... Goyer tried to make this Superman's version of Batman Begins, but in the end, for me, it turned out joyless, pretentious and awkward.
Nice summation.
"Awkward" is really apt, and an aspect I haven't spent much time harping about, as I'm so much more passionate about the joylessness and the pretension.
Especially awkward bits that leap to mind are the ham-fisted crucifixion imagery and the ridiculous contrivance of Pa's death sequence.
Kent has never been used in crucifixion imagery before Man of Steel?! "El" means God in Hebrew.
And I'll post until you're blue in the face, the context of Pa's death makes sense.
M
Yet again, you're avoiding the actual point.
The execution of both of those scenes was piss-poor.
Both were awkward scenes which only existed to set up a pretty shot. Cinematically gorgeous, but utterly contrived.
No, the point is, both were done before. They seem to awkward to the group who didn't like the movie. I'm the first to roll my eyes at religious imagery. I also know its going to be included with Superman movies.
M
YET AGAIN, you avoid the point.
Do it, fine.
Nail Superman to a freaking cross if you want.
Just do it well.
Then I don't know what your point is. Do I like seeing Kent used in crucifixion imagery, put up on a pedestal, jock sniffed, need to be the gold standard, is "the best of the best (with honors)", no. Drop it all and treat him the same as the rest of the lot.
Do I accept its going to be that way with the character? Yes.
M
Do you accept that some films are made with more craft than others?
Are we talking strictly Superman movies, comic book movies, or movies in general?
You keep wondering what we didn't like about it and refuse to accept our responses as reasonable. I can tell you a list of things I didn't like such as Superman hardly saves anyone - you say he did, but I would argue that Clark Kent did save a few folks, but in his Superman persona, he hardly saved anyone - personally, not pragmatically. Where is the scene where he steps in front of someone and takes a blast for him? Where’s the scene where he saves the lady with a baby? Rescues the cat out of a tree for a little girl? How can he be Superman if he’s not saving people and doing good deeds?
And it disturbed me how little regard Superman had for property damage. This was a major complaint with the movie. While throwing villains through buildings, parking garages, and grain silos Superman doesn’t seem to care who gets hurt or how much damage is done so long as he beats the villains. Not to mention that guy's $75,000.00+ semi-truck being completely demolished for merely insulting a waitress and pouring a glass of beer on Clark. Talk about an overreaction.
There are so many examples of bad writing in MoS. How about when Clark’s mother is in danger and the phantom zone criminals are threatening her life? What does Supes do? He flies in and grabs Zod, leaving behind his mother - all alone with the other villains. If he flew in to save his mother, then why didn't he save her instead of fighting mindlessly? And what about using his super-breath? Frost-breath? Etc. He has far more powers than punching and flying.
Snyder seems to have been so focused on explosions and big budget effects that he must have forgotten that all good movies are about characters, characters who make an audience cheer, clap, laugh, and cry. Pixar knows this. Marvel Studios knows it. But Snyder doesn't seem to have any idea. When you saw this in the theater, did the audience laugh at the comedy quips in the movie, beyond maybe a few chuckles? Did anyone clap or cheer? They certainly did in the original Donner vision of Superman.
And as for the neck snapping at the end you switch between responding with “Zod left Superman no choice.” or he did the same thing in Superman II, but in that film Superman only took Zod's powers away and then dumped him into the snow; he didn’t kill him. And to respond to this killing by saying they did it in Superman II is hypocritical since you are fond of using bonus scenes and DVD commentaries as plot hole / continuity error repairing devices (as in Xavier's death in X3 and his rebirth in DoFP). We have to consider the telecast version of Superman II which showed all the villains being taken away by “Arctic police” after the fighting was over.
One of the most fundamental aspects of Superman’s character is always finding a way to stop people without killing them, no matter how much villains (like Lex Luthor) might deserve it. Yes, he's done it in the comics before, so what? Even Mark Waid hated this in the movie. So you can continue to cheerlead about how this Man of Steel is "better" than Richard Donner's version because it's grittier or more realistic with better special effects and lots more action. But the problem is that, despite all of that, Snyder's version has no soul and no heart. The Donner version had tons.
Do you accept that some films are made with more craft than others?
Are we talking strictly Superman movies, comic book movies, or movies in general?
M
Let's take baby steps and start with films in general.
Of course there are movies better crafted.
Next step.
M Wait, wait, wait. Before this thread gets pulled back into its seemingly endless death spiral, Matt, you seem to have taken this question to mean, “Do you accept that there are other films, in general, that are better crafted than MoS.” The actual question was, “Do you accept that there are film, in general, that are better crafted than other films, in general.” If that's what you actually understood the question to be, I apologize, but I want to be sure you and Stewart are both clear with each other before you even get started.
See, I'm curious why you asked for a qualifier on such a seemingly straightforward question. It adds to my feeling that you and Stewart are already off in different directions.
So my question is: Did you mean to say, “Of course there are movies better crafted than other movies,” or did you mean, “Of course there are movies better crafted than MoS”?
You keep wondering what we didn't like about it and refuse to accept our responses as reasonable. I can tell you a list of things I didn't like such as Superman hardly saves anyone - you say he did, but I would argue that Clark Kent did save a few folks, but in his Superman persona, he hardly saved anyone - personally, not pragmatically. Where is the scene where he steps in front of someone and takes a blast for him? Where’s the scene where he saves the lady with a baby? Rescues the cat out of a tree for a little girl? How can he be Superman if he’s not saving people and doing good deeds?
And it disturbed me how little regard Superman had for property damage. This was a major complaint with the movie. While throwing villains through buildings, parking garages, and grain silos Superman doesn’t seem to care who gets hurt or how much damage is done so long as he beats the villains. Not to mention that guy's $75,000.00+ semi-truck being completely demolished for merely insulting a waitress and pouring a glass of beer on Clark. Talk about an overreaction.
There are so many examples of bad writing in MoS. How about when Clark’s mother is in danger and the phantom zone criminals are threatening her life? What does Supes do? He flies in and grabs Zod, leaving behind his mother - all alone with the other villains. If he flew in to save his mother, then why didn't he save her instead of fighting mindlessly? And what about using his super-breath? Frost-breath? Etc. He has far more powers than punching and flying.
Snyder seems to have been so focused on explosions and big budget effects that he must have forgotten that all good movies are about characters, characters who make an audience cheer, clap, laugh, and cry. Pixar knows this. Marvel Studios knows it. But Snyder doesn't seem to have any idea. When you saw this in the theater, did the audience laugh at the comedy quips in the movie, beyond maybe a few chuckles? Did anyone clap or cheer? They certainly did in the original Donner vision of Superman.
And as for the neck snapping at the end you switch between responding with “Zod left Superman no choice.” or he did the same thing in Superman II, but in that film Superman only took Zod's powers away and then dumped him into the snow; he didn’t kill him. And to respond to this killing by saying they did it in Superman II is hypocritical since you are fond of using bonus scenes and DVD commentaries as plot hole / continuity error repairing devices (as in Xavier's death in X3 and his rebirth in DoFP). We have to consider the telecast version of Superman II which showed all the villains being taken away by “Arctic police” after the fighting was over.
One of the most fundamental aspects of Superman’s character is always finding a way to stop people without killing them, no matter how much villains (like Lex Luthor) might deserve it. Yes, he's done it in the comics before, so what? Even Mark Waid hated this in the movie. So you can continue to cheerlead about how this Man of Steel is "better" than Richard Donner's version because it's grittier or more realistic with better special effects and lots more action. But the problem is that, despite all of that, Snyder's version has no soul and no heart. The Donner version had tons.
I hate these long posts I have to respond to because they take so much time to respond while I'm driving.
Whether you like it or not is strictly subjective. I'm not going to change your opinions by dissecting scenes anymore then you will on something I don't care for. My stance has always been not to say something isn't in the movie, when it is. You can not agree with how it was portrayed (and subjective), but you can also acknowledge its there.
Kent is Superman. You're splitting hairs if you hold a higher weight to his costumed saves over the plain clothes saves.
So, mass rescues are overshadowed by not saving every single person. He needed to save a cat in a tree to prove his worth?
Property damage? You're actually complaining about property damage? No other comic book movie has been mindful of property damage? You're "truck stop bully" complaint is just writing WetRats' coattails.
Fell into snow? What's underneath the snow? If I fall 5 stories onto a snow bank, I'm fine, right? According to you, the average moviegoer doesn't watch extras or listen to commentaries. It was in a movie not even theatrically released. Technically, the version complete is the version.
So you rail this Kent for not being Superman, but think he should've found another way? And why? Because he's Superman? But I thought he wasn't?
It has heart. Not every movie that has heart connects with everyone. I don't doubt Donner's had heart, but I didn't connect with it like I did this one. Then again, that might not be a reasonable answer!
Do you accept that some films are made with more craft than others?
Are we talking strictly Superman movies, comic book movies, or movies in general?
M
Let's take baby steps and start with films in general.
Of course there are movies better crafted.
Next step.
M
Wait, wait, wait. Before this thread gets pulled back into its seemingly endless death spiral, Matt, you seem to have taken this question to mean, “Do you accept that there are other films, in general, that are better crafted than MoS.” The actual question was, “Do you accept that there are film, in general, that are better crafted than other films, in general.” If that's what you actually understood the question to be, I apologize, but I want to be sure you and Stewart are both clear with each other before you even get started.
See, I'm curious why you asked for a qualifier on such a seemingly straightforward question. It adds to my feeling that you and Stewart are already off in different directions.
So my question is: Did you mean to say, “Of course there are movies better crafted than other movies,” or did you mean, “Of course there are movies better crafted than MoS”?
I'm assuming that everyone that is rejecting Superman killing Zod has been just as vocal in rejecting Byrne's depiction of Superman killing the Kryptonians as well?
Although I looked forward to the movie from the trailers, Rob Zombie's Halloween (the remake) was nothing more than a tedious serial killer origin film that incorporated copious amounts of graphic brutality and spent way too much time focusing on Michael’s early history and in the process removed any hint of scariness or menace from him. Furthermore, knowing his origin in-depth made it hard to swallow his superhuman strength and apparent immortality – things we could accept much more easily when he was just an enigmatic boogeyman in John Carpenter's master work. Zombie's was merely a tedious, unimaginative endeavor, but he sure can film naked women being terrorized well! The film's shifted between being boring to displaying crass, heartless brutality. Kind of like what I felt when I saw Man of Steel. No thanks :).
I guess some of us prefer to see the journey & others just want to see the end.
M
To wit, we get stinkers like Hannibal Rising when it could never match Silence of the Lambs. I merely prefer to see well made movies, journey, beginning, or ending matters not as long as it is well told.
Zack Snyder somehow manages to tell his Superman story in a drab, cynical and ultimately tone-deaf way. And there is certainly no shortage of people that identify with this perspective...
Man of Steel isn’t about a hero who comes to Earth to save people, because he doesn’t really do that. He saves the planet at the end of the story, but most of the film is more about Clark deciding if he should go public or not. Which bring’s me to his adopted Dad. Aside from one of the most laughable death scenes in cinema history (Swallowed by a tornado after running into it to rescue a dog is a new one for me.) Kent Sr. has only one role in the film. He tells Clark the world will reject him if they find out about him. That a man like Superman will change the world, they will fear him and hate him when he is discovered. But the film isn’t about this either. Superman is feared at first, but that’s mostly because Zod is threatening to destroy the planet because of him. One saved helicopter later, and most people are on board with Superman.
And just why is Superman here?
Is this a film about a father desperate to save his son from sharing the fate of his planet? That’s the famous Superman plot, but Man of Steel is more concerned with The Codex, a library of Kryptonian DNA saved in Clark’s blood. This strand of the plot renders Superman as little more than a tool for Krypton’s preservation. Though, a pointless tool, since neither Clark nor Jor-El seem to think rebuilding Krypton on earth is that good an idea. Is Kal-El his beloved son or is he a biological tool? Little attempt is made to harmonise these threads.
Jor-El gets a quote that sounds great on the trailer. It’s a momentous speech about Superman being a guiding light that mankind will strive towards. But Man of Steel is a film in which mankind does no striving. Mankind is a pawn in this game and even when Superman is finally revealed to them, they’re a bit too busy running from collapsing buildings. Perhaps mankind will do some striving in later films, but as it is, it’s just another Messiah Metaphor that goes nowhere.
You can continue to defend the movie to your heart's content, but it won't change what everyone who was disappointed in the movie thinks about it.
Bottom line is that I didn’t hate Man of Steel, but I certainly didn’t love it enough to defend its myriad of shortcomings. It's very interesting to look at and I can tell that Goyer tried to make this Superman's version of Batman Begins, but in the end, for me, it turned out joyless, pretentious and awkward.
You seem to be suggesting that because you find people that agree with your perspective, which you present as the only perspective, that it is correct and unasailable. I find this disconcerting at best.
"Look: I am the last dude in the world who wants to see a movie with Superman moping around and coming to terms with his great responsibility. That’s not really what the character’s about. But the best way to avoid that is to not write a movie where he kills someone in the first place. There’s no need for it. All it does is drag things down to the level of a standard-issue action movie, where the good guy kills the bad guy because that’s how action movies work. It’s pointless."
Yep. Lazy-ass scriptwriting 101. Write your character into a corner so he has to do what you want him to do.
I don't understand this argument. The character always does what the writer (or Editor in the case of current DC) wants. It's sort of the point of being the writer. It seems to me that the lazy approach is to write a character that always knows what is right, always acts for what is right and always has the ability to achieve success in those endeavors and, if he happens to be faced with something that tests any of the three preceding characteristics, is will have a new ability suddenly manifest in a decidedly deus ex machine sort of way in order to resolve the otherwise unresolvable conflict. Thus is born the ultimate Mary Sue (and a character that probably wouldn't still be in print 75 years later.
I'll also point out that for all of the complaints about Man of Steel, it points out reality that has been known for decades by infantry... tanks draw fire. That fire may or may not hurt the tank, but it will hurt the infantry that are too close to the tank. Super heroes draw super villains draw super heroes... as the cycle goes, the civilian is the one that gets hurt and thus is born the Invasion and the Initiative.
Finally, and then I'm done even reading this thread, if characters were still being written identical to the way that they were portrayed in their first appearances, I honestly don't think that I would still be reading comics. There are definitely characters that I love that have gone in directions that I dislike, and resultantly, I don't read them anymore. I, ultimately accept that creators are creating and to ask them to not allow characters to change/grow/shift as they face experiences seems to me like it would take a whole lot of the joy out of the job.
Is the Snyder/Goyer Superman your Superman? Doesn't sound like it, but it also sounds like it hasn't been since before Byrne got the character. Even then, it really wasn't ever your character. The experience of reading about the character is something that is yours but the character only belongs to the IP owner.
I'm assuming that everyone that is rejecting Superman killing Zod has been just as vocal in rejecting Byrne's depiction of Superman killing the Kryptonians as well?
Do you accept that some films are made with more craft than others?
Are we talking strictly Superman movies, comic book movies, or movies in general?
M
Let's take baby steps and start with films in general.
Of course there are movies better crafted.
Next step.
M
Wait, wait, wait. Before this thread gets pulled back into its seemingly endless death spiral, Matt, you seem to have taken this question to mean, “Do you accept that there are other films, in general, that are better crafted than MoS.” The actual question was, “Do you accept that there are film, in general, that are better crafted than other films, in general.” If that's what you actually understood the question to be, I apologize, but I want to be sure you and Stewart are both clear with each other before you even get started.
See, I'm curious why you asked for a qualifier on such a seemingly straightforward question. It adds to my feeling that you and Stewart are already off in different directions.
So my question is: Did you mean to say, “Of course there are movies better crafted than other movies,” or did you mean, “Of course there are movies better crafted than MoS”?
Why then did you ask for a qualifier, when the qualifier didn't matter in how you answered? I'm just asking out of curiosity.
Sure:
More crafted movies in general: yes
More crafted comic book movies: yes
More crafted Superman movies: no Not because this was the most crafted one, but they're all pretty equate in their craftiness
M
So are you then arguing that since the other Superman movies were poorly done, it's OK for this one to be poorly done as well?
Nope. I'm recognizing they all have their own flaws. Each poorly done? Not sure. Each has some level of entertainment and some level of disappointment. For a character I have never much cared for, I take the movies for what they are. Out of all the interpretations of the character, Man of Steel was my favorite. It portrayed the most interesting interpretation for me. I felt it was more relatable.
Nope. I'm recognizing they all have their own flaws. Each poorly done? Not sure. Each has some level of entertainment and some level of disappointment. For a character I have never much cared for, I take the movies for what they are. Out of all the interpretations of the character, Man of Steel was my favorite. It portrayed the most interesting interpretation for me. I felt it was more relatable.
M
Can you see how by attempting to make the character relatable to you, they took away the aspects of the character that made him admirable to me?
My contention is that if the creative team were better at their craft, they could have made him relatable without diminishing that which makes him admirable.
Nope. I'm recognizing they all have their own flaws. Each poorly done? Not sure. Each has some level of entertainment and some level of disappointment. For a character I have never much cared for, I take the movies for what they are. Out of all the interpretations of the character, Man of Steel was my favorite. It portrayed the most interesting interpretation for me. I felt it was more relatable.
M
Can you see how by attempting to make the character relatable to you, they took away the aspects of the character that made him admirable to me?
My contention is that if the creative team were better at their craft, they could have made him relatable without diminishing that which makes him admirable.
Can I see? Yes. At the same time (based on what I have put together) what would make him relatable to you could also be taking away what makes him relatable to me. You could say the same about any character that's been around for over 50 years. I am sure what makes Spider-man relatable to current readers could very well be what keeps me away. The same with Batman. People are really digging the Snyder stuff. The stuff they are digging is the same stuff I find a turn off. It sounds like the stuff I found most interesting and relatable to the character also turned other off.
Possible...but it could be subjective. There were several moments in the movie I felt Kent was being admirable. Specifically, when Lois noted that being close to the World Engine might weaken him, but he was going to risk it regardless.
These are the reasons I accept people liking or not liking the movie. It is all subjective to the person's tastes and experiences. It is when people say something isn't in the movie which is, that I get the posts going. Whether someone likes the portrayal is again subjective.
There are things in movies I do not agree with, but that does not mean I cannot acknowledge they are in the movies.
Nope. I'm recognizing they all have their own flaws. Each poorly done? Not sure. Each has some level of entertainment and some level of disappointment. For a character I have never much cared for, I take the movies for what they are. Out of all the interpretations of the character, Man of Steel was my favorite. It portrayed the most interesting interpretation for me. I felt it was more relatable.
M
Can you see how by attempting to make the character relatable to you, they took away the aspects of the character that made him admirable to me?
My contention is that if the creative team were better at their craft, they could have made him relatable without diminishing that which makes him admirable.
Can I see? Yes. At the same time (based on what I have put together) what would make him relatable to you could also be taking away what makes him relatable to me. You could say the same about any character that's been around for over 50 years. I am sure what makes Spider-man relatable to current readers could very well be what keeps me away. The same with Batman. People are really digging the Snyder stuff. The stuff they are digging is the same stuff I find a turn off. It sounds like the stuff I found most interesting and relatable to the character also turned other off.
Possible...but it could be subjective. There were several moments in the movie I felt Kent was being admirable. Specifically, when Lois noted that being close to the World Engine might weaken him, but he was going to risk it regardless.
These are the reasons I accept people liking or not liking the movie. It is all subjective to the person's tastes and experiences. It is when people say something isn't in the movie which is, that I get the posts going. Whether someone likes the portrayal is again subjective.
There are things in movies I do not agree with, but that does not mean I cannot acknowledge they are in the movies.
M
Here's the thing:
I can relate to all sorts of characters, including some pretty damned despicable ones.
But in a hero, I'm not as interested in relating to them as I am in admiring them.
I want to look up to my heroes, and the makers of Man of Steel failed to give me a hero I could look up to.
You wanted to relate to Superman (or Kent, I suppose) and you got that and were satisfied.
I wanted to look up to Superman, and I didn't get that, and was dissatisfied.
I don't believe that relatability and admirability have to be mutually-exclusive, I think, for instance, we both related to and admired Captain America in The Winter Soldier.
And I think more skilled filmmakers could have crafted a Superman movie that would have satisfied us both.
Of course, I don't just want to be satisfied with a Superman movie, I want to be thrilled.
Nope. I'm recognizing they all have their own flaws. Each poorly done? Not sure. Each has some level of entertainment and some level of disappointment. For a character I have never much cared for, I take the movies for what they are. Out of all the interpretations of the character, Man of Steel was my favorite. It portrayed the most interesting interpretation for me. I felt it was more relatable.
M
Can you see how by attempting to make the character relatable to you, they took away the aspects of the character that made him admirable to me?
My contention is that if the creative team were better at their craft, they could have made him relatable without diminishing that which makes him admirable.
Can I see? Yes. At the same time (based on what I have put together) what would make him relatable to you could also be taking away what makes him relatable to me. You could say the same about any character that's been around for over 50 years. I am sure what makes Spider-man relatable to current readers could very well be what keeps me away. The same with Batman. People are really digging the Snyder stuff. The stuff they are digging is the same stuff I find a turn off. It sounds like the stuff I found most interesting and relatable to the character also turned other off.
Possible...but it could be subjective. There were several moments in the movie I felt Kent was being admirable. Specifically, when Lois noted that being close to the World Engine might weaken him, but he was going to risk it regardless.
These are the reasons I accept people liking or not liking the movie. It is all subjective to the person's tastes and experiences. It is when people say something isn't in the movie which is, that I get the posts going. Whether someone likes the portrayal is again subjective.
There are things in movies I do not agree with, but that does not mean I cannot acknowledge they are in the movies.
M
Here's the thing:
I can relate to all sorts of characters, including some pretty damned despicable ones.
But in a hero, I'm not as interested in relating to them as I am in admiring them.
I want to look up to my heroes, and the makers of Man of Steel failed to give me a hero I could look up to.
You wanted to relate to Superman (or Kent, I suppose) and you got that and were satisfied.
I wanted to look up to Superman, and I didn't get that, and was dissatisfied.
I don't believe that relatability and admirability have to be mutually-exclusive, I think, for instance, we both related to and admired Captain America in The Winter Soldier.
And I think more skilled filmmakers could have crafted a Superman movie that would have satisfied us both.
Of course, I don't just want to be satisfied with a Superman movie, I want to be thrilled.
I understand. I'd gladly trade half the final act's shock & awe for character development following the Zod fight.
I wouldn't say I look to admire any hero, but relate to them. I think admiration can be a slippery slope. Aside from my father, I prefer to look at heroes on the same level, not as something/one to aspire to be.
It's partly why I don't care about the ending as much as I do the journey. They get labeled a 'hero' by the end, but what got them there. What makes him/her tick?
I wouldn't say I look to admire any hero, but relate to them. I think admiration can be a slippery slope. Aside from my father, I prefer to look at heroes on the same level, not as something/one to aspire to be.
That's what fictional heroes are for.
Giving us heroes to admire without having to worry about the slippery slope.
I wouldn't say I look to admire any hero, but relate to them. I think admiration can be a slippery slope. Aside from my father, I prefer to look at heroes on the same level, not as something/one to aspire to be.
That's what fictional heroes are for.
Giving us heroes to admire without having to worry about the slippery slope.
Sure, they can be. I've always preferred to look at them for what they are & not for what I'm not. I know enough about myself to no my limits, strengths, & weaknesses. I don't look to be inspired, just entertained.
Could be why we're on different sides of this movie. You're looking for inspiration & I was looking to relate to the character to be entertained.
Comments
M
M
Let's take baby steps and start with films in general.
Of course there are movies better crafted.
Next step.
M
And it disturbed me how little regard Superman had for property damage. This was a major complaint with the movie. While throwing villains through buildings, parking garages, and grain silos Superman doesn’t seem to care who gets hurt or how much damage is done so long as he beats the villains. Not to mention that guy's $75,000.00+ semi-truck being completely demolished for merely insulting a waitress and pouring a glass of beer on Clark. Talk about an overreaction.
There are so many examples of bad writing in MoS. How about when Clark’s mother is in danger and the phantom zone criminals are threatening her life? What does Supes do? He flies in and grabs Zod, leaving behind his mother - all alone with the other villains. If he flew in to save his mother, then why didn't he save her instead of fighting mindlessly? And what about using his super-breath? Frost-breath? Etc. He has far more powers than punching and flying.
Snyder seems to have been so focused on explosions and big budget effects that he must have forgotten that all good movies are about characters, characters who make an audience cheer, clap, laugh, and cry. Pixar knows this. Marvel Studios knows it. But Snyder doesn't seem to have any idea. When you saw this in the theater, did the audience laugh at the comedy quips in the movie, beyond maybe a few chuckles? Did anyone clap or cheer? They certainly did in the original Donner vision of Superman.
And as for the neck snapping at the end you switch between responding with “Zod left Superman no choice.” or he did the same thing in Superman II, but in that film Superman only took Zod's powers away and then dumped him into the snow; he didn’t kill him. And to respond to this killing by saying they did it in Superman II is hypocritical since you are fond of using bonus scenes and DVD commentaries as plot hole / continuity error repairing devices (as in Xavier's death in X3 and his rebirth in DoFP). We have to consider the telecast version of Superman II which showed all the villains being taken away by “Arctic police” after the fighting was over.
One of the most fundamental aspects of Superman’s character is always finding a way to stop people without killing them, no matter how much villains (like Lex Luthor) might deserve it. Yes, he's done it in the comics before, so what? Even Mark Waid hated this in the movie. So you can continue to cheerlead about how this Man of Steel is "better" than Richard Donner's version because it's grittier or more realistic with better special effects and lots more action. But the problem is that, despite all of that, Snyder's version has no soul and no heart. The Donner version had tons.
Next step.
M
Wait, wait, wait. Before this thread gets pulled back into its seemingly endless death spiral, Matt, you seem to have taken this question to mean, “Do you accept that there are other films, in general, that are better crafted than MoS.” The actual question was, “Do you accept that there are film, in general, that are better crafted than other films, in general.” If that's what you actually understood the question to be, I apologize, but I want to be sure you and Stewart are both clear with each other before you even get started.
See, I'm curious why you asked for a qualifier on such a seemingly straightforward question. It adds to my feeling that you and Stewart are already off in different directions.
So my question is: Did you mean to say, “Of course there are movies better crafted than other movies,” or did you mean, “Of course there are movies better crafted than MoS”?
Whether you like it or not is strictly subjective. I'm not going to change your opinions by dissecting scenes anymore then you will on something I don't care for. My stance has always been not to say something isn't in the movie, when it is. You can not agree with how it was portrayed (and subjective), but you can also acknowledge its there.
Kent is Superman. You're splitting hairs if you hold a higher weight to his costumed saves over the plain clothes saves.
So, mass rescues are overshadowed by not saving every single person. He needed to save a cat in a tree to prove his worth?
Property damage? You're actually complaining about property damage? No other comic book movie has been mindful of property damage? You're "truck stop bully" complaint is just writing WetRats' coattails.
Fell into snow? What's underneath the snow? If I fall 5 stories onto a snow bank, I'm fine, right? According to you, the average moviegoer doesn't watch extras or listen to commentaries. It was in a movie not even theatrically released. Technically, the version complete is the version.
So you rail this Kent for not being Superman, but think he should've found another way? And why? Because he's Superman? But I thought he wasn't?
It has heart. Not every movie that has heart connects with everyone. I don't doubt Donner's had heart, but I didn't connect with it like I did this one. Then again, that might not be a reasonable answer!
M
See, I'm curious why you asked for a qualifier on such a seemingly straightforward question. It adds to my feeling that you and Stewart are already off in different directions.
So my question is: Did you mean to say, “Of course there are movies better crafted than other movies,” or did you mean, “Of course there are movies better crafted than MoS”?
Actually, both.
M
I'm assuming that everyone that is rejecting Superman killing Zod has been just as vocal in rejecting Byrne's depiction of Superman killing the Kryptonians as well? You seem to be suggesting that because you find people that agree with your perspective, which you present as the only perspective, that it is correct and unasailable. I find this disconcerting at best. I don't understand this argument. The character always does what the writer (or Editor in the case of current DC) wants. It's sort of the point of being the writer. It seems to me that the lazy approach is to write a character that always knows what is right, always acts for what is right and always has the ability to achieve success in those endeavors and, if he happens to be faced with something that tests any of the three preceding characteristics, is will have a new ability suddenly manifest in a decidedly deus ex machine sort of way in order to resolve the otherwise unresolvable conflict. Thus is born the ultimate Mary Sue (and a character that probably wouldn't still be in print 75 years later.
I'll also point out that for all of the complaints about Man of Steel, it points out reality that has been known for decades by infantry... tanks draw fire. That fire may or may not hurt the tank, but it will hurt the infantry that are too close to the tank. Super heroes draw super villains draw super heroes... as the cycle goes, the civilian is the one that gets hurt and thus is born the Invasion and the Initiative.
Finally, and then I'm done even reading this thread, if characters were still being written identical to the way that they were portrayed in their first appearances, I honestly don't think that I would still be reading comics. There are definitely characters that I love that have gone in directions that I dislike, and resultantly, I don't read them anymore. I, ultimately accept that creators are creating and to ask them to not allow characters to change/grow/shift as they face experiences seems to me like it would take a whole lot of the joy out of the job.
Is the Snyder/Goyer Superman your Superman? Doesn't sound like it, but it also sounds like it hasn't been since before Byrne got the character. Even then, it really wasn't ever your character. The experience of reading about the character is something that is yours but the character only belongs to the IP owner.
M
Annnnnnnd. The baby falls on its face!
More crafted movies in general: yes
More crafted comic book movies: yes
More crafted Superman movies: no
Not because this was the most crafted one, but they're all pretty equate in their craftiness
M
M
My contention is that if the creative team were better at their craft, they could have made him relatable without diminishing that which makes him admirable.
Possible...but it could be subjective. There were several moments in the movie I felt Kent was being admirable. Specifically, when Lois noted that being close to the World Engine might weaken him, but he was going to risk it regardless.
These are the reasons I accept people liking or not liking the movie. It is all subjective to the person's tastes and experiences. It is when people say something isn't in the movie which is, that I get the posts going. Whether someone likes the portrayal is again subjective.
There are things in movies I do not agree with, but that does not mean I cannot acknowledge they are in the movies.
M
I can relate to all sorts of characters, including some pretty damned despicable ones.
But in a hero, I'm not as interested in relating to them as I am in admiring them.
I want to look up to my heroes, and the makers of Man of Steel failed to give me a hero I could look up to.
You wanted to relate to Superman (or Kent, I suppose) and you got that and were satisfied.
I wanted to look up to Superman, and I didn't get that, and was dissatisfied.
I don't believe that relatability and admirability have to be mutually-exclusive, I think, for instance, we both related to and admired Captain America in The Winter Soldier.
And I think more skilled filmmakers could have crafted a Superman movie that would have satisfied us both.
Of course, I don't just want to be satisfied with a Superman movie, I want to be thrilled.
I wouldn't say I look to admire any hero, but relate to them. I think admiration can be a slippery slope. Aside from my father, I prefer to look at heroes on the same level, not as something/one to aspire to be.
It's partly why I don't care about the ending as much as I do the journey. They get labeled a 'hero' by the end, but what got them there. What makes him/her tick?
M
Giving us heroes to admire without having to worry about the slippery slope.
M
Could be why we're on different sides of this movie. You're looking for inspiration & I was looking to relate to the character to be entertained.
M
M
Although I was neither inspired not entertained.
M