BvS will be remembered as a misunderstood classic.
This is too good.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
- Status
This is too good.
Strangelove77
Member
How did I miss this one? Sweet.
Imbarkus
As Sartre noted in his contemplation on Hell in No Exit, the true horror is other members.
I think the reason you come off as combative is you won't allow for my examples to fly on the basis they work for me. People have different lines of willing suspension of disbelief, dependent on both eponymous factors: their ease of achieving disbelief, and their level of willingness in the enterprise.
You speak as if both of these are non-factors, the additional details revealed in the scene didn't pass your sniff test because you still have nitpicks, and so objective truth means they haven't achieved the plot viability goal. And I guess you perceive I am just misguided and saying wrong things. When, for me, the burning of the corpses as part of implicating Superman was helpful... I don't presume anyone interested in exonerating him got ahold of the corpses and autopsied them. The reveal of the false witness was helpful because I remembered Lois was inside when the mercenaries were killed, and her testimony regarding her boyfriend, savior, and favorite article topic might not really carry much weight anyway. Witnesses testimony about the village massacres being false was important in that the human misery she said was caused by Superman's actions didn't really happen, which further redeems the character, like the congress saving scenes I mentioned.
I could go on but I'm really too old for this shit. I've been nerd arguing on the internet for twenty years and it always goes the same. I've added plenty of criticism of the movie in the thread. It's flawed and it should have been two movies, really, maybe split across the summer pushing Suicide Squad into Christmas or something. My level of willingness did not install blinders to my view of the movie's flaws.
Some people have those blinders. But also some people have let their level of unwillingness install blinders to the movie's merits. The movie has merits. The EC has a better story but a weaker tone and flow. It's a tradeoff, to my mind. K?
Movie was pretty bad but also not. Idk. I enjoyed watching it at least, in spite of its numerous flaws. I think more of it worked than it gets credit for, and for as much as people like to cast Synder as a mindless meathead, I do think he is very intentional and thoughtful in his approach to film making and storytelling. His problem is both that he just can't get his ideas across due to his own limitations as a creator, and some of his ideas are just not a match for this genre.
If nothing else, I feel like discussion of this movie has been better than Man of Steel. Minus, of course, the fact that people now feel like they have free liscence to insult the director as a person as opposed to, ya know, just a director.
If nothing else, I feel like discussion of this movie has been better than Man of Steel. Minus, of course, the fact that people now feel like they have free liscence to insult the director as a person as opposed to, ya know, just a director.
The Africa incident which confused a lot of people has a lot of gears in it and that if you don't pay attention to every part of it you might get confused. Lois didn't know who the PMCs were when she was at the villagers. When Olsen's cover is blown and he is killed, Lois is taken inside as a potential hostage should the CIA try shit and KGBEAST and friends kill the villagers outside where Lois can't see what's going on. The CIA being as trigger happy on film as they are in real life release the drones. The "conspicuous" bullets were explained by Swanwick as being used so that if the CIA didnt cover for Lex, it would seem that a) they were trigger happy with the drones b) they'd rather blame Superman and Lois as his fanboy than it be known a contractor of theirs (Lex Corp) being involved in testing experimental rounds on Africans. The sum of all this is to make it seem like even with the best of intentions, Superman can have unforeseen consequences and worst things will happen to set publica opinion against him.
Not refusing, I have already bought it once it passed a reasonable price, but when I am thinking about watching it when someone for example posts the one great Wonder Woman gif, I am always like "naaah, not wanna waste over three hours on that again right now"
Talladega Knight
Member
It really is an amazing improvement.
I wouldn't go so far as to say "amazing". Scenes flow better. Ideas from the theatrical version actually make some sense. Superman is a bit more "Superman" (in my time here on GAF I have concluded the majority opinion of Superman's preferred characterization here so when I say "bit" I do mean "bit"). Objectively it's just the more competent version of the movie. It does not fix everything and depending on what you liked and what you didn't like the UC could go either way for someone.
My advice to anyone who has only watched the Theatrical Cut and is even mildly curious about the longer cut: If you're dead set on disliking the movie for whatever reason (i.e: You despised what you have already seen/ You just don't really care one way or another/ You'd prefer to continue to hate it because you want the DCEU rebooted/ Your friends will laugh at you for being the odd duck that actually likes the movie/ You are not ready to gaze upon Batman's bare ass...) then don't waste your time. You can just watch both Dave Chappelle Netflix specials instead. And if you've already seen them then watch them again because they are that good and you know you were going to anyway.
Lokimaru
Member
By that time he's seen some shit.
IndoAssassin
Banned
Why does Batman torture Superman to death? Why not just straight up kill him?
Why is Batman even likeable in this movie? Because he had that one awesome fight scene? The guy is a lunatic with no disregard for collateral damage and the possibility of killing innocents with his careless rampaging ways.
And here he is condemning Superman to death penalty for his inadvertant actions resulting in the same collateral damage. What a hypocrite.
Why is Batman even likeable in this movie? Because he had that one awesome fight scene? The guy is a lunatic with no disregard for collateral damage and the possibility of killing innocents with his careless rampaging ways.
And here he is condemning Superman to death penalty for his inadvertant actions resulting in the same collateral damage. What a hypocrite.
Lokimaru
Member
I think some people have such a hard-on for Batman the ultimate hero that they can't even fathom him crossing the line. Take the Justice Lords Episode of JL, everything in that episode points to LORD BATMAN being the ultimate villain of that piece yet he comes out the hero. At the end of that episode League Batman should have said "We got played!" 1) He'd been on his own for a while, 2) He built the Dimensional teleporter to a dimension that just so happens to have a devise that can take away powers. Come on man, He set the whole thing up. Then took a Dive to League Batman to throw off suspicion. He's literally the most powerful person on his world now with an Army of Superman robot and no competition. All his villains have been Lobotomized. But Nope he's the Hero because Batman. Meanwhile they had Superman go No Fucks given evil because fuck you that's why. Look at Injustice. Batman cause Soooo many people to get killed yet comes out smelling like a rose even though it was Good Superman that ultimately saved the day (and he still gets punished with a kryptonite detonator next to his Heart while the other Batman gets access to more money then most first world nations) And Harley never pays for her crimes (Popularity guarantees Immunity! Would you like to know more.)
He's been a prick that feels the need to kill and those he doesn't kill he tortures.
In the film what innocents does he harm? Like it's the traffickers at the beginning and Lex's thugs. He doesn't harm any other members of the public? I am serious, which innocent people did he directly harm?
matrix-cat
Member
Shit's a serious time commitment for what amounts to a better version of something people didn't like in the first place. Just knowing it's three hours long is enough to put me off. I can count the number of three hour movies I've seen in my life that I haven't been completely exhausted by on... one finger.
b&jy77VjiKn$#F
Member
Plus Evilore is in it!
I've refused to watch any editions, but I think curiosity will get the best of me and I'll eventually watch BvS. I feel since expectations are set so low, I can't help but enjoy the movie lol.
Dreams-Visions
Member
I enjoyed the movie. No strong desire to watch it more than a couple of times in life, but I had fun.
Imbarkus
As Sartre noted in his contemplation on Hell in No Exit, the true horror is other members.
This passage of bull right here about JL completely ignores the brilliant set of scenes between the two Batmans of the two worlds debating the merits of their two realized approaches.
When Superman is depicted "going evil" of course he goes "no fucks given evil" because he is absolutely-powered and absolute power corrupts absolutely. And this is really only true of Injustice (and I haven't read the comic series) because they've given him a clear reason to jettison all the fucks and then just go for broke. In the JL episode you reference, evil Supes may give no fucks, but he has a moral code based on essentially owning everything that happens on his world--you see it clearly when it's revealed good Supes made a deal with Lex Luthor for a full pardon if he gives them the weapon to stop the Justice Lords: "Everything he does from now on is your fault!"
If you want your no fucks given evil Batman than of course you have full-bore psychopathic Batman in the form of Owlman from Crisis on Two Earth. Dude almost blew up all reality as an expression of ego: "the only choice that really matters."
Adam_Vania
Banned
bc he has a few cool fight scenes. it doesn't matter that he's a complete idiot. the World's Greatest Detective is obsessively stalking Superman for a year and he doesn't even know Supes has human parents. he doesn't even bother investigating the crime scene that triggered Superman's congressional hearing.
he just sits at home and gets mad at the TV and lets himself get manipulated by obvious anonymous letters. this is a Batman who supposedly is aged and grizzled and has faught the Riddler and all kinds of criminal masterminds. yet this obviously manipulative scheme , he is going to not question it at all.
Batman's an idiot. Superman's emo.
Galactic Specter
Member
You Marvel plebeians don't know true kino.
What collateral damage are you talking about
So Trump is Batman?
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
GuitarAtomik
Member
The theatrical cut doesn't even give you a reason why the African lady is lying right? I'm still baffled by the decisions to cut what they did from the theatrical version.
This is one of the most overlooked critics of the film i believe. For some reason, both fans and haters are ok with Batman being a xenophobic douchebag who won't use his detective skills to actually do his job.
The dude just goes through the motions and gets manipulated by everyone.
Imbarkus
As Sartre noted in his contemplation on Hell in No Exit, the true horror is other members.
The proper choice would have been to split it into two movies, cliffhang at the Doomsday introduction maybe. Don't reveal him in the trailers.
Then instead of Suicide Squad give us the proper Doomsday fight from the comics instead of giving him that artificial, escalating EMP-thing that forced a timer onto the fight. Push Suicide Squad to Christmas (it could have used a couple months more baketime for sure), then lead into Wonder Woman and Justice League this year.
After watching the Hobbit get blown up into a big multi-movie soupy mess, it's really frustrating to see the outlines of two possibly great movies mashed up together into one amalgam that audiences reviled. Lesson learned to take your fucking time because that's what got Marvel studios to where they are with their franchises.
Le sigh.
What did he mean by this?
Member
Big no to the above. Cliffhangers eww
Thats because in the theatrical cut she wasnt lying.
The Ultimate Cut and Theatrical Cut have different plots.
Thats because in the theatrical cut she wasnt lying.
The Ultimate Cut and Theatrical Cut have different plots.
GuitarAtomik
Member
I think there was 20 minutes they could have cut from the theatrical version that they could have replaced with stuff from the Ultimate version. If we were talking about changing it so much as to make it a two parter, I would have the movie rewritten pretty much from the ground up.
Fair enough. I'm pretty sure her testimony was the same in both versions and it makes less sense in the theatrical cut imo. Considering the original intent was that she was lying, it makes sense why it felt off.
Imbarkus
As Sartre noted in his contemplation on Hell in No Exit, the true horror is other members.
It's already two stories mashed together, a mutated World's Finest/Dark Knight Returns, and an abbreviated Doomsday/Death of Superman. Either of those arcs deserves a full movie treatment.
But Twilight: Breaking Dawn took, like, two movies to capture all that awesome story. SMH
GabeTheGrouch76
Member
My opinion on it still hasn't changed. Batfleck's the only good thing in what's a incoherent, convoluted mess of a film. I won't say it's outright awful and it may be a better film than Suicide Squad (haven't seen yet); but I have an easier time saying it's also far from a good movie.
L
Lord Virgin
Unconfirmed Member
Bleepey deleted his YT account, no need to bring that up.
The movie explained all these things people bitch about:
Why did Batman not investigate the Africa incident? Why would he when the next day a big fat fucking senate hearing , with a witness happens to do just that
Why did Batman not realise Walllace Keefe was not the bomber? Why wouldn't he suspect him? The guy graffitied his monument and went to testify against him because he lost his family He thought the guy thought the world of him and returned his cheques cos he was suicidal. As for the bombing other investigators implicated Keefe and the framed bomb making equipment in his apartment. The only thing that was uncertain was how much help he had.
As for why he didn't realise he had human parents. He never saw him as human till he realised on his deathbed like his father all he could think about was a woman named Martga
CaviarMeths
Member
I didn't necessarily say the Ultimate Cut was better, just that it restored vital pieces of the story that were missing. I'd go as far as to say that the Theatrical Cut is straight up broken in narrative. That's pretty important. I like the Ultimate Cut better. It's decent. I don't regret the ten bucks I spent on the bluray. But there's still a lot of things wrong with it that could have been mostly fixed in editing.
A lot of editing. Pretty much recutting the entire film. But the bones are there. Issues would remain. There's probably no way to cut the movie to redeem Eisenberg or MARTHAAA. There's a 7/10 movie among the rubble though.
At the risk of poking an already aggravated bear, I also like to add that I notice that defenders don't usually like to talk about how BvS is meaningful. They usually try to talk about how BvS actually makes sense if you look at this flow chart or anything like that, but, for the sake of argument lets concede that BvS is perfectly coherent: What does this mean that the narrative is trying to depict? See, the only times I see fans of the Snyder verse actually try to write out why BvS tells a competent story, they only seem to find success with abstract symbolism. I can't find that 4 chan image that listed all the literary references, but you know what I mean. Batman makes a spear from kryptonite and Superman is god -> Ahab hunted Moby dick with a spear-ish kinda weapon and Moby Dick is a symbol of god. And people act like this superficial thematic similarity means that BvS itself is exploring similar depths (har, har) as Moby Dick. Another example is this Thesis on Man of Steel that basically argued that Superman's journey is a metaphor for the birthing process which...somehow made it good. Idk.
Point is, most film essays or analysis' or whatever, atleast the ones I find good, examine how the narrative grapples with a problem that, when broadened, can be related to every day issues. To use a quick example, Mad Max is significantly about toxic masculinity vs feminism. The culture that Immortan Joe cultivates values war and violence, death for glory and devalues both men and women as people, while the narrative, in paying careful attention to how it characterizes it's main characters, and especially how Nux, Furiosa, and Max's character arcs grow more and more personal as the film goes on, humanizes them and places value of them as people. It's an extremely simplified version, but the basic methodology is that while you can extrapolate larger themes that you relate to in life, the thing that makes it meaningful is that the characters themselves, Max, Furiosa, Nux and the Wives, are all living toxic masculinity vs feminism battle on a personal, humanistic level. Nobody needs to reference any kind of historical or literary third party to talk about the depth of the characters of Fury Road because the authenticity of their experience is all the depth we as the audience need, and we abstract those larger themes from that.
And I bring this all up because I've never seen anyone on the side of BvS actually defend it on it's own merits in terms of meaning. I've never heard anyone talk about how they believe in Batman's rage and fear of something he doesn't think he can handle or empathize with Superman's struggle of trying to live up living up to an ideal or, of course, decide to bond over having their mothers have the same name. And it's not like, in the abstract, that these distant themes can be made meaningful because they have before and BvS wouldn't be the first to work with them. And their very topical too! There IS a lot of Fear of the Other going around and has been since a long, long time ago, and every gaf member has atleast some sense of personal inadequancy (otherwise why would any of us be here amirite?).
But never the less, I haven't actually seen an analysis that just focused on why BvS was good just by how it showed who it's characters were on a specific level. It's like they put on beer goggles so you can kinda, sorta see elements of this and that and so on. But I can't think of a single essay tracks the characters and narrative arcs the way people have done with Fury Road or Force Awakens or even Civil War.
Point is, most film essays or analysis' or whatever, atleast the ones I find good, examine how the narrative grapples with a problem that, when broadened, can be related to every day issues. To use a quick example, Mad Max is significantly about toxic masculinity vs feminism. The culture that Immortan Joe cultivates values war and violence, death for glory and devalues both men and women as people, while the narrative, in paying careful attention to how it characterizes it's main characters, and especially how Nux, Furiosa, and Max's character arcs grow more and more personal as the film goes on, humanizes them and places value of them as people. It's an extremely simplified version, but the basic methodology is that while you can extrapolate larger themes that you relate to in life, the thing that makes it meaningful is that the characters themselves, Max, Furiosa, Nux and the Wives, are all living toxic masculinity vs feminism battle on a personal, humanistic level. Nobody needs to reference any kind of historical or literary third party to talk about the depth of the characters of Fury Road because the authenticity of their experience is all the depth we as the audience need, and we abstract those larger themes from that.
And I bring this all up because I've never seen anyone on the side of BvS actually defend it on it's own merits in terms of meaning. I've never heard anyone talk about how they believe in Batman's rage and fear of something he doesn't think he can handle or empathize with Superman's struggle of trying to live up living up to an ideal or, of course, decide to bond over having their mothers have the same name. And it's not like, in the abstract, that these distant themes can be made meaningful because they have before and BvS wouldn't be the first to work with them. And their very topical too! There IS a lot of Fear of the Other going around and has been since a long, long time ago, and every gaf member has atleast some sense of personal inadequancy (otherwise why would any of us be here amirite?).
But never the less, I haven't actually seen an analysis that just focused on why BvS was good just by how it showed who it's characters were on a specific level. It's like they put on beer goggles so you can kinda, sorta see elements of this and that and so on. But I can't think of a single essay tracks the characters and narrative arcs the way people have done with Fury Road or Force Awakens or even Civil War.
L
Lord Virgin
Unconfirmed Member
It's okay man. If you didn't get it, you just didn't get it. No worries.
Imbarkus
As Sartre noted in his contemplation on Hell in No Exit, the true horror is other members.
I don't have time to read it and only skimmed it, but a great deal of it seems dedicated to examining Superman through the ages and as an icon in the modern world. That's not quite what I meant.
In the case of Fury Road, I don't need to talk about Mad Max as a pop icon through the ages or how he was depicted in his other movies or anything like that. To talk about what makes Fury Road great, I don't need to talk about anything at all except Fury Road itself, isolated from anything else.
I can talk about what makes the Dark Knight great without uttering a word about Batman as a pop icon or his depictions, because there is a richness to the character in the movie by itself. That's what I'm getting at. Where is the praise for BvS or even MoS itself, rather than the things you can connect it to?
Imbarkus
As Sartre noted in his contemplation on Hell in No Exit, the true horror is other members.
It's there, in the article, but it's not the only thing there. Who writes an article about a Batman movie with zero discussion of Batman in other media?
More to the point you ask for an essay, but then you don't have time to do more than skim. Then you want, like, a custom one, to specifications.
I'll pass on the assignment.
Lol
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
BvS is still a far better movie to me than Civil War in every conceivable aspect.
The "Martha" thing is still a painfully obvious contrivance for a character pivot yet its more logical than the ludicrous flip-flopping character trajectories in CW, virtually every one of which stems from a need to further the plot rather than coming from any semblance of internal logic.
The "Martha" thing is still a painfully obvious contrivance for a character pivot yet its more logical than the ludicrous flip-flopping character trajectories in CW, virtually every one of which stems from a need to further the plot rather than coming from any semblance of internal logic.
George Oscar Bluth II
Banned
Plenty of people. There's nothing inherently required about talking about other kinds of Batman when talking about any particular Batman. I mean, it's the basic way in which you see if the movie your talking about stands on it's own. Is MoS good because it's a good exploration of the character of Superman on it's own terms, or is MoS good because of it's relative depiction of Superman in comparison to other depictions of Superman?
Dude, you misunderstood the prompt and turned in the incorrect assignment, so I was trying to give you a do-over, but you're gonna give me lip then you get an F and you can see me after class.
And in any case, it's not so much that I was asking for that kind of essay so much as I was noting the lack of it. That suggests to me that the people who like it like it as a dark aspect of a greater whole, rather than on it's own terms. I wouldn't mind reading such an essay, but it was more of an observation than a request.
Also, in case it hadn't occurred to you, I may have just been busy at the time of the reply and was skimming it to get a general idea, but would have read it in full later. Just a thought.
I don't see much in the way of conversations that complain about Superman's character within the movie as it stands on its own. I believe there are two reasons for this.
Now Batman is a tricky one...
This is the first time Batman has been fresh to a series where he was past the peak of his career. At least in the movies. '89 Batman was just starting out, Nolan Batman was just starting out, Phantasm Batman and West Batman all had history from their respective television series. In Batman v Superman only pieces of this Batman are left for the audience to see rather than a whole picture that gets painted as the story progresses. You don't grow with this Batman. You fall. His character arc sort of moves in reverse.
I guess what I'm getting at here is that I don't think its fair to analyze Batman or Superman in BvS the way Veelk suggests he can do with Nolan's Batman. Neither character was presented in a way that had been done before in each character's cinematic history. Especially because we're still in the middle of it. Whereas you have a complete character arc for Nolan's Batman. So maybe that discussion is best saved for later.
- The majority complaint is that Superman in Man of Steel and/or Batman v Superman does not fit in line with common depictions of the character in other popular mediums. Examples including but not limited to The Reeve era movies and Superman: The Animated Series. Essentially it's not what Snyder tried to do it's what he didn't try to do.
- Batman v Superman never really focuses on Superman as a character. Instead focusing on how the world views and reacts to Superman.
Now Batman is a tricky one...
This is the first time Batman has been fresh to a series where he was past the peak of his career. At least in the movies. '89 Batman was just starting out, Nolan Batman was just starting out, Phantasm Batman and West Batman all had history from their respective television series. In Batman v Superman only pieces of this Batman are left for the audience to see rather than a whole picture that gets painted as the story progresses. You don't grow with this Batman. You fall. His character arc sort of moves in reverse.
I guess what I'm getting at here is that I don't think its fair to analyze Batman or Superman in BvS the way Veelk suggests he can do with Nolan's Batman. Neither character was presented in a way that had been done before in each character's cinematic history. Especially because we're still in the middle of it. Whereas you have a complete character arc for Nolan's Batman. So maybe that discussion is best saved for later.
Imbarkus
As Sartre noted in his contemplation on Hell in No Exit, the true horror is other members.
Honestly most people argue that the depictions of these characters let them down because of their heroic notions of the characters directly installed by other forms of media. So The Icon is spot-on.
Many people have stated that if the characters in BvS were unique to the film, not the beloved icons, the films were good, involving movies. But I don't think Veelk's suggestion to essentially try to take that view in assessing them, with blinders to other interpretations, will bring much insight into audience response to the film.
To do the full job, seems to me you kind of have to do both. But here's some of what Veelk asked for, extracted:
Many people have stated that if the characters in BvS were unique to the film, not the beloved icons, the films were good, involving movies. But I don't think Veelk's suggestion to essentially try to take that view in assessing them, with blinders to other interpretations, will bring much insight into audience response to the film.
To do the full job, seems to me you kind of have to do both. But here's some of what Veelk asked for, extracted:
Man of Steel... substituted a reality with FBI agents grabbing Lois Lane to coerce the surrender of Superman to the U.S. Military to appease Zod's introductory demands. "You Are Not Alone" was not something humanity learned by meeting Superman in this movie. It was something Zod revealed, in a scene also applied towards the movie's marketing campaign. Man of Steel told the story of humanity's First Contact with alien life, and unlike every Superman movie before it, it undertook the mission with serious intent to show the ramifications. Man of Steel took us all the way back to a humanity that had no idea it was not alone in the universe, and introduced the world to Krypton, Zod, and Kal-El the refugee before they ever had a chance to meet Superman.
I found the "Close Encounters" moment an effective and interesting choice.
It is perhaps this intentional choice in the narrative, this thematic shift in the character's introduction to the rest of the world, which is at the heart of where this character's story has traveled in cinema since then. The darker tone of Snyder's efforts—launching this character into a series of movies that share cinematic mind-space with Batman films that played in modern and believable urban settings—necessitated coming to real grips with how we would respond not only to the presence of super-powered aliens from another planet, but the revelation that one had been secretly living among us.
The people of Metropolis, the people of Earth, don't know him or trust him. Neither, yet, does the audience. By the end of the movie, the story is supposed to carry us through this ordeal alongside this new hero, watching him sacrifice and fight for us and choose his home of Earth over a New Krypton, thereby teaching us to trust him.
This scene right here was key, and we could have used more like it.
After the movie came out and people discussed it, there were some complaints about what effects this darker depiction had on the character, by being more grounded in the actual distrust, confusion, and fear that would be the response to Superman's emergence. Some of these complaints had real merit. Certainly the character arc of Johnathan Kent had a huge impact on this, ensuring that his adopted son Clark would keep his powers and identity completely hidden until he was revealed against his will. Suddenly Superman is transformed into a reluctant hero, and it is admittedly to the detriment of the character's heroic stature.
I shared many people's additional problem with Johnathan: his defiance of the laws of tornado wind physics.
Other criticisms, however, seemed without merit and unfair. Some fans complained that they never grew to trust the new incarnation of Superman. The destruction wrought on Metropolis before and during his final battle with General Zod, capped off by the conflict's conclusion wherein Zod forces Superman to kill the General by breaking his neck, was over the line, for them. "This is not my Superman," Adam Anklewicz writes on the "Never Had to Fight" blog, also decrying the prominent Sears, IHOP, and 7-11 product placement in the film. Other critics echoed the sentiment.
Some of this is simply misplaced nostalgia from the old movies, filmed when urban destruction due to a battle of super-beings was simply out of the budget. Some of it is due to false memories of the old films, in particular Superman II, and a Screenrant article by Kofi Outlaw does a fine job of pointing out the Man of Steel Ending Controversy & The Superman II Hypocrisy. Mr. Anklewicz can of course disown Man of Steel all he wants, be he could also do well to note that Superman II's limited urban destruction was almost completely limited to product placement.
Not all Superman cinematic traditions are worthy of nostalgia.
As for my thoughts on the urban destruction, I was a longtime fan of DC animated TV series and animated movie treatments of the character, starting in 1996 with Bruce Timm's adaptation in Superman: the Animated Series, a follow-up to the successful Batman series. Technically I started with the Super-Friends treatment of the character, but Superman: The Animated Series, like the Batman series before it, really demonstrated what could be done with the character. For viewers like me, and readers of the comic in more recent years, Superman's destructive battle with Zod was familiar and welcome. Ironically these less photo-realistic mediums had already taken a more realistic look at the kind of collateral damage that would occur during a battle between super-powered beings. Animated Metropolis had super-beings punched through its buildings nearly every week.
There were animated people in those animated buildings.
You simply can't expect a modern, realistic depiction of a living weapon like Superman to explore not only the fear of its power, but its realistic damage when unleashed. On the other hand, I agree with some of the points made by Superman: Birthright author Mark Waid assessment in his Thrillbent blog entry: Man of Steel, since you asked. I felt, like he did, that the hero role of the character of Superman lost a lot of the audience's trust when Metropolis was attacked by the Krytponian ship while the city's protector was overseas battling the confusing nanotech CGI soup world-builder.
Meanwhile, across the world, Christopher Meloni finds a good death, and a lot of people in Metropolis find a bad one.
Superman saves Metropolis from the world-engine and somehow gets credit for it even as he was across the world battling CGI to do it. My wife would remind me at this point that at the conclusion of Superman Returns, I stated the movie was missing a battle with a giant robot. You'd therefore think I'd have liked this portion of Man of Steel, but too many crucial actions were happening while Superman was away from Metropolis. I'll even go one further than Waid did and state that it was a bad idea for Zod and his fellow Kryptonians to terraform a planet where, after a period of mild discomfort, they become essentially immortal and impervious gods with no lasting effects. Although the plundering of natural resources is a consistent theme in the movie beginning with its treatment of Krypton, applying it to Zod's motivations here just fails to make enough sense. It's dumb.
Also, Snyder should just avoid these dream sequence/psychic expositions,the one in Batman V. Superman was befuddling for the audience as well.
Replacing the Indian Ocean sequence with Superman focused on rescuing people from the destruction from the Kryptonian ship in Metropolis (which could have had nothing to do with terraforming) would have established Superman as protector. It would have earned him the later sequence, which I think Waid and others criticize unfairly, when Superman's final knock-down, drag-out fight with Zod further damages Metropolis.
Witness the Man of Steel timing and pausing his punches to send Zod between and around the buildings of Metropolis.
At the time, Jordan Zakarin of Buzzfeed tracked down a disaster expert to estimate the damage to Metrolpolis (two trillion dollars is estimated, 129,000 dead), in an article that got quite a bit of reach and republishing links for the outlet: The Insane Destruction That The Final ”Man Of Steel" Battle Would Do To NYC, By The Numbers. Sadly this article and its republished versions all fail to make the distinction between the damage done to Metropolis by the world-engine while Superman was away (working as part of a plan to take out the two-pronged attack), and in the final battle with Zod.
The battle where Zod is the one who destroys, by the way.
The Zod battle does less damage to the city, compared to the world-engine sequence. It winds up being the terraforming machine, by being both pointless and exceedingly destructive, that fuels the movie's reputation for Roland Emmerich-style "disaster porn" pointless destruction.
Marvel Studios has unleashed perhaps an equal cumulative share of individually lesser incidents of urban destruction in their films, running up through last year's airport battle in Captain America: Civil War. Fox's X-Men series persisted with somewhat tone-deaf massive destruction in the same year's X-Men: Apocalypse, which, admittedly may have been irrevocably painted into the Emmerich corner by its namesake. Sadly, in Man of Steel, its a plot contrivance that could easily have been avoided.
Let's have the realistic DC Cinematic Universe treatment, and also let the Marvel Cinematic Universe lull us happily into Good Times with empty buildings that collapse conveniently. ¿Por qué no los dos?
I don't think that's accurate at all. The kind of analysis I am suggesting isn't the kind of analysis that can be really...unfit for any kind of movie. I mean, the basic analysis I am suggesting is to look at the movie itself and only itself...and that is basically the starting point of any analysis in general.
The basic things you're talking about seem to just be character establishment, and I actually think BvS does that just fine. Stuff like him seeing the ruined Robin suit is typical backstory stuff that lets us know that shit went down and he's still broken up about it. That stuff is fine. I also agree that the film will benefit from whatever completion JL will bring. Kinda like how whatever incompleteness Rey has in TFA will probably be filled in by the next two star wars movies. But that doesn't change that TFA still does enough work to stand on it's own.
But that's not quite what I'm talking about. I'm talking about saying "This character is compelling because..." or "This character arc is well done because..." and have the explanation be composed only of content found in the movies themselves. If the only way you can answer those questions is by referencing other media and depictions, then by the literal definition of the words your using, it's a movie incapable of standing on it's own.
And I don't think it's unfair to level this criticism at Zack Snyder. Call me old fashioned, but stories should be able to stand on their own.
Edit: To use one of the most famous examples, Watchmen is a response to many superhero tropes as a whole. Understanding how Watchmen subverts and defies so many typical storytelling mechanisms gives a lot of extra meaning to the story and it's place in history. Many would argue that you cannot have a complete understanding of Watchmen without knowing it's place in the comic industry as a whole, and while I don't agree with that, I can see how an argument for that can be made. However, Watchmen was actually the first comic I ever read and I had no idea about how specifically and intentionally subversive it was. I just took it on it's own, as it's own story. And by that metric, it's still one of the greatest things I've ever read. The same way I can go on about Fury Road without talking about anything other than Fury Road, I can talk about what makes Watchmen great without mentioning a single thing of the outside comics industry or it's history or whatever. It's good on it's own terms.
Even in that extracted segment, there are references to the other Superman movies, and Marvel, and X-men.
And your general argument is still relative to the typical depiction of Superman. How it's a darker interpretation of Superman, more grounded, you reference a comic writers opinion of him... again, this is all going outside of the movie itself. There's very little of this write up that actually just talks about purely the movie itself.
Vampfox
Banned
I agree. He reminded me more of Jim Carrey's Riddler then Lex Luthor.
- Status