Man of Steel

[The Man]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[theundeadhero]

I hate how people complain so much about so many things. Just enjoy the movie for being a movie.

[Miriel]

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.

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.

Except that you actually QUOTED me saying:

2) Regarding Superman himself's apparent lack of initiative in helping people out during the trout storm that happened in Metropolis.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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'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.

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.

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.

Too much collateral damage for my tastes.

I really liked the action sequences though I agree the collateral damage was a bit much (but come on, it's Superman).

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".

Regardless, I'm not going to debate your personal taste with you because I could care less what you got tired of seeing.

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.

Whether they were addressed in a way you liked isn't really the point.

That is EXACTLY the point in a thread where people post their OPINIONS about a movie. What other point is there?

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.

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?

I don't think anyone is saying there weren't things that could have been handled a bit better in the film.

That is exactly how you and The Man are coming across.

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 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.

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.

[The Man]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

That is exactly how you and The Man are coming across.

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.

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.

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.

[Miriel]

But they can't do whatever the smurf they want and not break suspension of disbelief.

Omg.

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.

[The Man]

There were no flaws.

Have you even been reading my posts? The one you just responded to said:

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.

[Miriel]

There were no flaws.

Have you even been reading my posts? The one you just responded to said:

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.

God damn, really? It's called hyperbole. Humor, poking fun at this whole thing.

Wow.

I'll never post in absolutes ever again. Ever.

[The Man]

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.

[Del Murder]

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?

[Slothy]

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.

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.

As for the rest of your post, I think this about sums things up:

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?

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.

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.

[Del Murder]

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.

[Depression Moon]

Geeks for ya.

[krissy]

The Death and Return of Superman - YouTube

[krissy]

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.”

[Del Murder]

Yeah that pretty much sums it up for me. Never really connected it to 9/11 but it's a good point.