Man of Steel - Superman movie has a director

[007-vf1]

It has been ages since I saw the original movies. all versions of Lex have been crap. Only good parts I remember of Supes II are the (great) fights. I feel I don’t need to see another Superman film. With the Marvel movies, I’ve always felt I wanted more after seeing the film. This one leaves me “ok, that it how it looks when two super beings fight, no need to see more of that because here it was getting tiring already”.

I have to say that I really liked Zod.

He is just another crazy eugenic like the Kripton rulers (look how disgusted he is to hear of a natural childbirth) but he also tries to save part of his culture instead of just letting it die. Really good moments with him. You can tell he was really pissed at the start of the last battle.

The killing Zod thing was a bit forced. Never do they establish that this version of Supes is “killing is super bad” so him screaming comes a bit out of nowhere (and he is surrounded by thousands of dead already, some he probably caused). Heck Nolan’s gritty Batman clearly states that he is out to scare and not kill; deaths that happen in the trilogy are either an accident (Talia and Dent) or not direct (choosing not to save Ra's Al Guhl). Superman freaking breaks a guys neck… and it didn’t feel like it was a last resort because he is just in top condition without a single bruise to his face or tear on his suit. Nolan goes out of his way to have his Bats basically morally clean but when he co-writes Supes, the ultimate example of a hero, he has him do a straight kill with his own hands? Gee, I wonder who is his favourite hero...

And speaking of death… Clark’s search for his heritage and turning on the old spaceship is what got Zod to Earth in the first place. In hero terms he needs to make up a lot for all the deaths he has caused. The answer to the question of “Does the world need a Superman?” in his universe right now is “frakk NO!!”. His saved counter before Zod arrives to kill thousands is just a school bus of kids and seven or so oilrig workers.

Jor-el’s unclear path to have the future of his race locked in his kid just ended up getting another species almost killed and Kriptonians really becoming extinct save for one individual. Even if Zod was another shade of the old stagnant eugenic Kripton, at least he had a chance to get things back up again. Jor-el just goes all high and mighty and condemns, by himself, his whole culture to death because it doesn’t go like he wants it to. He really is a lot like Zod in a way.

Not to say that Zod actions could be justifiet. Instead of obsessing over the genetic maguffin he could have started repopulating doing the nasty with Faora in those thirty years. There where a lot of males and females in that ship.

I would not necessarily defend superman but the circumstances..

In my opinion the reason why Sups has to make a sudden decision on whether taking Zods life or not came out of necessity. This is because his character was still conflicted between saving a race of mostly "sored "loosers" and destroying the last living remain that was linked to his past and then having the unwanted opportunity of gambling it to his unknown future on earth; hence the painful yell he does just after realizing all the connections to his heritages are gone it makes all the sense to me and also it serves to humanize this "God-like" alien eve further. All of his adoptive father's sermons and preaching finally makes sense to him and converge with what he learns from his biological father, so "Well, I must have a purpose because I am still lost..." If killing is bad and we saw a lot of killings between the sups then it would take away from that last scene later on. It was meant to be an scene that takes the viewer by surprise from preconceived expectations.. Imagine superman actually killing someone, unthinkable..!! Zod is unstoppable, with a license to kill and there's no time to come to a civilized consensus; what is it there to do..? "Oh darn.. I just killed the last Kriptonian, I had to, sniff !!"

Edited July 1, 2013 by 007-vf1

[electric indigo]

With the new Play Arts Kai, you can admire Faora's butt all day:

http://www.1999.co.jp/eng/image/10233764a3/20/3

[azrael]

With the new Play Arts Kai, you can admire Faora's butt all day:

http://www.1999.co.jp/eng/image/10233764a3/20/3

[Agent ONE]

[areaseven]

[reddsun1]

Hah! You beat me to it....

"It's a trap!"

[Agent ONE]

http://www.osteoporosisinstitute.org/superman-and-bone-density/

[Gakken85]

HT hits the nails on the heads. Gotta agree, (well I already did.) haha

"So if you loved the Christopher Reeves era Superman movies, but wish they'd made them less hopeful, killed countless civilians, visualized our worst fears of urban terrorism, and had Superman overcome his first villain by murdering him with his bare hands, DC has made the reboot for you, psycho!"

Edited November 17, 2013 by Gakken85

[EXO]

Even if you took out all the glaring un-Supermanlike things in this movie and look at the story at it's core, this movie still has no logic what-so-ever. For example, when Clark finds out that Zod and his thugs are at his mom's house he flies there at super sonic speed picks up Zod and proceeds to bash him across Smallville. That's like if you hear that your own mom's house is surrounded by a street gang, and you take their leader and lock them inside your neighbors house and proceed to beat him with every furniture in the house. What about the street gang that's still at your mom's house? Fortunately, that street gang can no longer see their leader so they just decide to climb back into their cars and leave the mom alone. I can honestly say that there's not a lot of this type of illogical things happening, but it's not a really a good thing when all the exposition stuff last like 15 to 20 minutes, but everytime story does intervene in the movie, it's all just nonsensical and you're just sitting there hoping something blows up soon.

[DuelGundam2099]

Would people stop complaining about "Superman killed the main villain!? BUT WHY!?" or at the very least explain what ELSE he was supposed to do?

[Dobber]

This makes me laugh too. People rage over Sups killing Zod...when in this instance he was left with little choice if any, and hold the old The Reeves era movies to high levels, when he flat out MURDERS a defeated and powerless Zod at the end of superman 2.

Chris

[azrael]

This makes me laugh too. People rage over Sups killing Zod...when in this instance he was left with little choice if any, and hold the old The Reeves era movies to high levels, when he flat out MURDERS a defeated and powerless Zod at the end of superman 2.

Yeah, I'm still looking at people who complain about Supes killing Zod in Synder's version when in Donner's version, Supes crushed Zod's hand and sent him to his pavement glue-death.

[sevreed]

I think Batman is going to call him out in the sequel. Batman will probably make him into a better hero by making Clark hold him self to higher standard than in the first movie. After smacking some sense into him of course.

[Gakken85]

Would people stop complaining about "Superman killed the main villain!? BUT WHY!?" or at the very least explain what ELSE he was supposed to do?

Really?

Put his palm over his eyes. He's frakking Superman and he's invulnerable.

Put him in a headlock and fly up out of the building. He's frakking Superman and he's super strong... plus he had the guys back, thus leverage and control.

Punch him in the side of the face.

Break the floor open and fall into it while using Zod's face as landing material. That would be fun.

Tell the people to get the frakk out of the way while he punches him in the side of the head.

Spin around and take the blast on his chest. He's frakking Superman and he's invulnerable.

Pull his ears and make him go "ouch."

I think the point here is that in Donner's film Zod was a war criminal. He came to Earth, took over the world and tried to enslave everybody. Superman had been Superman for a long time already and saved countless innocents. He even made a point to leave the fight to save people and fight him at the north pole. Zod was clearly the bad guy.

It's not so much that Superman doesn't kill, he has, but he rarely does. It's that this was Superman's first act when fighting a guy who wasn't completely evil.. and he'd already let thousands of people be murdered? Why not just kill him right out? It was just a bridge too far for somebody who always TRIES to do the right thing.

Edited November 18, 2013 by Gakken85

[DuelGundam2099]

Put his palm over his eyes. He's frakking Superman and he's invulnerable.
Break the floor open and fall into it while using Zod's face as landing material. That would be fun.

Tell the people to get the frakk out of the way while he punches him in the side of the head.

Spin around and take the blast on his chest. He's frakking Superman and he's invulnerable.

Pull his ears and make him go "ouch."

For how long? Decades?

Put him in a headlock and fly up out of the building. He's frakking Superman and he's super strong... plus he had the guys back, thus leverage and control.

Zod is every bit as strong as Sups AND he has been heavily trained in combat.

I think the point here is that in Donner's film Zod was a war criminal. He came to Earth, took over the world and tried to enslave everybody. Superman had been Superman for a long time already and saved countless innocents. He even made a point to leave the fight to save people and fight him at the north pole. Zod was clearly the bad guy.

And then Zod was de-powered, making him as frail as a normal human. Not to mention this version of Zod is not that different.

It's that this was Superman's first act when fighting a guy who wasn't completely evil.. and he'd already let thousands of people be murdered?

LETTING people get murdered? It isn't like Superman went "Oh the Kryptonians are killing everyone, totally fine."

It was just a bridge too far for somebody who always TRIES to do the right thing.

He did not have any other choice, Zod was never going to stop and if nothing on Earth could restrain him they sure as hell aren't going to restrain Zod. In addition kryptonite has not been introduced (yet) in this universe, meaning as long as the sun is shining both of them will not run out of energy.

[Twoducks]

Supes killing off Zod is stupid because if was badly forced in there just to have him kill. That is why giving a crap about the script should be important. But when you jam “moments” into it instead of having it flow you frakk it up.

The real end for this movie is the one “How it should have ended” did. The founding principles of the story are so badly done that that is where their logical consequences would take this movie to.

So in the end we have a demigod, with access to freaking incredible alien technology and the guidance of the conscious of one of the greatest scientists of his species aaaaaaand he gets backed into a corner where you have to kill in order to save a 3Dmovement challenge family after not giving a crap of fighting in the middle of a inhabited city crashing into building full of people.

So really lazy and stupid writing right there. Even the Avengers, which did not need gritty brooding and had a comedy tone in many places, had their heroes rescuing citizens and a nod to the mourning the deaths an alien invasion would cause in the news montage at the end.

[myk]

I don't understand the criticism of Superman killing Zod. How else was that plot point supposed to resolve itself? Superman and Zod had fundamental, polar opposite views and plans for Earth; one of them had to die and could realistically be only killed by the other Kryptonian. I also contend that the unpopular decision to battle in the city makes no sense; where were Superman and Zod supposed to fight, if not in a city? Should they have signed up to be featured as an attraction in a UFC/MMA event to settle their fatal differences? Should they have fought in empty space? That doesn't sound particularly exciting or engaging, IMO.

Also, comparing Avengers and Superman is akin to comparing Valkyries and Gundams, apples and oranges, as they are written as two completely different styles of storytelling; one is a tongue-in-cheek adventure/romp featuring a motley crew, the other is intended to be a soulful (albeit brooding and whiny) introduction of a highly conflicted, isolated and misunderstood superbeing. BOTH movies are solid examples of what they were supposed to be, IMO...

Edited November 18, 2013 by myk

[badboy00z]

If he hadn't killed Zod the battle would have continued and more people would have been killed or injured. Also I highly doubt that Zod would agree to fight somewhere where there aren't people around.

[myk]

And let's not forget that Zod was determined to extract the Codex from Kal-El's body; I honestly don't think that Kal would've allowed that to happen unless he was dead...

[Twoducks]

I don't understand the criticism of Superman killing Zod. How else was that plot point supposed to resolve itself? Superman and Zod had fundamental, polar opposite views and plans for Earth; one of them had to die and could realistically be only killed by the other Kryptonian. I also contend that the unpopular decision to battle in the city makes no sense; where were Superman and Zod supposed to fight, if not in a city? Should they have signed up to be featured as an attraction in a UFC/MMA event to settle their fatal differences? Should they have fought in empty space? That doesn't sound particularly exciting or engaging, IMO.

The criticism is that is was so badly done that most can't swallow it. Snyder wanted that "moment". Fine, but have the damn plot go there, not have if pop up suddenly.

How do you fix the fight? Freaking easy really:

1. You start the fight in the city, have some destruction for a little while but have Supes acknowledging they are putting people in danger.

2. Show him TRY to same at least someone.

3. The city fight got boring after a while because we had already had had a great long fight in Smallville. So what better to change things than by having Supes trying to get Zod into another battlefield where there are no humans!?

4. Have Zod acknowledging Supes plan to get people safe and have him do the opposite. They both have “polar opposite views and plans for Earth”, right? Best way to show that is having the evil bastard wanting to destroy Supes beloved humans in front of his face like he just did with his New Krypton dream.

5. Zod has little experience with the super powers but is a military badass. He gets the upper hand and gets the fight back into the city putting more in danger.

6. A battered Supes did all in his power to save lives and comes to the conclusion that he can’t. But now Zod going out of his way to kill little humans is an strategic error caused by him going mental at the loss of all his comrades. He turns his back to eye zap a family and Supes sees the opportunity and grabs gets him in a choke hold from behind.

7. Supes tries to get Zod away again but he taunts him that he will get free again soon and he will return to kill that family. Supes knows this; he isn’t repeating the change of location plan. He’s had enough. He kills the bastard breaking his neck. Supes does his little yell.

Boom!, less lives lost, less repetitive meaningless action scenes, showed Super caring to save people and you see him finally going for the kill as the only option in a more organic way.

In short: in movie language you show instead of tell; the fist fest could have been used to show the characters differences and define their believes by their actions and not just as a dumb fist fest with a broken neck at the end.

That is how you have the “Superman kills” moment matter.

We are in a gritty movie right? Have the backlash of almost loosing the planed because some idiot alien landed here by chance. Half the world is pissed and scared but Metropolis citizens know things could have been worse and the Daily Planer has gathered all photographic evidence of the Superbeing saving lives while battling the enemy. Superman stays in Metropolis his new home and only safe place and vows to work to make it up for all the destructions his existence caused. Some guy named Luthor does not like that.

The End

Also, comparing Avengers and Superman is akin to comparing Valkyries and Gundams, apples and oranges, as they are written as two completely different styles of storytelling; one is a tongue-in-cheek adventure/romp featuring a motley crew, the other is intended to be a soulful (albeit brooding and whiny) introduction of a highly conflicted, isolated and misunderstood superbeing. BOTH movies are solid examples of what they were supposed to be, IMO...

That is the point. The " tongue-in-cheek" movie has its characters saving people in the middle of an alien invasion and addressed the deaths of civilians while the one about the "conflicted" superbeing showed jackshit of either of that.

There were no consequences. Half a city death and the next thing is Supes making wisecracks at the military and going to his spiffy new job.

So more than half of the movie has him whining over nothing and the real things that would actually be reasons to be mopy (his existence is the reason thousands died because Zod only found Earth because of him and for all his power he could only fix things killing like any puny human killer) and they completely ignored it.

[DuelGundam2099]

Supes making wisecracks at the military

Yes because heaven forbid Superman does not want the government spying on him. *gasp!* At least he was kind enough to give it back to them.

they completely ignored it.

They kind of addressed that in the middle. Did you see the movie it its entirety, 2D?

Edited November 18, 2013 by DuelGundam2099

[EXO]

Yes because heaven forbid Superman does not want the government spying on him. *gasp!* At least he was kind enough to give it back to them.

They kind of addressed that in the middle. Did you see the movie it its entirety, 2D?

Bam... how do you like those comebacks? Totally discredits ALL YOUR OTHER POINTS and made me decide that this movie is great! Love it!

[Kanedas Bike]

Despite some very valid criticism, and some not-so-much IMHO this is still the best Superman movie ever made. I never was a fan of the early films, even as a child I could never shake that "Superman is corny" vibe they gave me. I won't comment on Superman Returns.

Do I think they pushed the story a little too far in a "dark" direction? Sure. I think they could try to rectify some of the absurdity of 1/2 of Metropolis getting destroyed and all of the casualties that went along with it by showing Superman in the next film as trying to atone for all of the destruction he caused and/or did not prevent (in the "typical" Superman fashion). But they'd have to do a good job of not making him emo, just that he acknowledges the full extent of what took place and him doing something to try and earn humanities trust and admiration, something they didn't really do at all in Man of Steel.

That said I can't wait to see the conversations that take place once pictures, footage, trailers and the actual next Superman movie comes out.

-b.

[myk]

The criticism is that is was so badly done that most can't swallow it. Snyder wanted that "moment". Fine, but have the damn plot go there, not have if pop up suddenly.

How do you fix the fight? Freaking easy really:

1. You start the fight in the city, have some destruction for a little while but have Supes acknowledging they are putting people in danger.

2. Show him TRY to same at least someone.

3. The city fight got boring after a while because we had already had had a great long fight in Smallville. So what better to change things than by having Supes trying to get Zod into another battlefield where there are no humans!?

4. Have Zod acknowledging Supes plan to get people safe and have him do the opposite. They both have “polar opposite views and plans for Earth”, right? Best way to show that is having the evil bastard wanting to destroy Supes beloved humans in front of his face like he just did with his New Krypton dream.

5. Zod has little experience with the super powers but is a military badass. He gets the upper hand and gets the fight back into the city putting more in danger.

6. A battered Supes did all in his power to save lives and comes to the conclusion that he can’t. But now Zod going out of his way to kill little humans is an strategic error caused by him going mental at the loss of all his comrades. He turns his back to eye zap a family and Supes sees the opportunity and grabs gets him in a choke hold from behind.

7. Supes tries to get Zod away again but he taunts him that he will get free again soon and he will return to kill that family. Supes knows this; he isn’t repeating the change of location plan. He’s had enough. He kills the bastard breaking his neck. Supes does his little yell.

Boom!, less lives lost, less repetitive meaningless action scenes, showed Super caring to save people and you see him finally going for the kill as the only option in a more organic way.

In short: in movie language you show instead of tell; the fist fest could have been used to show the characters differences and define their believes by their actions and not just as a dumb fist fest with a broken neck at the end.

That is how you have the “Superman kills” moment matter.

We are in a gritty movie right? Have the backlash of almost loosing the planed because some idiot alien landed here by chance. Half the world is pissed and scared but Metropolis citizens know things could have been worse and the Daily Planer has gathered all photographic evidence of the Superbeing saving lives while battling the enemy. Superman stays in Metropolis his new home and only safe place and vows to work to make it up for all the destructions his existence caused. Some guy named Luthor does not like that.

The End

That is the point. The " tongue-in-cheek" movie has its characters saving people in the middle of an alien invasion and addressed the deaths of civilians while the one about the "conflicted" superbeing showed jackshit of either of that.

There were no consequences. Half a city death and the next thing is Supes making wisecracks at the military and going to his spiffy new job.

So more than half of the movie has him whining over nothing and the real things that would actually be reasons to be mopy (his existence is the reason thousands died because Zod only found Earth because of him and for all his power he could only fix things killing like any puny human killer) and they completely ignored it.

Maybe I missed it, but how did the Avengers "address" the deaths of civilians in New York or anywhere else in the movie? You mean the part where Bruce Banner comically rides up on a motor cycle and says, "....so, this all looks.......HORRIBLE?" with a slight smile on his face? The Avengers rode off into the sunset, all smiles and sexy outfits, cool cars and digesting shwarma at the end of the movie. Someone even asked where the Avengers were after the battle in New York, but there was no soul-searching, consequences or coming to terms with the destruction that they were a part of making.

Furthermore, I'm sorry if you see Kal's "moping" to be all about nothing in the movie; his internal conflict was very clear, and it is something that I'm sure most of us have had to wrestle with for much of our lives. If you don't care to acknowledge it and just write it off as moping about nothing then that's your choice.

I appreciate what you outlined above as a preferred way to carry out the movie, but Superman and the Avengers aren't the only franchises to completely ignore the casualties they've caused, leaving that question unanswered. Personally, I can't readily think of one single movie or story that takes significant time to process the damage and casualties that have been caused, whether it was between Isamu and Guld's city battle back in the 90's or Man of Steel today. Quite frankly, the idea of civilian casualties is a non-issue IMO; they're not really essential to most stories, and certainly not the ones we're discussing now.

Man of Steel really bothers you, doesn't it?

Edited November 18, 2013 by myk

[Knight26]

@myk, how about the fact that in the Avengers Capt America makes a point of telling the cops to evacuate the civilians, and keep the aliens and therefore the fighting in a limited area to prevent casualties and property damage. He even the makes a "housecall" to save the civilains taking shelter in the bank and see them to safety. Man of Steel did none of that. Never once did Supes break away from the fight to save some civvies or fly to the military and tell them to evac the people so he could engage Zod 1v1 in a limited area.

[myk]

@myk, how about the fact that in the Avengers Capt America makes a point of telling the cops to evacuate the civilians, and keep the aliens and therefore the fighting in a limited area to prevent casualties and property damage. He even the makes a "housecall" to save the civilains taking shelter in the bank and see them to safety. Man of Steel did none of that. Never once did Supes break away from the fight to save some civvies or fly to the military and tell them to evac the people so he could engage Zod 1v1 in a limited area.

That's ONE instance brother, and it was set up just to show how noble Steve Rogers is, because quite frankly he's worthless otherwise. I can think of two instances off of the top of my head in MOS where Superman actively saved humans that may have been affected by his "super" battle. Ultimately, a scorecard tallying human "saves" is irrelevant; I see NO difference between the Avenger's battle and Kal's. BOTH fought to stop a threat that would have killed that much more if it had gone unabated, and both the Avengers and Kal flew off into the sunset without nary a thought to the carnage that they both caused. Were there casualties? Yes. Could they have been avoided? No! How do you stop a battle between super-beings from taking bystander-casualties? When you consider that Kal and Zod are capable of flying at the speed of sound does anyone actually believe that it's possible to "take the fight away" from innocent bystanders?

Question: would all of you have been satisfied if Kal sat down on the highest mountain in the world at the end of the movie and cried about all of the stuff he broke and the people that might have gotten hurt during his battle?

Edited November 18, 2013 by myk

[Twoducks]

Maybe I saw the wrong movie, but how did the Avengers "address" the deaths of civilians in New York or anywhere else in the movie? You mean the part where Bruce Banner comically rides up on a mini-scooter and says, "...........this looks.......HORRIBLE?" with a smile on his face? The Avengers rode off into the sunset, all smiles and sexy outfits, cool cars and digesting shwarma at the end of the movie.

Here you go:

News report voice about the incident while we see images of people lighting up candles in mourning as well as images of pick up crew picking up the mess. Those are the first images we see before the images of fireworks and happy people.

Furthermore, I'm sorry if you see Kal's "moping" to be all about nothing in the movie; his internal conflict was very clear to me and I was able to see it very clearly. If you don't care acknowledge it and just write it off as moping about nothing then that's your choice...

I should imagine that you saw it clearly. After all it was hammered again, and again, and again all through the movie.

You see, good movies have little details that paint the world they take place in. The somewhat campy Avengers addresses in a few seconds the aftermath of their public debug and its consequences in just a few seconds. Very clasy and to the point really fast.

Bad movies hamfist things over and over while at the same time wasting opportunities to show other things. One of the themes of the Man of Steel was if the world was ready for a Superman. Well, a bunch of crap happened and we know crap what the world thinks about a Superman.

[Dobber]

I would also ask when exactly did Supes have time to talk to the military to draw Zod out or the other Kryptonions? The first part of the battle had him tied up on the other side of the planet. He immediately flew back and took out Zod in the ship before he could shoot down the C-17. Then saves Lois after the phantom zone was created. They thought all was well and the Zod reappears and tells him essentially "you know what, mother f*ker. I'm going to kill as many of your precious humans as I can when I'm done with you" and then attacks him. If Supes disengaged Zod, to try and lead him out of the city, sort of like how Reeve's Superman just flew away after his rumble, Zod would've just started killing the civilians. That was the impression I was clearly left with.

Chris

Edited November 18, 2013 by Dobber

[myk]

Here you go:

News report voice about the incident while we see images of people lighting up candles in mourning as well as images of pick up crew picking up the mess. Those are the first images we see before the images of fireworks and happy people.

I should imagine that you saw it clearly. After all it was hammered again, and again, and again all through the movie.

You see, good movies have little details that paint the world they take place in. The somewhat campy Avengers addresses in a few seconds the aftermath of their public debug and its consequences in just a few seconds. Very clasy and to the point really fast.

Bad movies hamfist things over and over while at the same time wasting opportunities to show other things. One of the themes of the Man of Steel was if the world was ready for a Superman. Well, a bunch of crap happened and we know crap what the world thinks about a Superman.

That touching montage at the end doesn't count; that news clip shows the "people" recovering; it doesn't show the Avengers being held accountable or holding themselves accountable for the destruction they've caused, or contemplating the meaning of the insane battle that just happened. The Avengers, like Kal, just wiped their hands clean and flew off into the credits.

I'm not denying that MOS doesn't have faults, or didn't miss the things that you mentioned; I will agree with you on that point, I just don't see the idea of consequences in the movie as being all that....consequential...

Edited November 18, 2013 by myk

[DuelGundam2099]

Bam... how do you like those comebacks? Totally discredits ALL YOUR OTHER POINTS and made me decide that this movie is great! Love it!

Myk already addressed everything I already did so I didn't see a reason to do all the other ones.

[Twoducks]

That touching montage at the end doesn't count; that news clip shows the "people" recovering; it doesn't show the Avengers being held accountable or holding themselves accountable for the destruction they've caused, or contemplating the meaning of the insane battle that just happened. The Avengers, like Kal, just wiped their hands clean and flew off into the credits.

I'm not denying that MOS doesn't have faults, or didn't miss the things that you mentioned; I actually agree with you completely, I just don't see the idea of consequences in the movie as being all that....consequential...

Doesn't count??

Did you not see the full clip? There is a politician saying that there “So called superheroes” have to answer for the destruction caused. You get the waitress answering the question if this was their fault with the fact that CA saved her life. The spooky blacked out overlords aren’t happy about not having the Avengers under their orders. There are consequences, there are questions, they are voiced. In a few seconds we see that the Avengers are seen as having saved the day.

Comparing the Avengers and MoS is a great way to analyse movies and to lean how to appreciate good work. To appreciate how a summer blockbuster can be turned into a good movie respectful to the audience or just an avalanche of pretty yet completely void visuals.

Whedon shows his heroes saving the day and saving people and he asks the question about their responsibility and answers with the citizens he previously showed being saved. That is a tight ship of a movie!

Snyder on the other hand shows nothing other than pretty eye candy. His plot has his hero be the main reason all the deaths happened. Only thing we get are repetitive fist fights and the Jesus/Cross symbolisms that has been overused with Superman already. He tries to sound deep but he is not up to the task in MoS.

[Kanedas Bike]

The filmmakers reply to all criticism (included during aforementioned Operation: Destroy Metropolis scenes);

-b.

[Knight26]

Good points twoducks, also look at the end of the movies:

Avengers:

Cap-A returns to SHIELD to serve his country and presumably to aid in the rebuilding, possibly going into hiding first

Thor takes Loki into custody back on Asgard, securing him away from Earth and further harm

Black Widow and Hawkeye return to SHIELD to take their punishment

Stark helps but Banner into hiding and the two of them start developing tech to fight the next alien invasion, including rebuilding Stark tower into the Avengers tower (presumably). Stark is likely not arrested because he is super rich.

So 3 of the Avengers go into (forced?) government service with a shadow agency that keeps them hidden.

1 returns to his home planet to lock his brother

1 goes into hiding in the corp of a super rich guy to keep him secret

1 super rich guy escapes prosecution by likely spending millions or more on the rebuilding efforts of New York and helping those who were killed or injured.

All of this partially because the Politicianss are arguing about whether or not to arrest them.

Man of Steel:

Superman blows up a government drone, then goes to work at the Daily Planet where no one seems all that upset that half the city has been destroyed.

Where is the outrage overall the destruction?

Now I did not hate MoS. I actually enjpoyed it and didn't hate on Supes killing Zod, I just disagree with how the battle was handled. Superman never comes off as really heroic with how it was done, nor does he ever seem to care about the wanton destruction.

[myk]

Good points twoducks, also look at the end of the movies:

Avengers:

Cap-A returns to SHIELD to serve his country and presumably to aid in the rebuilding, possibly going into hiding first

Thor takes Loki into custody back on Asgard, securing him away from Earth and further harm

Black Widow and Hawkeye return to SHIELD to take their punishment

Stark helps but Banner into hiding and the two of them start developing tech to fight the next alien invasion, including rebuilding Stark tower into the Avengers tower (presumably). Stark is likely not arrested because he is super rich.

So 3 of the Avengers go into (forced?) government service with a shadow agency that keeps them hidden.

1 returns to his home planet to lock his brother

1 goes into hiding in the corp of a super rich guy to keep him secret

1 super rich guy escapes prosecution by likely spending millions or more on the rebuilding efforts of New York and helping those who were killed or injured.

All of this partially because the Politicianss are arguing about whether or not to arrest them.

Man of Steel:

Superman blows up a government drone, then goes to work at the Daily Planet where no one seems all that upset that half the city has been destroyed.

Where is the outrage overall the destruction?

Now I did not hate MoS. I actually enjpoyed it and didn't hate on Supes killing Zod, I just disagree with how the battle was handled. Superman never comes off as really heroic with how it was done, nor does he ever seem to care about the wanton destruction.

All the stuff you listed is inferred from what "probably" happened; there's no proof or canon that shows any of the things that you listed outside of what we saw in the movie.

Again, untold destruction in both movies and no one seemed to really give a frak-certainly not me...

[myk]

Doesn't count??

Did you not see the full clip? There is a politician saying that there “So called superheroes” have to answer for the destruction caused. You get the waitress answering the question if this was their fault with the fact that CA saved her life. The spooky blacked out overlords aren’t happy about not having the Avengers under their orders. There are consequences, there are questions, they are voiced. In a few seconds we see that the Avengers are seen as having saved the day.

Comparing the Avengers and MoS is a great way to analyse movies and to lean how to appreciate good work. To appreciate how a summer blockbuster can be turned into a good movie respectful to the audience or just an avalanche of pretty yet completely void visuals.

Whedon shows his heroes saving the day and saving people and he asks the question about their responsibility and answers with the citizens he previously showed being saved. That is a tight ship of a movie!

Snyder on the other hand shows nothing other than pretty eye candy. His plot has his hero be the main reason all the deaths happened. Only thing we get are repetitive fist fights and the Jesus/Cross symbolisms that has been overused with Superman already. He tries to sound deep but he is not up to the task in MoS.

So are you telling me that the Avengers answered for the destruction that they caused? Did Tony Stark "answer for it" in Iron Man 3? Did Thor "answer for it" in Thor 2? Those movies and others like them of course being nothing but filler between Avenger movies? Let's not forget there was also mass-destruction in those two movies as well but neither Stark or Thor faced any consequences for the destruction that they helped to cause YET AGAIN.

Did YOU watch the clip? It doesn't MATTER what the politician or what anyone else says because NONE of the Avengers or any of the members of SHIELD were brought under scrutiny or trial for what happened! There was NO justice brought upon by anyone for the destruction of the city. I'm guessing that the point that you keep trying to make is that you wanted someone in MOS to at least "comment" on the destruction that happened in the movie? Because there certainly weren't any repercussions or punishment on the heroes in either the Avengers, Thor or Ironman. I'll agree there were some "comments" though.

Clearly you and I see these movies VERY differently and we're just going to butt heads at this point...

Edited November 18, 2013 by myk