Man of Steel

[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.