot... for some reason I keep thinking Loki but it's not. Anyway he left it just long enough to get those poor civvies all scared and then did it with a dignified snap of the neck. Considering the rest of the fight scenes I was half expecting him to pile drive one of the concrete pillars through his head. But no, cool points for the more dignified yet badass approach.
To me it looked like those civilians could have just went to their left and ran away at any time. I was wondering why they didn't run away. The stairs weren't really in their way. Maybe it was just the point of view.
That movie was freakin epic. When all the soldiers put down their weapons and let him pass it moved me. Right in the feels. That last fight sequence with Superman throwing Zod through the air from building to building and the camera moving wiht him was such smurfing good editing/camerawork. Unbelieveable.
Also the collateral damage I thought was an excellent idea. This is the end of the world. People WILL DIE. He's not gonna save everyone like Smallville superman does. He's gotta think of the threat he's facing.
Lois was so pointless. Like they made her special for no reason other than she was Lois Lane lol. Whatever it didnt take away from the epicness.
Loved it overall. 8.5/10.
In the comic books though isn't she just Lois Lane? Nothing is really particularly special about the damsel in distress character like Mary Jane, Lois Lane, Peper Potts, or any other white girl I don't trout about. Give me some Wonder Woman already JUSTICE LEAGUE IS COMING MO FOS.
Also totally fake but squee:
http://www.wallpaperhi.com/thumbnail...rhi.com_36.jpg
Also the collateral damage was entirely mostly his fault as he didn't HAVE to throw them through all of those buildings to defeat them. Considering he doesn't like killing anything it didn't make sense to have him do that as it would another character like The Hulk who does do that a lot that and that basically would make sense.
While I think it is pointless to argue the obvious flaws in this movie as it was just made for entertainment value and is fictionalized anyway so you can make up anything, it would be nice if it actually did stick some what to the premise of where his character originated.
I don't want to get into some nitpicky debate again, but aside from him getting pissed and flying Zod through some buildings in Smallville when he went after Supes mommy, pretty much all of the other cases of someone getting punched through buildings were Zod punching Superman through them. I saw the movie again last night with my dad and you'd be surprised how little collateral damage is actually caused by Supes trying to beat up someone else. The other Kryptonians and the military both cause more damage than he's directly responsible for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiny
Oh god, what have I done? Better grab my parachute. I'm getting the smurf out of here.
I don't know what version of The Avengers you saw, there are bits which have them trying to save people. And they don't all go demolishing buildings left, right and centre. There's a big difference between it and something like Man of Steel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiny
So I enjoyed the film well enough.
Felt horribly paced at some parts, like I felt it was really really slow for over half the movie then suddenly bad guy/end game. I chalk that up to it being an origin story, with a lot of exposition they felt they needed to get out there.
Also, as much as I love Amy Adams and I think she did a good job with what she was given... Lois Lane and everyone at the Daily Planet felt shoehorned in. Like they had to include them because it's a Superman movie and they need to be there. Their entire presence could have been removed and nothing in the movie would have changed.
Aside from that though, I thought it was fun. I liked the new guy as Superman, and General Zod was cool too. His female henchman, as has already been said, was awesome. Don't think I'd actively see it again, but definitely worth a watch.
I agree with this. I thought The Avengers was a decent example of how to do urban fighting and destruction well in comic book movies. Or, at least, how to handle it far, far better than Man of Steel. The Avengers characters actively try to save people, and aren't themselves responsible for nearly as much carnage.Quote:
Originally Posted by charliepanayiI don't know what version of The Avengers you saw, there are bits which have them trying to save people. And they don't all go demolishing buildings left, right and centre. There's a big difference between it and something like Man of Steel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiny
Maybe you should watch the ending of The Avengers again. Though true that they are mostly not the main cause of the destruction, they certainly did have a hand in it. Mostly I don't care though as I still enjoyed both films. I expect them to have mindless action.Quote:
Originally Posted by charliepanayiI don't know what version of The Avengers you saw, there are bits which have them trying to save people. And they don't all go demolishing buildings left, right and centre. There's a big difference between it and something like Man of Steel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiny
I love almost all super hero films.
Sadly, I did not love Man of Steel. Then again, Superman has always been one of my least favorite super heroes, but even aside from that I didn't enjoy a lot of the film. Soooo much cg. Otherwise I did LOVE the cinematography minus the random zooming in (ie: at the begging the triple zoom shot of superman's abs. da fak). It was entertaining for what it was, and wasn't as bad as Spiderman 3, but it was no X-Men First Class or anything.
That's like saying an injury wasn't as painful as having all of your bones crushed one-by-one. It doesn't say much.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThornQueen
Saw it tonight. I thought it was pretty boss, and a great example of a popcorn flick. Amy Adams was a pain in the ass though.
The fact that The Avengers acknowledged the damage delighted me so much, because it's almost never acknowledged! Even as I was watching it, I remember just beaming because good ol' Joss, pulled through. He's always been able to handle the human element of big epic battles as well as the resulting loss and grief in a fairly poignant way. And I thought the way he worked it into the movie was so... Joss Whedon-y. I have a feeling that if it were another director, they might not have done such a decent job of it because most directors gloss over the whole thing completely, as it happened here in Man of Steel.Quote:
Originally Posted by RaistlinI agree with this. I thought The Avengers was a decent example of how to do urban fighting and destruction well in comic book movies. Or, at least, how to handle it far, far better than Man of Steel. The Avengers characters actively try to save people, and aren't themselves responsible for nearly as much carnage.Quote:
Originally Posted by charliepanayiI don't know what version of The Avengers you saw, there are bits which have them trying to save people. And they don't all go demolishing buildings left, right and centre. There's a big difference between it and something like Man of Steel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiny
It was pretty good for a Superman film, I think. There was a lot of devastation, thanks to crappy missiles and the terraforming machine and especially Superman trying to fight Zod. It's really hard to imagine them trying to make a sequel because everything was just messed up. There was a line earlier in the film about Superman going to save "them all" and then so many people just die. It's almost comical! :D
It was nice to see him up against a challenge, too, without someone just showing up with a bag full of kryptonite. Perfect mister Superman is one of the most frustrating comic book heroes because there doesn't seem to be a lot of legitimate depth, but it was at least an interesting and action-packed film. Seeing him on fire was pretty awesome though! :D
Maybe it wasn't the best film ever but it was much better than I expected from Superman! :D
Finally saw this. smurfing movie kept selling out on $5 movie days. :p
Also, you people sure love to argue over dumb crap.
I'm looking forward to the arguments over the levels of realism in Pacific Rim.
They've announced a sequel (naturally), and Batman's going to be in it.
This movie better be called World's Finest.
It's Man of Tomorrow.