"Couple of blocks". Some of you need to, you know, actually WATCH the Avengers final battle again. Iron Man zooming through several streets while the aliens crash into buildings or shoot at Iron Man, causing hits to smash into buildings. Those big floating vessels crashing into several buildings and collapsing the top of one building - clearly showing the building falling. The vessel that Iron Man "brings to the party" clearly travels a half a mile if not more before Hulk punches it. Speaking of Hulk, he's shown running through a building - full of people - to stop another vessel. That vessel's wings smash right into said building sending debris scattering among those people. And the list goes on and on.
This isn't to negate the amount of destruction in Man of Steel. It's just to show that some of you are parroting a meme that clearly is wrong. People WERE in the Avengers battle, building DID fall - and if you make the claim that Superman allowed people to die in Man of Steel, the same could be said of Avengers.
Never thought I'd live to see comic book readers arguing over destruction in a superhero battle. I sure hope none of you read Miracleman. Your heads will esplode. :)
Sure. Except Miracleman is *supposed* to be a cautionary tale about the dangers and terrible reality of actual super humans.
I wasn't expecting a Superman movie to be one. And when the level of destruction in a Superman story is even comparable to Miracleman, then your Superman movie might have tone problems.
Way back on the second page of this discussion, before that meme started making the rounds, I mentioned that the climax in Avengers was contained to a relatively small area. Because it was. I live in New York, and one of the things I've praised about that movie was how well the were specific about their geography. The whole climax takes place in Midtown East near Grand Central. Which shows some restraint. They didn't tear down half the city. And it also has the effect of feeling specific- it feels like they chose a particular neighborhood for the fight, as opposed to only using famous, general bits of NYC regardless of where they are. (In that way their geography was way more grounded than, say, Amazing Spider-Man, which felt like the producers of the film didn't even get a subway map to work with).
Now, I'm not saying that doesn't mean no one died or there wasn't some destruction porn. There was. But nowhere near as much. At least, it felt like a lot less to me. I will admit I did not count the falling buildings in each.
At one point in MOS there is a scene that takes place on a wide, open plain of scorched Earth. It looks like something from The Day After. I don't think we ever see that amount of chaos and destruction in Avengers.
And, in Avengers there are waves and waves of aliens and vehicles attacking to cause all that destruction. And, yes, Hulk and Iron Man cause some of it. In MOS, there are two combatants causing all that destruction. And one of them is Superman. So half of all of that is on him. And, to me, that doesn't feel very Superman.
And I take your point that there was a lot of destruction. It just felt different to me, though. I think It also helps that you see them spend more time and effort saving people than they gave Superman to do.
Others had a different experience, and I respect that. But my experience of actually, you know, watching Avengers- despite being set where I actually live- is that it ultimately felt uplifting and hopeful. Wheras Man of Steel, tearing apart a mostly CG city I didn't recognize, felt over the top and gross. Which is not what I want from a Superman movie. It felt wrong. And maybe the casualty math of the two wasn't that different. I don't know. I am not an atrocitologist (a real job- can you imagine?) but I can say, subjectively, MOS looked and felt worse. Avengers made me go 'yay!' and MOS felt excessive and unheroic to me. The scale got too big. It made it seem like the world of the story would be better off if there never was a Superman.
What he said.
I don't remember any entire buildings toppling or being reduced to rubble. Several had holes knocked through them or sides ripped through them. In the end the entire city certainly wasn't a smoldering crater. Even if it were, the main argument with it (at least in my mind) is that the Herod of the avengers were at very least acting "heroically". Not only were they aware of the devastation occurring around them as well as the danger to life and property, but they actively took whatever measures possible to contain it, limit it and ultimately stop it. the avengers put themselves between the innocent and danger. Superman appeared all but completely oblivious to the danger, indifferent to it, and or was responsible for at least half of it himself.
"Couple of blocks". Some of you need to, you know, actually WATCH the Avengers final battle again. Iron Man zooming through several streets while the aliens crash into buildings or shoot at Iron Man, causing hits to smash into buildings. Those big floating vessels crashing into several buildings and collapsing the top of one building - clearly showing the building falling. The vessel that Iron Man "brings to the party" clearly travels a half a mile if not more before Hulk punches it. Speaking of Hulk, he's shown running through a building - full of people - to stop another vessel. That vessel's wings smash right into said building sending debris scattering among those people. And the list goes on and on.
This isn't to negate the amount of destruction in Man of Steel. It's just to show that some of you are parroting a meme that clearly is wrong. People WERE in the Avengers battle, building DID fall - and if you make the claim that Superman allowed people to die in Man of Steel, the same could be said of Avengers.
Never thought I'd live to see comic book readers arguing over destruction in a superhero battle. I sure hope none of you read Miracleman. Your heads will esplode. :)
Sure. Except Miracleman is *supposed* to be a cautionary tale about the dangers and terrible reality of actual super humans.
I wasn't expecting a Superman movie to be one. And when the level of destruction in a Superman story is even comparable to Miracleman, then your Superman movie might have tone problems.
Way back on the second page of this discussion, before that meme started making the rounds, I mentioned that the climax in Avengers was contained to a relatively small area. Because it was. I live in New York, and one of the things I've praised about that movie was how well the were specific about their geography. The whole climax takes place in Midtown East near Grand Central. Which shows some restraint. They didn't tear down half the city. And it also has the effect of feeling specific- it feels like they chose a particular neighborhood for the fight, as opposed to only using famous, general bits of NYC regardless of where they are. (In that way their geography was way more grounded than, say, Amazing Spider-Man, which felt like the producers of the film didn't even get a subway map to work with).
Now, I'm not saying that doesn't mean no one died or there wasn't some destruction porn. There was. But nowhere near as much. At least, it felt like a lot less to me. I will admit I did not count the falling buildings in each.
At one point in MOS there is a scene that takes place on a wide, open plain of scorched Earth. It looks like something from The Day After. I don't think we ever see that amount of chaos and destruction in Avengers.
And, in Avengers there are waves and waves of aliens and vehicles attacking to cause all that destruction. And, yes, Hulk and Iron Man cause some of it. In MOS, there are two combatants causing all that destruction. And one of them is Superman. So half of all of that is on him. And, to me, that doesn't feel very Superman.
And I take your point that there was a lot of destruction. It just felt different to me, though. I think It also helps that you see them spend more time and effort saving people than they gave Superman to do.
Others had a different experience, and I respect that. But my experience of actually, you know, watching Avengers- despite being set where I actually live- is that it ultimately felt uplifting and hopeful. Wheras Man of Steel, tearing apart a mostly CG city I didn't recognize, felt over the top and gross. Which is not what I want from a Superman movie. It felt wrong. And maybe the casualty math of the two wasn't that different. I don't know. I am not an atrocitologist (a real job- can you imagine?) but I can say, subjectively, MOS looked and felt worse. Avengers made me go 'yay!' and MOS felt excessive and unheroic to me. The scale got too big. It made it seem like the world of the story would be better off if there never was a Superman.
What he said.
I don't remember any entire buildings toppling or being reduced to rubble. Several had holes knocked through them or sides ripped through them. In the end the entire city certainly wasn't a smoldering crater. Even if it were, the main argument with it (at least in my mind) is that the Herod of the avengers were at very least acting "heroically". Not only were they aware of the devastation occurring around them as well as the danger to life and property, but they actively took whatever measures possible to contain it, limit it and ultimately stop it. the avengers put themselves between the innocent and danger. Superman appeared all but completely oblivious to the danger, indifferent to it, and or was responsible for at least half of it himself.
If you're writing "I don't remember" you're proving my point. You need to go watch it again. One of the flying vessels CLEARLY knocks down the top of a building and it's shown toppling over.
There is NO time in Man of Steel where Superman is shown as being "indifferent". There is no acting at all that suggests that. You are putting that onto the movie yourself.
And again - if you haven't actually watched the Avengers battle recently - you're forgetting scenes where property damage is absolutely being done by the Avengers. Heck - Thor lands on the Chrysler building, summons thunder to strike at the portal, and the camera itself zooms down the building to showcase all of the shattering glass and more to the structure.
If you're writing "I don't remember" you're proving my point. You need to go watch it again. One of the flying vessels CLEARLY knocks down the top of a building and it's shown toppling over.
There is NO time in Man of Steel where Superman is shown as being "indifferent". There is no acting at all that suggests that. You are putting that onto the movie yourself.
And again - if you haven't actually watched the Avengers battle recently - you're forgetting scenes where property damage is absolutely being done by the Avengers. Heck - Thor lands on the Chrysler building, summons thunder to strike at the portal, and the camera itself zooms down the building to showcase all of the shattering glass and more to the structure.
View with your eyes, not your memory. :)
I've only seen each movie once, and as I am speaking about my impression, when I viewed it with my eyes, then I find that takeaway as valid as yours.
I will grant that if I watched them again today with a calculator as if I were an insurance adjuster then you might be right, maybe the damage equates. I could believe that my impression of the scale of each what emotional rather than quantitative. But you know what, that is still on them. How their movie makes you feel about the destruction is on them. That is the effect each had by how they told their stories.
And they felt different to me, that was my point. And my impression is that I watched the Avengers do more saving, where Superman felt more reckless. It was t that there were beats of Superman showing indifference. Rather, i felt there were beats missing of him showing enough concern or care.
And, sure, if I were going to court I would watch these again to check rather than trust my first impressions. I might compare, say, the difference between shattered glass and building collapse.
But I am not having a factual debate. I totally acknowledge that you have a more recent memory of what you saw in Avengers. And you may have felt different about it. Thats fine, and valid. I don't need you to not like it.
But I remember how each made me feel. And that is what I am really talking about. and i can judge them in how each did that the first time.
Each of these movies had its chance to entertain me. If one made me say yay and the other turned me off, I don't need to give it my time and money again (you know, as a lot of people seemed to say given MOS second week drop off ;) )
"Couple of blocks". Some of you need to, you know, actually WATCH the Avengers final battle again. Iron Man zooming through several streets while the aliens crash into buildings or shoot at Iron Man, causing hits to smash into buildings. Those big floating vessels crashing into several buildings and collapsing the top of one building - clearly showing the building falling. The vessel that Iron Man "brings to the party" clearly travels a half a mile if not more before Hulk punches it. Speaking of Hulk, he's shown running through a building - full of people - to stop another vessel. That vessel's wings smash right into said building sending debris scattering among those people. And the list goes on and on.
This isn't to negate the amount of destruction in Man of Steel. It's just to show that some of you are parroting a meme that clearly is wrong. People WERE in the Avengers battle, building DID fall - and if you make the claim that Superman allowed people to die in Man of Steel, the same could be said of Avengers.
Never thought I'd live to see comic book readers arguing over destruction in a superhero battle. I sure hope none of you read Miracleman. Your heads will esplode. :)
Sure. Except Miracleman is *supposed* to be a cautionary tale about the dangers and terrible reality of actual super humans.
I wasn't expecting a Superman movie to be one. And when the level of destruction in a Superman story is even comparable to Miracleman, then your Superman movie might have tone problems.
Way back on the second page of this discussion, before that meme started making the rounds, I mentioned that the climax in Avengers was contained to a relatively small area. Because it was. I live in New York, and one of the things I've praised about that movie was how well the were specific about their geography. The whole climax takes place in Midtown East near Grand Central. Which shows some restraint. They didn't tear down half the city. And it also has the effect of feeling specific- it feels like they chose a particular neighborhood for the fight, as opposed to only using famous, general bits of NYC regardless of where they are. (In that way their geography was way more grounded than, say, Amazing Spider-Man, which felt like the producers of the film didn't even get a subway map to work with).
Now, I'm not saying that doesn't mean no one died or there wasn't some destruction porn. There was. But nowhere near as much. At least, it felt like a lot less to me. I will admit I did not count the falling buildings in each.
At one point in MOS there is a scene that takes place on a wide, open plain of scorched Earth. It looks like something from The Day After. I don't think we ever see that amount of chaos and destruction in Avengers.
And, in Avengers there are waves and waves of aliens and vehicles attacking to cause all that destruction. And, yes, Hulk and Iron Man cause some of it. In MOS, there are two combatants causing all that destruction. And one of them is Superman. So half of all of that is on him. And, to me, that doesn't feel very Superman.
And I take your point that there was a lot of destruction. It just felt different to me, though. I think It also helps that you see them spend more time and effort saving people than they gave Superman to do.
Others had a different experience, and I respect that. But my experience of actually, you know, watching Avengers- despite being set where I actually live- is that it ultimately felt uplifting and hopeful. Wheras Man of Steel, tearing apart a mostly CG city I didn't recognize, felt over the top and gross. Which is not what I want from a Superman movie. It felt wrong. And maybe the casualty math of the two wasn't that different. I don't know. I am not an atrocitologist (a real job- can you imagine?) but I can say, subjectively, MOS looked and felt worse. Avengers made me go 'yay!' and MOS felt excessive and unheroic to me. The scale got too big. It made it seem like the world of the story would be better off if there never was a Superman.
What he said.
I don't remember any entire buildings toppling or being reduced to rubble. Several had holes knocked through them or sides ripped through them. In the end the entire city certainly wasn't a smoldering crater. Even if it were, the main argument with it (at least in my mind) is that the Herod of the avengers were at very least acting "heroically". Not only were they aware of the devastation occurring around them as well as the danger to life and property, but they actively took whatever measures possible to contain it, limit it and ultimately stop it. the avengers put themselves between the innocent and danger. Superman appeared all but completely oblivious to the danger, indifferent to it, and or was responsible for at least half of it himself.
"Couple of blocks". Some of you need to, you know, actually WATCH the Avengers final battle again. Iron Man zooming through several streets while the aliens crash into buildings or shoot at Iron Man, causing hits to smash into buildings. Those big floating vessels crashing into several buildings and collapsing the top of one building - clearly showing the building falling. The vessel that Iron Man "brings to the party" clearly travels a half a mile if not more before Hulk punches it. Speaking of Hulk, he's shown running through a building - full of people - to stop another vessel. That vessel's wings smash right into said building sending debris scattering among those people. And the list goes on and on.
This isn't to negate the amount of destruction in Man of Steel. It's just to show that some of you are parroting a meme that clearly is wrong. People WERE in the Avengers battle, building DID fall - and if you make the claim that Superman allowed people to die in Man of Steel, the same could be said of Avengers.
Never thought I'd live to see comic book readers arguing over destruction in a superhero battle. I sure hope none of you read Miracleman. Your heads will esplode. :)
Sure. Except Miracleman is *supposed* to be a cautionary tale about the dangers and terrible reality of actual super humans.
I wasn't expecting a Superman movie to be one. And when the level of destruction in a Superman story is even comparable to Miracleman, then your Superman movie might have tone problems.
Way back on the second page of this discussion, before that meme started making the rounds, I mentioned that the climax in Avengers was contained to a relatively small area. Because it was. I live in New York, and one of the things I've praised about that movie was how well the were specific about their geography. The whole climax takes place in Midtown East near Grand Central. Which shows some restraint. They didn't tear down half the city. And it also has the effect of feeling specific- it feels like they chose a particular neighborhood for the fight, as opposed to only using famous, general bits of NYC regardless of where they are. (In that way their geography was way more grounded than, say, Amazing Spider-Man, which felt like the producers of the film didn't even get a subway map to work with).
Now, I'm not saying that doesn't mean no one died or there wasn't some destruction porn. There was. But nowhere near as much. At least, it felt like a lot less to me. I will admit I did not count the falling buildings in each.
At one point in MOS there is a scene that takes place on a wide, open plain of scorched Earth. It looks like something from The Day After. I don't think we ever see that amount of chaos and destruction in Avengers.
And, in Avengers there are waves and waves of aliens and vehicles attacking to cause all that destruction. And, yes, Hulk and Iron Man cause some of it. In MOS, there are two combatants causing all that destruction. And one of them is Superman. So half of all of that is on him. And, to me, that doesn't feel very Superman.
And I take your point that there was a lot of destruction. It just felt different to me, though. I think It also helps that you see them spend more time and effort saving people than they gave Superman to do.
Others had a different experience, and I respect that. But my experience of actually, you know, watching Avengers- despite being set where I actually live- is that it ultimately felt uplifting and hopeful. Wheras Man of Steel, tearing apart a mostly CG city I didn't recognize, felt over the top and gross. Which is not what I want from a Superman movie. It felt wrong. And maybe the casualty math of the two wasn't that different. I don't know. I am not an atrocitologist (a real job- can you imagine?) but I can say, subjectively, MOS looked and felt worse. Avengers made me go 'yay!' and MOS felt excessive and unheroic to me. The scale got too big. It made it seem like the world of the story would be better off if there never was a Superman.
What he said.
I don't remember any entire buildings toppling or being reduced to rubble. Several had holes knocked through them or sides ripped through them. In the end the entire city certainly wasn't a smoldering crater. Even if it were, the main argument with it (at least in my mind) is that the Herod of the avengers were at very least acting "heroically". Not only were they aware of the devastation occurring around them as well as the danger to life and property, but they actively took whatever measures possible to contain it, limit it and ultimately stop it. the avengers put themselves between the innocent and danger. Superman appeared all but completely oblivious to the danger, indifferent to it, and or was responsible for at least half of it himself.
We might have to expand the focus of these complaints.
M
I don't get it. The cartoon is a completely different animal and subject.
Why? Superman still gets into a battle where he destroys property, especially buildings that should have people within them. Again, Superman continues the fight but doesn't try to save anyone or move the fight away from the city. Its like ignoring that Superman DID kill before but refusing to accept it because you don't like Byrne's run or didn't see the actual death (Superman II)
I think your nitpick of one and gloss over the other because you accept one instead of the other is just as flawed as what you're complaining about in the movie.
The fact that 1 is live action whereas the other is a cartoon doesn't make a difference. Both have the same type of "shock" value with the same character.
One of the flying vessels CLEARLY knocks down the top of a building and it's shown toppling over.
A vessel knocks over the TOP of A building. Not exactly the same thing. There was plenty of property damage in the Avengers, but there is no arguing the devastation in MoS was greater by FAR.
There is NO time in Man of Steel where Superman is shown as being "indifferent". There is no acting at all that suggests that. You are putting that onto the movie yourself.
Youre right. At no time does superman face the camera and declare to the audience he doesn't care about the welfare of the citizens. There is also NO time where superman is shown to actually care either. Or where he does anything about the situation. There is NO acting that suggests hes aware of, concerned for or doing anything about the death and destruction, but plenty of times where he at least compounds the problem intentionally or not. That's on screen. Not in my mind. (although I believe that's the fault of the filmmakers and not how the character was meant to appear).
And again - if you haven't actually watched the Avengers battle recently - you're forgetting scenes where property damage is absolutely being done by the Avengers. Heck - Thor lands on the Chrysler building, summons thunder to strike at the portal, and the camera itself zooms down the building to showcase all of the shattering glass and more to the structure.
To quote John McClane... "glass?. who gives a shit about glass!? lol The situation and characters are drastically different between the Avengers and MoS. The Avengers were a group of capable and gifted individuals literally trying to fight a war against an advanced superior threat of thousands whos sole intent was death, destruction and subjugation. The damage done was collateral and the Avengers did the best they could under the circumstances to contain and control it. that's war. MoS was basically two super powered individuals engaged in a careless brawl. There were similar elements to MoS but MoS failed to SHOW certain things such as acknowledging the devastation etc. That's why so many were at least a little turned off by it. Not just the level of the destruction. Movies are a visual medium. I believe one of the first rules is "show don't tell". And we shouldn't have to guess and surmise answers or come up with possible excuses and explanations to the questions on our own. We should be shown. At least moreso than MoS did. not only that, but that is how the character is historically supposed to be portrayed. As much more thoughtful and heroic than as he appeared.
Why? Superman still gets into a battle where he destroys property, especially buildings that should have people within them. Again, Superman continues the fight but doesn't try to save anyone or move the fight away from the city. Its like ignoring that Superman DID kill before but refusing to accept it because you don't like Byrne's run or didn't see the actual death (Superman II)
I think your nitpick of one and gloss over the other because you accept one instead of the other is just as flawed as what you're complaining about in the movie.
The fact that 1 is live action whereas the other is a cartoon doesn't make a difference. Both have the same type of "shock" value with the same character.
M
Completely disagree. I think there is a big difference between live action and animation.
Why? Superman still gets into a battle where he destroys property, especially buildings that should have people within them. Again, Superman continues the fight but doesn't try to save anyone or move the fight away from the city. Its like ignoring that Superman DID kill before but refusing to accept it because you don't like Byrne's run or didn't see the actual death (Superman II)
I think your nitpick of one and gloss over the other because you accept one instead of the other is just as flawed as what you're complaining about in the movie.
The fact that 1 is live action whereas the other is a cartoon doesn't make a difference. Both have the same type of "shock" value with the same character.
M
Completely disagree. I think there is a big difference between live action and animation.
Why? Why is there a difference, let alone a big difference? Both feature fictional accounts of superpowered beings. Both have a considerable amount of destruction. Both are for 13/14+ year olds.
This feels like the justification that the Avengers movie didn't have mass destruction also. It REALLY comes down to liking one and not the other. Completely subjective.
Also, is say telling people in Smallville to get inside and lock their doors DOES show Superman did have SOME concern for them. I don't even recall Tony saying anything in Iron Man 3 when he fought those 2 characters in the small town.
Why? Superman still gets into a battle where he destroys property, especially buildings that should have people within them. Again, Superman continues the fight but doesn't try to save anyone or move the fight away from the city. Its like ignoring that Superman DID kill before but refusing to accept it because you don't like Byrne's run or didn't see the actual death (Superman II)
I think your nitpick of one and gloss over the other because you accept one instead of the other is just as flawed as what you're complaining about in the movie.
The fact that 1 is live action whereas the other is a cartoon doesn't make a difference. Both have the same type of "shock" value with the same character.
M
Completely disagree. I think there is a big difference between live action and animation.
Why? Why is there a difference, let alone a big difference? Both feature fictional accounts of superpowered beings. Both have a considerable amount of destruction. Both are for 13/14+ year olds.
This feels like the justification that the Avengers movie didn't have mass destruction also. It REALLY comes down to liking one and not the other. Completely subjective.
Also, is say telling people in Smallville to get inside and lock their doors DOES show Superman did have SOME concern for them. I don't even recall Tony saying anything in Iron Man 3 when he fought those 2 characters in the small town.
M
Except Tony got them out of the bar. (And that was without even having his armor on)
It would have been nice to watch Superman do more of that.
Because he's the goddamn SUPERMAN! ;)
For what it is worth, though I have never seen the Superman cartoon that is being shown in the clip, I do think there is a difference between depictions of violence and destruction in animation vs. live action. And I respect you may not feel there is a difference. Like all things to do with ratings/taboo/shock, etc., that is a very subjective thing.
But for what it is worth, the people who assign ratings to things like movies and video games (and, BELIEVE ME, it makes me itchy to even cite them as a kind of authority) will even specify a difference between "cartoon violence" and "violence". And things that are considered "cartoon violence" are often allowed a lower rating. You will often see that in the descriptors below a PG or even G rating. "Cartoon violence".
I'm not saying that you, personally, should see a difference between the two, as you have to make your own decisions as a parent, so what you choose is more important than what the community standard is. But, for what it is worth, the people whose job it is to advise and inform you as a parent feel there is a difference.
For example, Common Sense Media.org, in describing the rating they give to Justice League Unlimited as a whole, puts it this way in the "Violence & Scariness" section:
"Cartoon violence is frequent as the League battles villains of all types." And it seems that JLU aired with a rating of TV-Y7. Meaning recommended for ages 7 and up.
Put another way-- right or wrong-- if MOS were animated, it might have been PG instead of PG-13. I don't think that would have been right- as there is enough destruction that even as a cartoon it should be PG-13. But I also do think watching portrayals of flesh and blood actors and extra be terrified, menaced, and killed is a different thing than watching it happen to animated figures (even if the buildings, being CG, *nearly* made the whole thing a cartoon.
I have never seen a side by side comparison. But I think I get more affected, unsettled, or in extreme cases disturbed by the one than the other.
In the same way that I can handle depictions of violence much more in a comic than I do in something with actors (especially the good ones). That is not to say that great comics cannot be completely moving or disturbing. Of course they are. But I think illustration (like animation) does add a layer of distance. At least, to me.
It might be a good movie, it might be a bad movie but this movie, like all the comic book movies before and after it will not help comic book sales of the character at all.
There are a large number of people that will spend $10+ dollars to see a superhero film in a theater and $20-$30 to buy it on blu ray/DVD but will not buy an issue or trade of the movie character.
I do not know what the disconnect is or even if the corporate suits even care.
It might be a good movie, it might be a bad movie but this movie, like all the comic book movies before and after it will not help comic book sales of the character at all.
There are a large number of people that will spend $10+ dollars to see a superhero film in a theater and $20-$30 to buy it on blu ray/DVD but will not buy an issue or trade of the movie character.
I do not know what the disconnect is or even if the corporate suits even care.
I would argue that the 1989 Batman movie did help sell comics. And that a lot of these movies do actually move the needle, maybe more on related trades than single monthly issues. It may be more the case with movies that have a direct relationship to a single, contained work (e.g. Watchmen, Wanted, Kick-Ass, Diary of a Wimpy Kid, Persepolis) than something like a Man of Steel or Iron Man that doesn't have a 1:1 connection with a book in a bookstore. And it may not happen as strongly as we as comic fans want it to. But I think saying it doesn't help at all may be overstating it.
Do the corporate suits care, though? No. Because they work for character-based entertainment companies. They do not define their employers as "comic book companies", nor have they for a long time. If a movie helps the IP, then they feel they have done their job (and, to be fair, they have) even if some of that success is expressed in buying bed sheets, video games, toys or a Halloween costume rather than comic books. Their job is to monetize the property. The people whose job it is to sell the comic books are a separate (much smaller) division of the larger corporation.
@David_D my theory was for super hero movies so wimpy kid would be an exception. It is hard to say with Watchmen. It probably did receive a bump but it has sold well year after year regardless. You may be right with Kick Ass.
Batman in 89 falls in the black hole of sales reporting after DC changed its subscription process in 87/88 (?) and before Diamond started. But I remember that the movie was so huge at the time, it would make sense that the comic got an increase.
I will take your word on Wanted and Persepolis. I have never heard of either one of them in any format. I googled Wanted and the movie came out while I was overseas.
To rephrase my original statement, movies based on characters from the big 2 generally do not generate an increase in comic book sales.
I get that the suits do not care and comics is just one small part of an overall brand of a character
It just seems that there is such a potiential for revenue in comics. While they could never make the amount of money a movie makes, if they could get just a small portion of the movie audience who do not read comics to come into the hobby, the sustained repeated monthly revenue generated could be significant.
I am not a marketing guy or some business genius. I do wish I could sit in on some of the meetings with Marvel/DC just to see the business process at work so I could have a better understanding.
For what it's worth, I'm much more of a superman fan than an avengers fan. At least I always had been until recently. Now I no longer recognize the character.
Cartoons such as JLU are made suitable for general audiences with a target demographic of approx 6-12 yoa boys. MoS was rated PG13.
The suspension of disbelief is far greater and easier within cartoons. There are different expectations, standards and concessions made for network toons Vs. live action major motion pictures. They must exaggerate for animation in various ways. If nothing else yes, in my mind its easier to pretend and believe those buildings could've been empty or evacuated in the toon given that continuity and universe. Btw I always had a problem with the damaged buildings in the cartoons too. (Who said I didn't?) but it's less objectionable to me. I wasnt comparing MoS to anything but the damage done and heroic efforts of the Avengers Vs MoS. I never said superman has never put a hole in a building and that I cannot and will not ever accept him doing so. Never said no city should ever be destroyed under any circumstances. It depends on circumstances and how it's framed. The clip you provided is out of context. The entire story and circumstances surrounding it there are more like the events of Avengers. A full out invasion/war. And what does ironman have to do with it? We can start another thread to discuss my gripes about IM3 lol
Superman telling a handful of people to "get indoors" in smallville is really the most he ever did to protect anyone and that scene was nothing compared to the later battle in metropolis. Also he essentially created that smalleville situation! He attacked the kryptonian who was threatening his mom (on their farm on the outskirts of town no less). Superman attacks him and takes him at super speed at ground level into the populated town and into an occupied ihop. He then proceeds to super brawl with the kryptonian within feet of the patrons then eventually it spills into the street. Am I remembering that wrong? At any rate, ok superman advises some people to get inside. Bless him. Then Superman catches a soldier falling from a helicopter. However that was more a transparent pllot point than an actual character moment. Then Superman catches Lois falling from the plane. Great. But This after Everything. All the destruction. All the certain deaths. Being exhausted and now, now he notices one person falling miles away and saves them. Only cause its Lois. Then Superman saves a family by killing Zod who was going to kill them. This I'm ok with and appreciate. Yeah the entire situation exists purely to get superman to kill zod. but so what. it was set up and framed well enough for me that it worked. I have no problem with that morally or artistically personally. Superman "shouldn't" kill, but they created a decent enough scenario for it to be understandable or acceptable (at least to me). I like the reviewer who said "I didn't have a problem w him killing zod, I have a problem he didn't kill him sooner". The destruction was just gratuitous. For its own sake.
At any rate those couple of moments just didn't cut it for me. It's superman for cryin out loud.
My main issue is I feel the filmmakers just fell short in some areas. I'm ok with what happened in the movie. Just no so much with how some of it happened.
Yeah, cartoon violence is different from live action, but MOS had the same type of violence as the cartoon...also had no blood. In fact, it seems TDK Nolan hasn't put blood into his hero movies.
Don't we accept Michael Bay's over the top (cartoony?) type violence he puts in his movies? Is the violence & disaster in MOS the same? So much, its almost a lampoon of reality? I'd argue they same is done in cartoons. Obviously, when an anvil is dropped on you, you won't just get flatten to ground level, then inflate yourself with a bike pump.
I wanted the disaster porn to be cut down a little for some more story content.
M
I also believe the Smallville fight would've spilled over into town eventually anyway.
I get that the suits do not care and comics is just one small part of an overall brand of a character
It just seems that there is such a potiential for revenue in comics. While they could never make the amount of money a movie makes, if they could get just a small portion of the movie audience who do not read comics to come into the hobby, the sustained repeated monthly revenue generated could be significant.
I am not a marketing guy or some business genius. I do wish I could sit in on some of the meetings with Marvel/DC just to see the business process at work so I could have a better understanding.
Sadly, I think the glass ceiling for potential revenue in comics is the same for all reading. The fact is, people read less for pleasure. And men (which, let's be real, are the primary readers of superhero comics) read for pleasure least of all. Maybe there is something more they could do that they are not doing, I don't know. But to recruit a non-comic reading portion of the movie audience to read their comics is not only to convince people that their comics are worth reading, it is also an effort to convince them to buy and read anything for pleasure at all.
Yeah, cartoon violence is different from live action, but MOS had the same type of violence as the cartoon...also had no blood. In fact, it seems TDK Nolan hasn't put blood into his hero movies.
Don't we accept Michael Bay's over the top (cartoony?) type violence he puts in his movies? Is the violence & disaster in MOS the same? So much, its almost a lampoon of reality? I'd argue they same is done in cartoons. Obviously, when an anvil is dropped on you, you won't just get flatten to ground level, then inflate yourself with a bike pump.
I wanted the disaster porn to be cut down a little for some more story content.
M
I also believe the Smallville fight would've spilled over into town eventually anyway.
Keeping it bloodless has become their way of getting to do enormous amounts of destruction and death and still get a PG-13. Personally, the lack of blood doesn't make it less violent to me, it just makes it less honest.
And I think Michael Bay in the Transformers movies, especially whichever one ends in a big city fight, do entirely the same thing, and I disliked those movies for the same reason. So I never gave his movies a pass for that. In fact, from the beginning of this discussion I have been comparing MOS to Transformers, as I feel like that is what this movie ended up being: aliens come to have their fight here and tear where we live apart to do it. For me, it didn't make Transformers feel very heroic or inspiring, and it especially didn't make Superman (who I associate with those ideas even more than the Autobots) feel like much of a hero.
I haven't even been able to watch the Transformers films after the first one. Between the high level of prevalent destruction and the sensations of vertigo I got from watching the first one, I just don't find them enjoyable.
"Couple of blocks". Some of you need to, you know, actually WATCH the Avengers final battle again. Iron Man zooming through several streets while the aliens crash into buildings or shoot at Iron Man, causing hits to smash into buildings. Those big floating vessels crashing into several buildings and collapsing the top of one building - clearly showing the building falling. The vessel that Iron Man "brings to the party" clearly travels a half a mile if not more before Hulk punches it. Speaking of Hulk, he's shown running through a building - full of people - to stop another vessel. That vessel's wings smash right into said building sending debris scattering among those people. And the list goes on and on.
This isn't to negate the amount of destruction in Man of Steel. It's just to show that some of you are parroting a meme that clearly is wrong. People WERE in the Avengers battle, building DID fall - and if you make the claim that Superman allowed people to die in Man of Steel, the same could be said of Avengers.
Never thought I'd live to see comic book readers arguing over destruction in a superhero battle. I sure hope none of you read Miracleman. Your heads will esplode. :)
Sure. Except Miracleman is *supposed* to be a cautionary tale about the dangers and terrible reality of actual super humans.
I wasn't expecting a Superman movie to be one. And when the level of destruction in a Superman story is even comparable to Miracleman, then your Superman movie might have tone problems.
Way back on the second page of this discussion, before that meme started making the rounds, I mentioned that the climax in Avengers was contained to a relatively small area. Because it was. I live in New York, and one of the things I've praised about that movie was how well the were specific about their geography. The whole climax takes place in Midtown East near Grand Central. Which shows some restraint. They didn't tear down half the city. And it also has the effect of feeling specific- it feels like they chose a particular neighborhood for the fight, as opposed to only using famous, general bits of NYC regardless of where they are. (In that way their geography was way more grounded than, say, Amazing Spider-Man, which felt like the producers of the film didn't even get a subway map to work with).
Now, I'm not saying that doesn't mean no one died or there wasn't some destruction porn. There was. But nowhere near as much. At least, it felt like a lot less to me. I will admit I did not count the falling buildings in each.
At one point in MOS there is a scene that takes place on a wide, open plain of scorched Earth. It looks like something from The Day After. I don't think we ever see that amount of chaos and destruction in Avengers.
And, in Avengers there are waves and waves of aliens and vehicles attacking to cause all that destruction. And, yes, Hulk and Iron Man cause some of it. In MOS, there are two combatants causing all that destruction. And one of them is Superman. So half of all of that is on him. And, to me, that doesn't feel very Superman.
And I take your point that there was a lot of destruction. It just felt different to me, though. I think It also helps that you see them spend more time and effort saving people than they gave Superman to do.
Others had a different experience, and I respect that. But my experience of actually, you know, watching Avengers- despite being set where I actually live- is that it ultimately felt uplifting and hopeful. Wheras Man of Steel, tearing apart a mostly CG city I didn't recognize, felt over the top and gross. Which is not what I want from a Superman movie. It felt wrong. And maybe the casualty math of the two wasn't that different. I don't know. I am not an atrocitologist (a real job- can you imagine?) but I can say, subjectively, MOS looked and felt worse. Avengers made me go 'yay!' and MOS felt excessive and unheroic to me. The scale got too big. It made it seem like the world of the story would be better off if there never was a Superman.
What he said.
I don't remember any entire buildings toppling or being reduced to rubble. Several had holes knocked through them or sides ripped through them. In the end the entire city certainly wasn't a smoldering crater. Even if it were, the main argument with it (at least in my mind) is that the Herod of the avengers were at very least acting "heroically". Not only were they aware of the devastation occurring around them as well as the danger to life and property, but they actively took whatever measures possible to contain it, limit it and ultimately stop it. the avengers put themselves between the innocent and danger. Superman appeared all but completely oblivious to the danger, indifferent to it, and or was responsible for at least half of it himself.
Interesting. Someone earlier in the thread quoted this organization to try to equate (or, at least, suggest a comparison) between the damage in MOS to the Avengers. The people behind this seem to disagree with the idea that the levels were comparable:
"The level of destruction and loss of life from Man of Steel was on an entirely different level fromThe Avengers as much as $2 Trillion dollars in total impacts (as opposed to the $168 Billion found in the earlier movie)"
Comments
I don't remember any entire buildings toppling or being reduced to rubble. Several had holes knocked through them or sides ripped through them. In the end the entire city certainly wasn't a smoldering crater. Even if it were, the main argument with it (at least in my mind) is that the Herod of the avengers were at very least acting "heroically". Not only were they aware of the devastation occurring around them as well as the danger to life and property, but they actively took whatever measures possible to contain it, limit it and ultimately stop it. the avengers put themselves between the innocent and danger. Superman appeared all but completely oblivious to the danger, indifferent to it, and or was responsible for at least half of it himself.
Don't get me wrong. I won't turn down boobies. But I like faces.
We might have to expand the focus of these complaints.
M
There is NO time in Man of Steel where Superman is shown as being "indifferent". There is no acting at all that suggests that. You are putting that onto the movie yourself.
And again - if you haven't actually watched the Avengers battle recently - you're forgetting scenes where property damage is absolutely being done by the Avengers. Heck - Thor lands on the Chrysler building, summons thunder to strike at the portal, and the camera itself zooms down the building to showcase all of the shattering glass and more to the structure.
View with your eyes, not your memory. :)
I will grant that if I watched them again today with a calculator as if I were an insurance adjuster then you might be right, maybe the damage equates. I could believe that my impression of the scale of each what emotional rather than quantitative. But you know what, that is still on them. How their movie makes you feel about the destruction is on them. That is the effect each had by how they told their stories.
And they felt different to me, that was my point. And my impression is that I watched the Avengers do more saving, where Superman felt more reckless. It was t that there were beats of Superman showing indifference. Rather, i felt there were beats missing of him showing enough concern or care.
And, sure, if I were going to court I would watch these again to check rather than trust my first impressions. I might compare, say, the difference between shattered glass and building collapse.
But I am not having a factual debate. I totally acknowledge that you have a more recent memory of what you saw in Avengers. And you may have felt different about it. Thats fine, and valid. I don't need you to not like it.
But I remember how each made me feel. And that is what I am really talking about. and i can judge them in how each did that the first time.
Each of these movies had its chance to entertain me. If one made me say yay and the other turned me off, I don't need to give it my time and money again (you know, as a lot of people seemed to say given MOS second week drop off ;) )
I think your nitpick of one and gloss over the other because you accept one instead of the other is just as flawed as what you're complaining about in the movie.
The fact that 1 is live action whereas the other is a cartoon doesn't make a difference. Both have the same type of "shock" value with the same character.
M
To quote John McClane... "glass?. who gives a shit about glass!? lol
The situation and characters are drastically different between the Avengers and MoS. The Avengers were a group of capable and gifted individuals literally trying to fight a war against an advanced superior threat of thousands whos sole intent was death, destruction and subjugation. The damage done was collateral and the Avengers did the best they could under the circumstances to contain and control it. that's war. MoS was basically two super powered individuals engaged in a careless brawl. There were similar elements to MoS but MoS failed to SHOW certain things such as acknowledging the devastation etc. That's why so many were at least a little turned off by it. Not just the level of the destruction. Movies are a visual medium. I believe one of the first rules is "show don't tell". And we shouldn't have to guess and surmise answers or come up with possible excuses and explanations to the questions on our own. We should be shown. At least moreso than MoS did. not only that, but that is how the character is historically supposed to be portrayed. As much more thoughtful and heroic than as he appeared.
This feels like the justification that the Avengers movie didn't have mass destruction also. It REALLY comes down to liking one and not the other. Completely subjective.
Also, is say telling people in Smallville to get inside and lock their doors DOES show Superman did have SOME concern for them. I don't even recall Tony saying anything in Iron Man 3 when he fought those 2 characters in the small town.
M
It would have been nice to watch Superman do more of that.
Because he's the goddamn SUPERMAN! ;)
For what it is worth, though I have never seen the Superman cartoon that is being shown in the clip, I do think there is a difference between depictions of violence and destruction in animation vs. live action. And I respect you may not feel there is a difference. Like all things to do with ratings/taboo/shock, etc., that is a very subjective thing.
But for what it is worth, the people who assign ratings to things like movies and video games (and, BELIEVE ME, it makes me itchy to even cite them as a kind of authority) will even specify a difference between "cartoon violence" and "violence". And things that are considered "cartoon violence" are often allowed a lower rating. You will often see that in the descriptors below a PG or even G rating. "Cartoon violence".
I'm not saying that you, personally, should see a difference between the two, as you have to make your own decisions as a parent, so what you choose is more important than what the community standard is. But, for what it is worth, the people whose job it is to advise and inform you as a parent feel there is a difference.
For example, Common Sense Media.org, in describing the rating they give to Justice League Unlimited as a whole, puts it this way in the "Violence & Scariness" section:
"Cartoon violence is frequent as the League battles villains of all types." And it seems that JLU aired with a rating of TV-Y7. Meaning recommended for ages 7 and up.
Put another way-- right or wrong-- if MOS were animated, it might have been PG instead of PG-13. I don't think that would have been right- as there is enough destruction that even as a cartoon it should be PG-13. But I also do think watching portrayals of flesh and blood actors and extra be terrified, menaced, and killed is a different thing than watching it happen to animated figures (even if the buildings, being CG, *nearly* made the whole thing a cartoon.
I have never seen a side by side comparison. But I think I get more affected, unsettled, or in extreme cases disturbed by the one than the other.
In the same way that I can handle depictions of violence much more in a comic than I do in something with actors (especially the good ones). That is not to say that great comics cannot be completely moving or disturbing. Of course they are. But I think illustration (like animation) does add a layer of distance. At least, to me.
There are a large number of people that will spend $10+ dollars to see a superhero film in a theater and $20-$30 to buy it on blu ray/DVD but will not buy an issue or trade of the movie character.
I do not know what the disconnect is or even if the corporate suits even care.
Do the corporate suits care, though? No. Because they work for character-based entertainment companies. They do not define their employers as "comic book companies", nor have they for a long time. If a movie helps the IP, then they feel they have done their job (and, to be fair, they have) even if some of that success is expressed in buying bed sheets, video games, toys or a Halloween costume rather than comic books. Their job is to monetize the property. The people whose job it is to sell the comic books are a separate (much smaller) division of the larger corporation.
Batman in 89 falls in the black hole of sales reporting after DC changed its subscription process in 87/88 (?) and before Diamond started. But I remember that the movie was so huge at the time, it would make sense that the comic got an increase.
I will take your word on Wanted and Persepolis. I have never heard of either one of them in any format. I googled Wanted and the movie came out while I was overseas.
To rephrase my original statement, movies based on characters from the big 2 generally do not generate an increase in comic book sales.
It just seems that there is such a potiential for revenue in comics. While they could never make the amount of money a movie makes, if they could get just a small portion of the movie audience who do not read comics to come into the hobby, the sustained repeated monthly revenue generated could be significant.
I am not a marketing guy or some business genius. I do wish I could sit in on some of the meetings with Marvel/DC just to see the business process at work so I could have a better understanding.
Cartoons such as JLU are made suitable for general audiences with a target demographic of approx 6-12 yoa boys. MoS was rated PG13.
The suspension of disbelief is far greater and easier within cartoons.
There are different expectations, standards and concessions made for network toons Vs. live action major motion pictures. They must exaggerate for animation in various ways. If nothing else yes, in my mind its easier to pretend and believe those buildings could've been empty or evacuated in the toon given that continuity and universe.
Btw I always had a problem with the damaged buildings in the cartoons too. (Who said I didn't?) but it's less objectionable to me. I wasnt comparing MoS to anything but the damage done and heroic efforts of the Avengers Vs MoS. I never said superman has never put a hole in a building and that I cannot and will not ever accept him doing so. Never said no city should ever be destroyed under any circumstances. It depends on circumstances and how it's framed. The clip you provided is out of context. The entire story and circumstances surrounding it there are more like the events of Avengers. A full out invasion/war.
And what does ironman have to do with it? We can start another thread to discuss my gripes about IM3 lol
Superman telling a handful of people to "get indoors" in smallville is really the most he ever did to protect anyone and that scene was nothing compared to the later battle in metropolis. Also he essentially created that smalleville situation! He attacked the kryptonian who was threatening his mom (on their farm on the outskirts of town no less). Superman attacks him and takes him at super speed at ground level into the populated town and into an occupied ihop. He then proceeds to super brawl with the kryptonian within feet of the patrons then eventually it spills into the street. Am I remembering that wrong?
At any rate, ok superman advises some people to get inside. Bless him.
Then
Superman catches a soldier falling from a helicopter. However that was more a transparent pllot point than an actual character moment.
Then
Superman catches Lois falling from the plane. Great. But This after Everything. All the destruction. All the certain deaths. Being exhausted and now, now he notices one person falling miles away and saves them. Only cause its Lois.
Then
Superman saves a family by killing Zod who was going to kill them. This I'm ok with and appreciate. Yeah the entire situation exists purely to get superman to kill zod. but so what. it was set up and framed well enough for me that it worked. I have no problem with that morally or artistically personally. Superman "shouldn't" kill, but they created a decent enough scenario for it to be understandable or acceptable (at least to me). I like the reviewer who said "I didn't have a problem w him killing zod, I have a problem he didn't kill him sooner". The destruction was just gratuitous. For its own sake.
At any rate those couple of moments just didn't cut it for me. It's superman for cryin out loud.
My main issue is I feel the filmmakers just fell short in some areas. I'm ok with what happened in the movie. Just no so much with how some of it happened.
Don't we accept Michael Bay's over the top (cartoony?) type violence he puts in his movies? Is the violence & disaster in MOS the same? So much, its almost a lampoon of reality? I'd argue they same is done in cartoons. Obviously, when an anvil is dropped on you, you won't just get flatten to ground level, then inflate yourself with a bike pump.
I wanted the disaster porn to be cut down a little for some more story content.
M
I also believe the Smallville fight would've spilled over into town eventually anyway.
And I think Michael Bay in the Transformers movies, especially whichever one ends in a big city fight, do entirely the same thing, and I disliked those movies for the same reason. So I never gave his movies a pass for that. In fact, from the beginning of this discussion I have been comparing MOS to Transformers, as I feel like that is what this movie ended up being: aliens come to have their fight here and tear where we live apart to do it. For me, it didn't make Transformers feel very heroic or inspiring, and it especially didn't make Superman (who I associate with those ideas even more than the Autobots) feel like much of a hero.
youtube.com/watch?v=k6tz2Q9RyUI
http://hurricane.methaz.org/tracking/mos_oped.pdf
it's a fun read
"The level of destruction and loss of life from Man of Steel was on an entirely different level fromThe Avengers as much as $2 Trillion dollars in total impacts (as opposed to the $168 Billion found in the earlier movie)"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CjSNLmb0Ndw
M
comicmix.com/reviews/2013/07/21/john-ostrander-man-of-steel-man-of-the-hour/