Page 277 of 1397 FirstFirst ... 1772272672732742752762772782792802812873273777771277 ... LastLast
Results 4,141 to 4,155 of 20948
  1. #4141
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    34,012

    Default

    edited post.

  2. #4142
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    34,012

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krypto's Fleas View Post
    ...and snapping necks. and not at least attempting to stop some of the buildings from falling over. and abandoning humanity after congress blows up. But other than all of that, Snyder totally nailed it.
    Yeah the real Superman would have crushed Zod's hand after he was de-powered or tortured him to death with Kryptonite instead.

    And please, people didn't have a hoot about collateral damage in superhero stories until MoS. The fight in MoS has played out in multiple superhero stories. The first issue of Naomi had one with Superman himself. Where was this wailing and gnashing of teeth in the finale of JLU?

  3. #4143
    Extraordinary Member Jokerz79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Somewhere in Time & Space
    Posts
    7,613

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    Yeah the real Superman would have crushed Zod's hand after he was de-powered or tortured him to death with Kryptonite instead.

    And please, people didn't have a hoot about collateral damage in superhero stories until MoS. The fight in MoS has played out in multiple superhero stories. The first issue of Naomi had one with Superman himself. Where was this wailing and gnashing of teeth in the finale of JLU?
    The Zod scene fails not because he killed Zod because he felt bad afterwards when the film never set up he was against killing. Wanting to help and save lives and having an unwillingness to kill are separate things and while the former was set up the latter was not.

    Yes other films showed collateral damage but films like Superman (1978), Superman 2, Batman (1989), Batman Begins, Dark Knight, Dark Knight Rises, Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Raimi Spider-Man films, The X-Men films, Incredible Hulk, Thor, First Avenger, Avengers also all showed the heroes trying to actively minimize said collateral damage and save lives during the battles/final fights.

  4. #4144
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jokerz79 View Post
    The Zod scene fails not because he killed Zod because he felt bad afterwards when the film never set up he was against killing. Wanting to help and save lives and having an unwillingness to kill are separate things and while the former was set up the latter was not.
    While I agree with this, most people simply never articulated it this way, their issue seemed to be just the act itself.

    Yes other films showed collateral damage but films like Superman (1978), Superman 2, Batman (1989), Batman Begins, Dark Knight, Dark Knight Rises, Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Raimi Spider-Man films, The X-Men films, Incredible Hulk, Thor, First Avenger, Avengers also all showed the heroes trying to actively minimize said collateral damage and save lives during the battles/final fights.
    Now with that I can't agree. Those movies simply shied away from showing a well known comic book trope in its full destructiveness out of convenience. And I think Snyder did a great job combining spectacle with shock. It's actually quite remarkable if you ask me.

  5. #4145
    Extraordinary Member Jokerz79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Somewhere in Time & Space
    Posts
    7,613

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by adamTPTK View Post
    While I agree with this, most people simply never articulated it this way, their issue seemed to be just the act itself.


    Now with that I can't agree. Those movies simply shied away from showing a well known comic book trope in its full destructiveness out of convenience. And I think Snyder did a great job combining spectacle with shock. It's actually quite remarkable if you ask me.
    The problem with the final battle in MoS is a two part problem on it's own I would agree with you the problem is not that earlier in the film he takes a fight between himself and Kryptonians from the outskirts of Smallville to the heart of Smallville because he's angry. Add that with Superman never actively making attempts to save lives during the Battle of Metropolis and you get the narrative this is a Superman who will save the day and stop the bad guys but doesn't care about the human collateral damage in his wake.

    Also my first complaint about Zod's death would had been erased by one simple line MoS took some ideas from Birthright and Birthright was the only Superman appearance where I remember him mentioning being vegetarian a line if added to MoS would had negated my complaint as it would show Clark dislikes killing even for food purposes.
    Last edited by Jokerz79; 06-26-2019 at 05:02 AM.

  6. #4146
    Retired
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18,747

    Default

    How many movies after 9/11 have shown buildings coming down, like they came down on that day? I'm sure my trauma doesn't compare to the trauma of people who were in New York that day and who lost love ones. But everyone who was watching the TV and remembers the horror of that day is still dealing with some PTSD. It's triggering to me to see anything like that in a movie. I always turn away from the TV when they try to show the actual footage--and I hate it when they spring it on me without warning.

    I felt like the scenes in MAN OF STEEL were done in an insensitive way, not really caring about the people watching the movie and how these kind of scenes would affect them. The battle was done like a video game and it seemed like the director was so giddy with the abitlity to make visuals with computers that he forgot about what those images mean. And it just went on and on and on. If you're triggered by violence, one way you deal with it is to go numb. So I was just trying to distance myself from this ongoing destruction, but the movie wouldn't stop. And other than the Planet staff, it didn't care to show the human drama that must be happening in the city--as if none of that matters and it's just about property damage.

    I think that Zack Snyder recognized he had gone too far and he tried to make up for it with BATMAN V SUPERMAN--where he does show the human drama and he presents the battle in a much more empathetic way. There, we get real characters who are impacted by the destruction and we experience their pain and loss. But that's another movie and MAN OF STEEL should be able to stand on its own. Snyder really lost sight of how these moments in a movie can affect an audience and push our buttons in ways that need to be addressed, or else we stop caring about the story.

  7. #4147
    Extraordinary Member Lightning Rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Kelly View Post
    How many movies after 9/11 have shown buildings coming down, like they came down on that day? I'm sure my trauma doesn't compare to the trauma of people who were in New York that day and who lost love ones. But everyone who was watching the TV and remembers the horror of that day is still dealing with some PTSD. It's triggering to me to see anything like that in a movie. I always turn away from the TV when they try to show the actual footage--and I hate it when they spring it on me without warning.

    I felt like the scenes in MAN OF STEEL were done in an insensitive way, not really caring about the people watching the movie and how these kind of scenes would affect them. The battle was done like a video game and it seemed like the director was so giddy with the abitlity to make visuals with computers that he forgot about what those images mean. And it just went on and on and on. If you're triggered by violence, one way you deal with it is to go numb. So I was just trying to distance myself from this ongoing destruction, but the movie wouldn't stop. And other than the Planet staff, it didn't care to show the human drama that must be happening in the city--as if none of that matters and it's just about property damage.

    I think that Zack Snyder recognized he had gone too far and he tried to make up for it with BATMAN V SUPERMAN--where he does show the human drama and he presents the battle in a much more empathetic way. There, we get real characters who are impacted by the destruction and we experience their pain and loss. But that's another movie and MAN OF STEEL should be able to stand on its own. Snyder really lost sight of how these moments in a movie can affect an audience and push our buttons in ways that need to be addressed, or else we stop caring about the story.
    Wouldn't showing the human drama during the destruction just make someone's trigger worse? Jenny Olsen being trapped was so visceral and upsetting, but it's what made it work for me (even if I found some of the destruction excessive); it showed the impact. Contrast that with Avengers in which NYC homes and offices are just a playground.

  8. #4148
    Retired
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18,747

    Default

    I didn't feel that way about the Jenny Olsen scene. I felt like oh this character matters because they've given her some attention in the movie (but not much) and we're supposed to care about what happens to her, but not worry about the millions of other people facing similar situations at that moment. But frankly, I don't think there's any way to show this kind of thing in a movie now, where you're not trivializing the real life threat and essentially numbing people to the effects of such terror. People just retreat more into themselves and look at the whole world like it's a video game.

  9. #4149
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jokerz79 View Post
    The problem with the final battle in MoS is a two part problem on it's own I would agree with you the problem is not that earlier in the film he takes a fight between himself and Kryptonians from the outskirts of Smallville to the heart of Smallville because he's angry. Add that with Superman never actively making attempts to save lives during the Battle of Metropolis and you get the narrative this is a Superman who will save the day and stop the bad guys but doesn't care about the human collateral damage in his wake.

    Also my first complaint about Zod's death would had been erased by one simple line MoS took some ideas from Birthright and Birthright was the only Superman appearance where I remember him mentioning being vegetarian a line if added to MoS would had negated my complaint as it would show Clark dislikes killing even for food purposes.
    In this very Smallvile scene he actually makes his first, in duty (as Superman) save. And his urge to help people was already well-established at this point. You see, it's a matter of interpretation. Would it be better to save one person that, for example, falls out of the building when at the same time Zod could've destroyed another whole building altogether? What would be more moral? I think the objective in that moment was to stop him first and foremost. And the chaos, Snyder shows there are no easy ways out, and the hero, who's almost godlike, still has his limitations. And I think it's quite a statement.
    Eh, while I wouldn't be opposed to it, because out of all current trends, vegetarianism is probably one I respect the most, I can see why making another statement like this would be quite risky. And there were already way too many risks taken.

    Ok, about 9/11 imagery. So to me it boils down to audience being uncomfortable with their heroes taken into real life, disastrous scenarios (no need to mention Logan and TDK trilogy, those are the exceptions). This is the age when superheroes aren't allowed to not be triumphant, to have been placed in no win, impossible odds scenarios. Because if you want to adapt that very familiar comic book trope properly, and that will have this major destruction around, maybe it's time to take a pause. Maybe it's time to realize this isn't a proper time to crack a joke. I personally find it to be a remarkable outlook. This is what serious art, in this case scifi, does. It grounds this otherworldly experience into the frames of the very familiar, and sometimes, yes, unpleasant. And it is supposed to be so, to properly analyze and deal with that trope, it should've been as raw... as real as it gets. That's my opinion.
    And yes, BvS was in many areas an answer to the backlash. And once again I think Snyder was able to deal with it in a very reflective and realistic form. Which is once again, may not be comfortable. Which is his biggest sin I guess. He is a non conformist, but he's artist. No matter how many triggered people want to claim the opposite.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lightning Rider View Post
    Wouldn't showing the human drama during the destruction just make someone's trigger worse? Jenny Olsen being trapped was so visceral and upsetting, but it's what made it work for me (even if I found some of the destruction excessive); it showed the impact. Contrast that with Avengers in which NYC homes and offices are just a playground.
    It just made me realize, so Jenny Olsen was a genderbent Jimmy Olsen?

  10. #4150
    Retired
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18,747

    Default

    If Jenny was a gender bent Jimmy then who was that guy in BATMAN V SUPERMAN? But good ol' Jimmy Olsen is actually a better fit for a gender bent character (as he's been bent on many occasions in the comics) than he is for a dead character.

  11. #4151
    Post Editing OCD Confuzzled's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Swingin' Above Ya
    Posts
    11,935

    Default

    Patty Jenkins seems to have hit it out of the park once again with WW84:


  12. #4152
    Incredible Member Castling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    745

    Default


  13. #4153
    Extraordinary Member Jokerz79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Somewhere in Time & Space
    Posts
    7,613

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by adamTPTK View Post
    In this very Smallvile scene he actually makes his first, in duty (as Superman) save. And his urge to help people was already well-established at this point. You see, it's a matter of interpretation. Would it be better to save one person that, for example, falls out of the building when at the same time Zod could've destroyed another whole building altogether? What would be more moral? I think the objective in that moment was to stop him first and foremost. And the chaos, Snyder shows there are no easy ways out, and the hero, who's almost godlike, still has his limitations. And I think it's quite a statement.
    Eh, while I wouldn't be opposed to it, because out of all current trends, vegetarianism is probably one I respect the most, I can see why making another statement like this would be quite risky. And there were already way too many risks taken.

    Ok, about 9/11 imagery. So to me it boils down to audience being uncomfortable with their heroes taken into real life, disastrous scenarios (no need to mention Logan and TDK trilogy, those are the exceptions). This is the age when superheroes aren't allowed to not be triumphant, to have been placed in no win, impossible odds scenarios. Because if you want to adapt that very familiar comic book trope properly, and that will have this major destruction around, maybe it's time to take a pause. Maybe it's time to realize this isn't a proper time to crack a joke. I personally find it to be a remarkable outlook. This is what serious art, in this case scifi, does. It grounds this otherworldly experience into the frames of the very familiar, and sometimes, yes, unpleasant. And it is supposed to be so, to properly analyze and deal with that trope, it should've been as raw... as real as it gets. That's my opinion.
    And yes, BvS was in many areas an answer to the backlash. And once again I think Snyder was able to deal with it in a very reflective and realistic form. Which is once again, may not be comfortable. Which is his biggest sin I guess. He is a non conformist, but he's artist. No matter how many triggered people want to claim the opposite.



    It just made me realize, so Jenny Olsen was a genderbent Jimmy Olsen?
    I've seen this done quite a few times this trying to make Zack Snyder films deep I've seen all of his movies and From Dawn of the Dead onward he never failed to dumb down the message of a story he was adapting because he likes "cool" action scenes he did it with Dawn, he did it with Watchmen, and he did it with Man of Steel Superman took the fight to Smallville because you can't have explosions in an empty corn field and once he had his metaphorical shining keys dangling in front of the audience he didn't sweat the details until a portion of the audience left Man of Steel horrified Superman helped cause the equivalent of 9/11 but a 1,000 times worse and on steroids.

    No Jimmy was the reporter/CIA Agent who got shot in the head in BvS because isn't Zack edgy?

  14. #4154
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    115,047

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Castling View Post
    Reminds me of her dress in the Suicide Squad flashback.

    (Is a jester costume too far off base by comparison? I'm not sure).

  15. #4155
    Astonishing Member phantom1592's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    3,748

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Kelly View Post
    How many movies after 9/11 have shown buildings coming down, like they came down on that day? I'm sure my trauma doesn't compare to the trauma of people who were in New York that day and who lost love ones. But everyone who was watching the TV and remembers the horror of that day is still dealing with some PTSD. It's triggering to me to see anything like that in a movie. I always turn away from the TV when they try to show the actual footage--and I hate it when they spring it on me without warning.

    I felt like the scenes in MAN OF STEEL were done in an insensitive way, not really caring about the people watching the movie and how these kind of scenes would affect them. The battle was done like a video game and it seemed like the director was so giddy with the abitlity to make visuals with computers that he forgot about what those images mean. And it just went on and on and on. If you're triggered by violence, one way you deal with it is to go numb. So I was just trying to distance myself from this ongoing destruction, but the movie wouldn't stop. And other than the Planet staff, it didn't care to show the human drama that must be happening in the city--as if none of that matters and it's just about property damage.

    I think that Zack Snyder recognized he had gone too far and he tried to make up for it with BATMAN V SUPERMAN--where he does show the human drama and he presents the battle in a much more empathetic way. There, we get real characters who are impacted by the destruction and we experience their pain and loss. But that's another movie and MAN OF STEEL should be able to stand on its own. Snyder really lost sight of how these moments in a movie can affect an audience and push our buttons in ways that need to be addressed, or else we stop caring about the story.
    Unfortunately in this day and age... everything triggers somebody. I believe there was no way to film a movie like this... or probably any movie at all in a way that's 'safe' for everyone. Honestly, I'm not sure they really WANT to. If they destroy a random building and it instantly takes you back to 9/11 and gets a visceral emotional reaction from you... that's considered successful movie-making. Similar to the way that Saving Private Ryan affected the WWII vets who saw it... it's a realism that has become a credit to Spielberg.

    Considering that it was NOT New York and it was the WTC towers... the destruction was made up buildings in a made up city... I'd hate to have shackle a filmmaker with a 'never blow up a building' mantra. It's been 20 years and a good portion of the audience weren't alive then.


    Honestly, I really Hated MoS. It had a couple fun scenes and a few good lines... but 95% of the story and direction I hated. In my mind I'd say keep Cavill… but that whole franchise needs a complete redo with a new scriptwriter... However the Metropolis destruction I had ZERO problem with. It was a legitimate destruction for the type of fight this was. I still remember post-Doomsday pictures in either Funeral for Friend or World without a Superman that showed some aerial views of Metropolis after the Doomsday fight. HUGE paths of Destruction that marked the road the two of them took... and Lex was making the money with repairs.

    Kryptonian vs. Kryptonian… no holds barred fight? Yeah... That city WILL get messed up. Probably not as bad as Godzilla.... but YEAH... Someone is getting punched through a building only to have another one dropped on them.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •