I can see it happening if this were an adaptation of New Krypton or something, but otherwise I think they really should have considered that more. I mean this wasn't like in Justice League Unlimited where he fought Captain Marvel and the city was empty for a (kinda) legitimate reason. There had to be people in those buildings.Ukomba said:
Zack Snyder: Man of Steel Carnage is "Mythological"
- Thread starter StewShearerOld
- Start date
To be fair, the person did say human body casualty count.iniudan said:
Also, Vegeta's violence was deliberate and discriminate. He was at the time, a villain. And with the Majin Vegeta rampage I don't believe any human bystanders were killed by Vegeta.
Superman is the hero, yet he kills more people with careless violence and sloppy destruction in Man of Steel. Its not to comparable to look and a Villain's deliberate violent actions against people they choose to kill vs. a Hero's sloppy violent actions that accidentally and carelessly kill a bunch of innocent people in a small town and then a dense metropolitan area.
I have to agree with @Ukomba here. Vegeta kills less humans than Superman in that Man of Steel does. That's an issue that movie is going to be known for. Hopefully they tone down the needless violence in the sequel.
I rather liked Man Of Steel. All the heroic shiz he does in the first half of the film, like that whole thing with the oil rig, is pure awesome. Selfless, as Supes should be, but also incredibly badass.
People whine about the film being too dark or too many people dying in it, but if you pay any sort of attention you'll notice there's no other way it could have gone. Zod is as powerful as superman, and evil, and doesn't give a shit how many people get killed. The death toll was going to be high, lots of shit was going to get destroyed. And it did. End of.
People whine about the film being too dark or too many people dying in it, but if you pay any sort of attention you'll notice there's no other way it could have gone. Zod is as powerful as superman, and evil, and doesn't give a shit how many people get killed. The death toll was going to be high, lots of shit was going to get destroyed. And it did. End of.
You're completely missing the point. It's not that Superman shouldn't kill, it's that he *finds-another-way.* That is what sets him apart and it's one of the core elements of Superman and likewise it is one of things that makes him such an icon and symbol of 'something better' in comics and the DCU itself.bartholen said:
It's why characters like Batman respect him; the power of a God and he always chooses mercy instead of a final judgment. An accurate portrayal of the "Zod problem" would have been Superman finding a way to return Zod to the Phantom Zone. Instead the movie destroys that option on purpose just to make the level of destruction worse and turn Superman into an unwilling executioner in order to make him more "real."
It's (*bleeping*) Superman in a comic book movie. No one wanted to see him being that "real", and as previously stated "real" doesn't equate biblical destruction and murder. Not when you're The Man of Steel. Not as he should be. If that was the only way to make a Comic-Book movie feel like it's happening in the "real world" than Avengers would have ended with the team killing Loki. Instead Joss kept their choice accurate to the comics and, H-Uh, look at that. One of the most successful and acclaimed comic book films of all time. How about that.
I dont quite get the usual "high body count"-dilemma of the Man of Steel movie. I thought it was a bad movie for other reasons.
Is the casualty count really that high? I mean sure, plenty of people die, but there are PLENTY of other movies out there, I can think of at least a dozen at the top of my head, with a lot more people dying in more horrible ways. And these movies didnt suffer that much criticism for it.
Is the issue here that some people expected the superman to be a friendly hallmark nice'n'cuddly movie where Superman throws punches at robbers or something?
Hell even the Avengers probably had a similar bodycount.
Is the casualty count really that high? I mean sure, plenty of people die, but there are PLENTY of other movies out there, I can think of at least a dozen at the top of my head, with a lot more people dying in more horrible ways. And these movies didnt suffer that much criticism for it.
Is the issue here that some people expected the superman to be a friendly hallmark nice'n'cuddly movie where Superman throws punches at robbers or something?
Hell even the Avengers probably had a similar bodycount.
Did you read my first paragraph? Isn't the whole purpose of telling an origin story to show the audience how the hero becomes the character he is, rather than immediately being the definitive version of himself from the get-go? Maybe the whole point of having him kill Zod, the last other one of his race, was to make him loathe killing in the future.roguewriter said:
And hypothetically, how was he supposed to find a way to send Zod back to the Phantom Zone? He barely knew who Zod or what the Phantom Zone was, knew nothing about how the kryptonian technology worked and wouldn't have had any idea where to begin. And he couldn't have taken Zod captive, since it seemed pretty clear in the movie that Supes was the only one who could stand a chance against him.
I'm sorry, I must've missed that part of The Odyssey where Odysseus obliterates half a city with a single punch (yes, I understand this misses the point, but I want to make a funny, damn it!).
Again, you're missing the point. Clark was always a Hero. He saved lives even before he donned the suit. Where the movie went wrong is making his "failing" to save a life an aspect of his character, one that haunts him and leaves him in doubt and isolated. However, it doesn't change the fact that he has always been inherently good and has strove to find another way. Small example: the assholes in the Bar. In the "real life" you seem to want, Clark would have crushed those guys. Instead he walks away and teaches them humility in an amusing capacity that doesn't really harm anyone.bartholen said:
That is a small glimmer in the film of what Superman can chose to do and be. How he can avoid making things worse with only a small bit of destruction. Allowing an entire city to be decimated does not make for a good "origin" story, especially when we already *know* he's a Hero. What reinforces that is, again, his choice to give everything to prevent the kind of devastation we see in the film. In MoS he doesn't even seem the try. His solution? Hit things hard. Harder. Now Really Hard. Now Harder Still. Opps, there went another building. We watched half a movie that highlighted how smart Clark is, how he always wants to do what's right. Yet, for the big brawl, all that goes out the window.
Again, that's not watching him become a Hero, that's watching him *fail* to be the kind of hero Superman has *always* been. As for the Phantom Zone, that was merely an example. The point there is that, in an accurate depiction, Clark would have found a way to neutralize Zod *and* the World Devastator without it meaning murder even to save others or the absolute decimation of an entire city. If you can't understand that then you really don't know the character and, as such, your defense of the movie falls flat because it means you didn't want a Superman movie, you wanted what Snyder gave you, a movie that was all flash and almost no substance.
Here's the big issue I have with a lot of what I've heard regarding Man of Steel and Superman in general. This doesn't apply to everyone but it seems to be a common thread I've noticed:
Person #1: I don't like Superman.
Person #2: Why not?
P1: He's bland and uninteresting and too powerful.
P2: Well in the new movie, they put him up against an opponent that is so strong that Superman has to use the full extent of his powers against him, and he has to kill him to save innocent lives.
P1: I don't like that.
P2: Why not?
P1: Because now he's not Superman.
P2: But you just said you don't like the old Superman.
P1: I don't, but if they make a movie, I want them to stick to his fundamentals.
P2: Why would you want a movie about a character you fundamentally don't like, and then have them maintain the things you don't like about him?
P1: Because he's Superman, he has to have a movie.
I've noticed that many people seem to want to have their cake and eat it too. They complain that Superman is a boring character, but then complain when they change him to try and make him less boring.
Person #1: I don't like Superman.
Person #2: Why not?
P1: He's bland and uninteresting and too powerful.
P2: Well in the new movie, they put him up against an opponent that is so strong that Superman has to use the full extent of his powers against him, and he has to kill him to save innocent lives.
P1: I don't like that.
P2: Why not?
P1: Because now he's not Superman.
P2: But you just said you don't like the old Superman.
P1: I don't, but if they make a movie, I want them to stick to his fundamentals.
P2: Why would you want a movie about a character you fundamentally don't like, and then have them maintain the things you don't like about him?
P1: Because he's Superman, he has to have a movie.
I've noticed that many people seem to want to have their cake and eat it too. They complain that Superman is a boring character, but then complain when they change him to try and make him less boring.
I'll be completely honest: I think my main problem with Man of Steel is that Snyder's only reference seems to be Frank Miller's Superman. Which was a fairly terrible Superman to begin with. Now he's going to be borrowing more stuff from Miller with the Batman and Superman storyline so I think we know his influences. So I've kind of lost interest in Superman movies.
Ah yes. More drivel from the festering snake pit Mr. Snyder calls a brain. So it's a mythology picture now is it Mr. Snyder? Thrown the whole "He's an alien and I want to depict a realistic look at how normal earth people would view him, with paranoia and suspicion" idea out the window now you find we aren't buying it?
Well I'm sorry Mr. Snyder I'm not buying this flip flop either. Once again a fat cat Hollywood smut pusher has degradated something pure and hopeful into an orgy of masturbatory violence to sooth the most mindless of our modern society. And also once again when those of us who still have a modicum of morality left berated him for this travesty, he oozes out another slime soaked quasi-apology explaining why it's we uneducated peons fault for not liking his little film, as we are just too moronic to understand his message. "It's not petty ultra-violence, its high art in the same vein as classical mythology." No Mr. Snyder, it's pornography.
No wonder our society is falling apart at the seams.
Well I'm sorry Mr. Snyder I'm not buying this flip flop either. Once again a fat cat Hollywood smut pusher has degradated something pure and hopeful into an orgy of masturbatory violence to sooth the most mindless of our modern society. And also once again when those of us who still have a modicum of morality left berated him for this travesty, he oozes out another slime soaked quasi-apology explaining why it's we uneducated peons fault for not liking his little film, as we are just too moronic to understand his message. "It's not petty ultra-violence, its high art in the same vein as classical mythology." No Mr. Snyder, it's pornography.
No wonder our society is falling apart at the seams.
The problem was MoS is essentially two almost completely disconnected movies. One fairly good. The other not so much. The back story and Clark Kent parts of the movie and the Krypton scenes were pretty good. Flawed, but still an interesting and thought provoking take on the Superman mythos. It's worthwhile to note hat EVERY single shot from the movies trailers and teasers was from this half of the movie.
The bloody awful movie is virtually everything that happens after he puts the suit on, excepting the Faora vs Law and Order dude and the initial learning to fly scene. The rest of it was horrid. Disaster porn at best, with an almost total lack of cohesion and no moral center. Which s a bad thing in a Superman movie as Superman more than anything else is defined by his moral center. And perhaps the worst thing, and this a blame fully on Goyer, is they gave no real thought to where the story go from here and have it still be a Superman movie. I'm not talking about leaving room for a sequel. I'm talking a total failure to realize that they were writing a comic book character. That they were just writing a small piece of this characters story. The writing showed no respect for those that came before them or those that will come after. And this isn't a flaw unique to ths movie for Goyer. It was one of the few glaring flaws in The Dark Knight. Part of the reason the Dark Knight Rises felt so much worse is The Dark Knight left the crafters in such awkward places that it would be difficult to continue with them still remaining recognizable to the source material.
The bloody awful movie is virtually everything that happens after he puts the suit on, excepting the Faora vs Law and Order dude and the initial learning to fly scene. The rest of it was horrid. Disaster porn at best, with an almost total lack of cohesion and no moral center. Which s a bad thing in a Superman movie as Superman more than anything else is defined by his moral center. And perhaps the worst thing, and this a blame fully on Goyer, is they gave no real thought to where the story go from here and have it still be a Superman movie. I'm not talking about leaving room for a sequel. I'm talking a total failure to realize that they were writing a comic book character. That they were just writing a small piece of this characters story. The writing showed no respect for those that came before them or those that will come after. And this isn't a flaw unique to ths movie for Goyer. It was one of the few glaring flaws in The Dark Knight. Part of the reason the Dark Knight Rises felt so much worse is The Dark Knight left the crafters in such awkward places that it would be difficult to continue with them still remaining recognizable to the source material.
That's quite an eloquent rant there, too bad there's not enough articulate language in it to disguise the very obvious bias you have for Snyder. He may not be the next Spielberg, But based on what you're shouting it sounds like Snyder is Michael Bay v2.0. And Michael Bay he is not.Psychobabble said:
I don't really understand why people have a problem with Snyder in the first place. He may be mostly known for the visuals, but it's hardly pornography. Every action scene in his films fit within the context of the work as a whole, and AREN'T just thrown in for fawning over. Besides, his visuals are actually REALLY impressive, with flair and colour that really fits comic book adaptations.
Oh and where did people get the idea Snyder can't direct character portrayal? Did everyone suddenly forget about Watchmen?
People got the idea from watching the travesty that was Man of Steel. And if anyone is guilty of forgetting about The Watchmen I'd have to say it's Snyder himself. How someone who went to great lengths to stay true to the background material and do no harm with such a difficult property as The Watchmen, could make such a travesty of a character with many more decades of source material to draw from, and with such a clear cut sense of morality, beggars the imagination.Ninjafire72 said:
How could someone who conveyed the convoluted gray morality of the anti-hero Rorschach, seem to be completely clueless when depicting someone so simply black and white as Superman? You could have put any character with super powers in that film and no one could have told the difference.
And you say Snyder isn't Michael Bay 2.0? He may not have started that way but when he turns the story of perhaps the most recognizable super hero into a cheap piece of big budget explosion porn, full of violence aggrandizing slug fest battles where no one really cares about the outcome, as no one truly cares about the characters involved, he's certainly well on his way to becoming so.
