Official Justice League Movie

[Galactus]

Okay my take down of Man of Steel. I'll try and keep this polite as possible.

I don't know Snyder's personal politics but I imagine he leans conservative and since he's wanted to make a Fountainhead movie since forever he probably has some objectivist leanings. To me that really shows in the movie.

I think Snyder gets Clark/Superman right. He knows making Superman an objectivist is a the wrong take on the character. What he does is put him in an objectivist world. All the other characters scream that he is wrong. Pa Kent says he should let people die if it means keeping his secret, Ma Kent tells him he doesn't owe the people of Earth (the world that nurtured him) a thing. When he is finally pushed into doing the objectively right thing in killing Zod what does he do? He lets out a huge scream just like Night Owl did in his version of Watchmen. Get it Superman and Night Owl are pussies who can't handle harsh truths of the real world.

I know Superman has used lethal force before but I think it would have been better if he'd found another way and proved his beliefs correct. Strangely this doesn't really change his beliefs either because again Snyder knows that wouldn't be Superman anymore.

I find it an interesting movie. Probably the best of his DC work and it's not a wrong interpretation of Superman but the message is a bit blurred and dreary like the colour palette.

Strangely this is mostly upturned by Batman v Superman were after all the stupidity of getting these two characters to fight Bruce finally realises that Clark's way was the right way after all kinda rendering it null and void so I often wonder what was the point.

[AquaParade]

Those are some interesting points that I'll have to mull over.

Aside from that, I'm not too fond of the scene where Pa Kent dies. I appreciate that it's part of the story that Snyder is crafting, but it's a hard sell. It doesn't help that the way it is filmed makes it look like he could and would have at least tried to escape the looming tornado. Yeah, it's more poetic that he puts his hand up and stands there like a badass, but again, we have to buy into this stuff.

I do really enjoy the movie though. The soundtrack and the action scenes work so well together. Just a beautiful presentation all around. I actually wouldn't mind seeing Zack touch up the color pallet though, if he were so inclined. It does appear rather drab in some scenes, and lends the film a look that can honestly be described as awkward at times. The desert scene comes to mind.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

I never could buy into Pa Kent's death in the movie. Open the car door to let the dog make a run for it, and then run for it yourself. Just because you don't want Clark to save you doesn't mean you gotta die, old man.

Good ideas, just poorly executed. But that's only one of my... (counting in my head real quick)... 2 complaints about the Man of Steel movie.

1) Pa Kent was terribly written. "Yeah, Clark, let a bus full of kids die. It's the right thing to do."
2) Too much CGI at the end. It got wearisome for me to watch.

And Lois Lane should have black hair, but that's nitpicky $hit.

Other than that, GREAT movie. Haven't rewatched it in awhile... I should fix that.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Oh, and you know what's GREAT about Man of Steel?

Nobody's cracking dumb jokes while horrible $hit is happening and people are dying. No fat jokes, no wisecracking, nothing to diminish the looming threat of a bunch of people dying horrible.

Stakes are real, and no apologies given for a bodycount.

...

$hit, guys, I think that was the last CBM to actually have a bodycount and not pull the punches about it. Looking at YOU, Infinity War and Endgame.

And all the "oh $hit, people died, sue the superhero" kneejerk movies. Thanks, Civil War, Batman V Superman, Incredibles 2, and a couple more I'm probably forgetting...

[AquaParade]

Originally Posted by CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

Oh, and you know what's GREAT about Man of Steel?

Nobody's cracking dumb jokes while horrible $hit is happening and people are dying. No fat jokes, no wisecracking, nothing to diminish the looming threat of a bunch of people dying horrible.

Stakes are real, and no apologies given for a bodycount.

...

$hit, guys, I think that was the last CBM to actually have a bodycount and not pull the punches about it. Looking at YOU, Infinity War and Endgame.

And all the "oh $hit, people died, sue the superhero" kneejerk movies. Thanks, Civil War, Batman V Superman, Incredibles 2, and a couple more I'm probably forgetting...

Joker would probably count, but it's nearly out of the equation with how different it is from the rest of the pack.

I agree with your other two MOS complaints, as well as the praise for the film having real consequence.

But leave Amy Adams as she is.

[Galactus]

I should stress that I feel the movie is well made and Snyder is no hack. Anyone who puts so much of his own symbology and beliefs into his work deserves respect even if I don't agree with them myself.

I feel like WB hired him because they thought he made cool action scenes and that his movies felt that they were about things without ever understanding what those things were. Kinda like how the execs at Fox didn't know the writers of the original Planet of the Apes were making an ultra liberal picture. I doubt Charlton Heston picked up on it. The most unrealistic thing about that movie is not talking apes it's Chuck expressing left wing beliefs.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Originally Posted by AquaParade

Joker would probably count, but it's nearly out of the equation with how different it is from the rest of the pack.

I agree with your other two MOS complaints, as well as the praise for the film having real consequence.

But leave Amy Adams as she is.

That's a fair point, Joker didn't pull any punches.

Hey, Amy Adams is fine as is. I just wish they'd cast Olivia Wilde instead.

A redheaded Lois Lane? What's next, blond Superman!? I know, I know... I'm 8 years late to the complaint party.

[AquaParade]

He spun gold out of 300, which was an unknown comicbook property. It made sense to hope that he could deliver $1B with some of the biggest icons in cinema.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

I've never seen the deleted scenes (or heard of them) for MoS. I should go YouTube that... am I missing anything good?

Not really. Been a while but the only one I'm remembering right now, is Clark as a baby in the hospital with Ma and Pa, and he screams and it shatters a bunch of windows. Something like that. I think I saw it once, long ago. Doesn't add much at all.

I've read about a few scenes being filmed to originally run a few seconds longer here or there, but nothing major on that end.

Pretty much anything relevant, made the final cut.

Originally Posted by Galactus

Okay my take down of Man of Steel. I'll try and keep this polite as possible.

I don't know Snyder's personal politics but I imagine he leans conservative and since he's wanted to make a Fountainhead movie since forever he probably has some objectivist leanings. To me that really shows in the movie.

I think Snyder gets Clark/Superman right. He knows making Superman an objectivist is a the wrong take on the character. What he does is put him in an objectivist world. All the other characters scream that he is wrong. Pa Kent says he should let people die if it means keeping his secret, Ma Kent tells him he doesn't owe the people of Earth (the world that nurtured him) a thing. When he is finally pushed into doing the objectively right thing in killing Zod what does he do? He lets out a huge scream just like Night Owl did in his version of Watchmen. Get it Superman and Night Owl are pussies who can't handle harsh truths of the real world.

I know Superman has used lethal force before but I think it would have been better if he'd found another way and proved his beliefs correct. Strangely this doesn't really change his beliefs either because again Snyder knows that wouldn't be Superman anymore.

I find it an interesting movie. Probably the best of his DC work and it's not a wrong interpretation of Superman but the message is a bit blurred and dreary like the colour palette.

Strangely this is mostly upturned by Batman v Superman were after all the stupidity of getting these two characters to fight Bruce finally realises that Clark's way was the right way after all kinda rendering it null and void so I often wonder what was the point.

That's all pretty spot-on. You definitely got the gist way more than most people did, or even try to.

To speculate Zack is an Objectivist isn't a crapshoot. He's never said so out loud to my knowledge, but it comes out in a lot of his work, both DC and elsewhere if you know what to look for. It's probably why he was so into the Watchmen gig, and it's absolutely all over his DC stuff in spades. It's not the kind of thing one trumpets, because it gets you yelled at. Pretty much everything about Objectivism runs counter to what's currently the Accepted Social Norms which people are very loudly told they're supposed to subscribe to. I'm not an "Anything", I have never found a personal philosophy that suits me 100%, but anyone who pays attention knows that I see a certain logic in that one, even if I don't agree with every single thing inherent to it.

Specific to This, one of the ideas of the philosophy is that some people are just plain Special, or "gifted", and that the world runs much better when you get out of their way and let them operate unrestrained, rather than shackle them to the same rules "Normals" have to live by.

ALL Super-Hero fiction is inherently Objectivist by nature, because of this. Without that basic idea, super-heroes and vigilantes don't work. If you put on a mask and unilaterally take things into your own hands in Real Life, you're automatically a nutcase and a criminal even if your intentions are purely noble, because that's what The Law says. BUT. We all love Batman. We love him because we see his thought balloons, we've watched his entire origin and life play out, we're privy to information most characters in his world aren't aware of. WE know he's the Good Guy; but in Real Life, and to the rest of the people in the world he inhabits, he's just a nut in a cape and mask beating up poor people and the mentally ill. But WE know that HE knows better than the cops, the politicians, and the "normals". That's why when he flips over cop cars in his daring chase of a criminal, we cheer, because dammit, those donut sniffers are just getting in his way! He can't be held back by the petty laws and restrictions of the common rabble, dammit! He's SPECIAL!

This ultimately applies to Every Single Super-Hero, no exceptions. Most people who WRITE super-heroes are not Objectivists, and in fact most of them are highly liberal. BUT. The entire idea of someone putting on fancy dress and taking the law into their own hands because "I know better than The Law"... that's completely Objectivist. Batman for example, may be the clearest example of this, on account of he very often literally says, "The law doesn't apply to me, I'm Batman." Bruce Wayne is almost certainly an Objectivist, or at least does a very convincing impression of one.

And you're totally right, Clark Kent would NOT be an Objectivist, even though he's acting unilaterally and he's obviously "Special" and quite obviously people need to just get out of his way and let him do his job. But he's not approaching the job the same way as Batman does, he really just thinks he's helping rather than enforcing his will, and not always considering that his actions carry huge consequences by way of his very existence. The Superman character can't exist without Objectivism, but Clark Kent, the character, is too goodly and noble to subscribe to the philosophy himself, even though it's that very philosophy that allows him to exist and operate. His motivation is purely selfless, which runs contrary to Objectivism which urges people to be selfish. A clever irony, and something I've always enjoyed about the character.

That said, I don't agree that Zack was trying to make Clark "look like a pussy" by screaming at having to kill Zod. Rather, I truly believe that Zack was illustrating how good he was, how much it hurt him to the pit of his soul to do such a bad thing even though he had no choice. He was trying to illustrate the character's innocence, not weakness. It's all very deliberate, the way he looks at Lois with eyes that plead, "WHY did this have to be this way?" The fact that he took absolutely no joy in what he did, even though it was The Right Thing To Do and he had no choice at all, was the ultimate illustration of how this guy really is more "human" and just plain Good than everyone else. I think it showed strength of character, not weakness. And I think it's perfectly in character for Superman, who always gets mentally crippled when these things happen to him.

I do agree, however, with the concept of Superman being portrayed as a pure and noble spirit in a cynical, Objectivist-twinged world. That's entirely spot-on. Throughout the entire movie, particularly the Battle Of Smallville, the more people try to stop Superman from Being Superman, the more things get f*cked up. That scene really drives it home; the Army only makes things worse, and more people die the more they try and intervene. ONLY Superman - the Anointed Special One who doesn't really think he's all that special - has the power and competence to do the job, everyone else is simply in his way making it worse. Back to Objectivism: "Let the Special People take the lead, everything is fine. Get in their way, try and bring them to Our Level, and sh*t's going to go bad." BvS doubles and even triples down on this entire thing.

I personally like it. A LOT. Because again, without Objectivism, super-heroes can't even exist, and it's refreshing, to me, to see someone lean wholly into that concept rather than sugarcoat it. Having Superman be the One Selfless Person in a world full of selfish people was paramount to the message Zack was trying to tell with the character all along: He really IS The Best Of Us, even if HE doesn't think so. Even when he doubts himself - "No one stays good in this world" - he finds a way to rise above and be the shining light against all odds. Because he's F*CKING Superman, and nothing can stop him, not from Without or Within, even his own insecurities.

It's very powerful stuff. And it's a big reason why I feel those movies so, so much.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Other than Batman, who is more a Superhero than Vigilante because money/training/plot armor, aren't Vigilantes actually counter to Objectivism?

The idea that "screw it, I'm just a normal guy but I see a problem so I'll go fix it" seems counter to "some people are better than others, get out of the way."

Unless, of course, they're Objectivists but ignorant to their own specialness.

Like the sentiment that Nolan puts forth in The Dark Knight Rises (which absolutely doesn't work): anyone could be Batman. We KNOW that's blatantly untrue, because of all the money and training and psychology that goes into being Batman, but the spirit of the thought... THAT'S what resonates with us and makes us cheer.

The thought that anyone can stand up against injustice and protect others. That seems very non-Objectivist to me.

But I also can't think of many vigilantes who DON'T have powers. Maybe it's my own ideal in my head.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

I never could buy into Pa Kent's death in the movie. Open the car door to let the dog make a run for it, and then run for it yourself. Just because you don't want Clark to save you doesn't mean you gotta die, old man.

Good ideas, just poorly executed. But that's only one of my... (counting in my head real quick)... 2 complaints about the Man of Steel movie.

1) Pa Kent was terribly written. "Yeah, Clark, let a bus full of kids die. It's the right thing to do."
2) Too much CGI at the end. It got wearisome for me to watch.


Other than that, GREAT movie. Haven't rewatched it in awhile... I should fix that.

- Jon Kent had a compound fracture in his leg, in case you forgot. He wasn't going anywhere. Either Clark had to save him, and expose himself, or he was gonna die.

- I disagree. As a parent, his main obligation is to protect and nurture his son, not everyone else's son. I don't know a single parent who wouldn't let an entire orphanage burn if there was a situation where the only one who made it out alive was their own kid. "Right thing to do" or not.

It wasn't the idealist take on Clark's Dad that some people may have wanted, but it was important for a few reasons. For one, it's one of many examples where we see someone trying to shape Clark's worldview to their own, and him clearly being all "No, I don't agree with that, I have to be better than that." His parental figures are important, but it's ALSO important that he have autonomy and make his own decisions about who he wants to be... which is what Jon tells him in another scene when he's older.

We also see Jon's own perspective shift with the passage of time. Early on, he JUST wants to keep Clark hidden and safe at any cost. Later, he comes to accept more that simply isn't going to happen and that Clark is going to go on to do grand things... but he wants him to wait until it's absolutely necessary, because he knows the world won't accept him, and he's proven right about that.

Selfishly, I like to have both Ma AND Pa stay alive. They're his tether to humanity and they add a lot to things. But insofar as movies, it makes sense to have Pa die. For one thing, it's important that Clark learn early on, "Sometimes, people die, and you CAN'T save everyone." When it's the MOST important person in your LIFE whom you can't save, that message hits way harder.

- "Too much CGI" is an opinion. I know you generally knock on that in these movies in general, but you can't have a super-hero movie without the Big Video Game Fight at the end, you just can't. I HATE CGI, but it was not only essential for this movie, and the fight, but it was masterfully used.

Furthermore, you definitely should rewatch it if that's how you really felt. The first time you see the movie, the fights go by so fast and so hard, your eyes don't know where to look and it's overwhelming. After multiple watches, when you can "call the high spots" and know what's coming and can follow it much better, those "overwhelming" fight scenes get REALLY f*cking good. Took me a few times to digest it all, too. Every single thing about the movie is designed to get better on multiple viewings. The third act, for me, is the orgasm cherry on top of the "sundae" that is the entire movie. Things just build and build and build until BAM.

"Scripted fights" are kinda my thing, and the "Ring Psychology" of that fight was ON. POINT. No wasted motion, nothing's "for nothing", every hit means something. Trust me, it gets better the more you see it. But yeah, first couple of times it's a bit of Sensory Overload.

Originally Posted by CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

Oh, and you know what's GREAT about Man of Steel?

Nobody's cracking dumb jokes while horrible $hit is happening and people are dying. No fat jokes, no wisecracking, nothing to diminish the looming threat of a bunch of people dying horrible.

Stakes are real, and no apologies given for a bodycount.

...

$hit, guys, I think that was the last CBM to actually have a bodycount and not pull the punches about it. Looking at YOU, Infinity War and Endgame.

And all the "oh $hit, people died, sue the superhero" kneejerk movies. Thanks, Civil War, Batman V Superman, Incredibles 2, and a couple more I'm probably forgetting...

Absolutely. Again, This Is How It Should Be. You want fun and games, go to the circus. When "gods" fight, the Earth shakes and people die. To lean away from that isn't just disingenuous, it's plain dishonest, and it insults the viewers' intelligence.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

Other than Batman, who is more a Superhero than Vigilante because money/training/plot armor, aren't Vigilantes actually counter to Objectivism?

The idea that "screw it, I'm just a normal guy but I see a problem so I'll go fix it" seems counter to "some people are better than others, get out of the way."

Unless, of course, they're Objectivists but ignorant to their own specialness.

Like the sentiment that Nolan puts forth in The Dark Knight Rises (which absolutely doesn't work): anyone could be Batman. We KNOW that's blatantly untrue, because of all the money and training and psychology that goes into being Batman, but the spirit of the thought... THAT'S what resonates with us and makes us cheer.

The thought that anyone can stand up against injustice and protect others. That seems very non-Objectivist to me.

But I also can't think of many vigilantes who DON'T have powers. Maybe it's my own ideal in my head.

No, see, the vigilantes are Objectivist because in their eyes, THEY are "John Galt". They don't think they are "regular people". They "know" they're the Special People and they feel like they're the only ones who know how things SHOULD be, so they grab the bull by the horns and try to fix it themselves. "I'm Right, it's Everyone Else who's crazy. Screw The Rules, I'm doing whatever I want because everyone else is Weak and Impotent. But NOT me!" Totally Objectivist. Batman, especially. Bruce Wayne probably has "Who Is John Galt?" tattooed on his lower back and keeps a copy of "The Fountainhead" next to his bed.

You did bang a nail on one of the many, many things wrong with "Dark Knight Rises", though. NOT anyone can be "Batman". Maybe someone else could wear the suit, but as no lesser authority than Denny O'Neil had often stated, "ONLY Bruce Wayne is driven enough to be Batman." Only he has the sheer, unbending and indomitable will to commit himself entirely to such a f*cking lunatic ideal and commit his entire life to a "war" he can never, ever win, and WILL eventually kill him. ONLY Bruce Wayne can be "Batman". Anyone else would just be wearing a costume.

So yeah, Nolan and Co. got that wrong, but to be fair, DKR got a LOT of things wrong about Bruce Wayne. Actually, to be quite honest, as great as 2/3s of those movies are - and even Rises is okay - starting with Dark Knight, they REALLY got everything about Bruce and what motivates him wrong. Which is a shame, because "Batman Begins" got him very, very right.

Then in the very next movie he's ready to give up his mission for pussy, until said pussy gets blown up by the Joker, and he thinks One Good Cop can save Gotham City even though he only became Batman because "Your system is broken".

Good movies. BAD writing insofar as consistent character motivation.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Originally Posted by Leo656

- Jon Kent had a compound fracture in his leg, in case you forgot. He wasn't going anywhere. Either Clark had to save him, and expose himself, or he was gonna die.

- I disagree. As a parent, his main obligation is to protect and nurture his son, not everyone else's son. I don't know a single parent who wouldn't let an entire orphanage burn if there was a situation where the only one who made it out alive was their own kid. "Right thing to do" or not.

I forgot he had a broken leg. Don't remember that at all.

Huh. Actually, I've always watched the movie from Clark's perspective "be Superman, be who you were born to be" but I've never actually tried to look at it from Pa Kent's perspective. And knowing the government would absolutely lock Clark up and dissect him...

Congrats, Leo, you've changed my mind on this!

Originally Posted by Leo656

- "Too much CGI" is an opinion. I know you generally knock on that in these movies in general, but you can't have a super-hero movie without the Big Video Game Fight at the end, you just can't. I HATE CGI, but it was not only essential for this movie, and the fight, but it was masterfully used.

Furthermore, you definitely should rewatch it if that's how you really felt. The first time you see the movie, the fights go by so fast and so hard, your eyes don't know where to look and it's overwhelming. After multiple watches, when you can "call the high spots" and know what's coming and can follow it much better, those "overwhelming" fight scenes get REALLY f*cking good. Took me a few times to digest it all, too. Every single thing about the movie is designed to get better on multiple viewings. The third act, for me, is the orgasm cherry on top of the "sundae" that is the entire movie. Things just build and build and build until BAM.

"Scripted fights" are kinda my thing, and the "Ring Psychology" of that fight was ON. POINT. No wasted motion, nothing's "for nothing", every hit means something. Trust me, it gets better the more you see it. But yeah, first couple of times it's a bit of Sensory Overload.

It's really the bit where Clark is trying to take down the World Engine. The parts where it's him versus Zod work fine for me. That part of the movie is just really dragged out, and I'm impatient to get back to the one on one match.

And really, after 3-4 rewatches, my opinion on that hasn't changed. I don't think it will with another rewatch, but we'll see...

Originally Posted by Leo656

Absolutely. Again, This Is How It Should Be. You want fun and games, go to the circus. When "gods" fight, the Earth shakes and people die. To lean away from that isn't just disingenuous, it's plain dishonest, and it insults the viewers' intelligence.

It's really weird to me how a lot of CBMs downplay the stakes, or undermine it with humor.

Maybe the difference is that a lot of people want to be entertained, but I want to be moved.

Originally Posted by Leo656

No, see, the vigilantes are Objectivist because in their eyes, THEY are "John Galt". They don't think they are "regular people". They "know" they're the Special People and they feel like they're the only ones who know how things SHOULD be, so they grab the bull by the horns and try to fix it themselves. "I'm Right, it's Everyone Else who's crazy. Screw The Rules, I'm doing whatever I want because everyone else is Weak and Impotent. But NOT me!" Totally Objectivist. Batman, especially. Bruce Wayne probably has "Who Is John Galt?" tattooed on his lower back and keeps a copy of "The Fountainhead" next to his bed.

You did bang a nail on one of the many, many things wrong with "Dark Knight Rises", though. NOT anyone can be "Batman". Maybe someone else could wear the suit, but as no lesser authority than Denny O'Neil had often stated, "ONLY Bruce Wayne is driven enough to be Batman." Only he has the sheer, unbending and indomitable will to commit himself entirely to such a f*cking lunatic ideal and commit his entire life to a "war" he can never, ever win, and WILL eventually kill him. ONLY Bruce Wayne can be "Batman". Anyone else would just be wearing a costume.

Right, so they're Objectivists who inspire people to think non Objectivists thoughts. "That special guy makes me think ANYONE could be special!"

[AquaParade]

I don't think every comicbook adaption needs a cgi-fest videogame fight at the end, but certain ones do call for it. There is really no other way to capture the spectacle of what Superman can do. I think the action was spectacular in Man of Steel and it's one of the few movies, next to the original Avengers or Infinity War/Endgame, where the third act, cgi-driven battle scene actually paid off in spades.

Other than that, I think more movies can and need to move away from the over-reliance on this sort of thing. Everyone is aware of it, even the general public. The main culprit and poster boy for this being our good old friend "giant doom-portal in the sky". Strip these budgets down, force these directors to get creative, and maybe some more of these comicbook adaptions will be able to hold my attention in the third act. Subvert my expectations, rely a bit more on practical effects or physical choreography, etc. Something fresh.
Again, Joker is the outlier and the example I pick on, but it's a great example of what can happen when you either strip a budget down or carve your own path.

EDIT: Maybe you could tone down the CGI in a Superman film if you're super creative. I would like to see Superman bust some dudes through practical effect walls. Always satisfying.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

I forgot he had a broken leg. Don't remember that at all.

Huh. Actually, I've always watched the movie from Clark's perspective "be Superman, be who you were born to be" but I've never actually tried to look at it from Pa Kent's perspective. And knowing the government would absolutely lock Clark up and dissect him...

Congrats, Leo, you've changed my mind on this!



It's really the bit where Clark is trying to take down the World Engine. The parts where it's him versus Zod work fine for me. That part of the movie is just really dragged out, and I'm impatient to get back to the one on one match.

And really, after 3-4 rewatches, my opinion on that hasn't changed. I don't think it will with another rewatch, but we'll see...



It's really weird to me how a lot of CBMs downplay the stakes, or undermine it with humor.

Maybe the difference is that a lot of people want to be entertained, but I want to be moved.



Right, so they're Objectivists who inspire people to think non Objectivists thoughts. "That special guy makes me think ANYONE could be special!"

I love you so, so much. No homo.

....Maybe .02%. But that's IT!

Yeah, some people forget Pa had a busted wheel. I forgot about it the first time, second time was like "ohhh yeeeah, whoops." People constantly argue with that movie and BvS, "Well, those are dumb situations to be written in, these constant No-Win Scenarios are just angsty for no reason," but I think that's arrogant. Every single thing that happens in the plot makes perfect sense within the framework and context. The entire Superman story in general is about getting caught in No-Win scenarios and trying to find the best possible solution with minimal collateral damage. That's the drama. If it's easy, why does it need to be a Superman story? He has THE HARDEST job, man. LITERALLY the hardest job.

Even the original Superman movie teased that... until they cheated the audience by having him conveniently go back in time so nothing bad ever happened, period. Jesus, that movie is f*cked the more you watch it. THAT movie, the one everyone thinks is perfect, has so many holes in it it's practically Swiss cheese. A lot of charm and a great score can make people forgive a lot, I guess. It's GOOD, I mean, I grew up on it, still like it, just... Jesus, SO many people hold it up like it's the Holy Grail and frankly, it does as much Wrong as Right.

- I love the World Engine stuff, man. He literally Shrug-Pressed the force of the ENTIRE PLANET EARTH! Very blatant "Atlas" homage, as was the "Labors of Hercules" homage montage in BvS. Zack loves his classical myth references! I can't help it, I adore when they put over just how STRONG this guy is. Most movies couldn't pull it off. Selfishly, I just love seeing him cut loose. He's the Baddest Motherf*cker Alive, except he rides a goddamn bike to work. HOW can anyone NOT love this f*cking guy?! He's the best!

On "Entertained" vs. "Moved", we very strongly agree. I want to think. I want to ponder. I want to feel pain, joy, worry, sadness and jubilation. I want to FEEL, period. I want to feel DEEPLY. When I watch a movie, I do not WANT to "shut my brain off and go with the flow", I want to be taken on a JOURNEY. I want the stakes to be high, I want all of the Highest Highs and Lowest Lows and everything in between.

The best Superman stories give you ALL of that. And MoS is one of my very favorite Superman stories. Not the first time I watched it. I was too busy comparing it to the Reeve movies and my own expectations. By the third time, I was in love. Some people say it's deconstruction. It's not. It's a Valentine, a total love letter to the character and everything he represents.

You just have to understand the authorial intent. If you do that, you're 9/10s there.

MIGHT be my favorite movie, period. Depends.

[Autbot_Benz]

ya I rebought and re watched Man of Steel a few weeks ago and I really enjoyed it. Warners always nails its Origin stories well. Its there team up movies that need a lot of work.

[AquaParade]

Time will be kind to MOS.

Unless the cgi ages like milk. I mean, it looks really good, but it's hard to think of CGI that doesn't eventually look poor.

[Leo656]

Fair concern, but despite his reputation, Zack is actually rather minimalist with CGI compared to everyone else who makes these movies, only using it where he feels it "has" to be used. Otherwise, he goes practical. Some debate he still leans on it too much, but that's a conversation.

He insists on building sets, props, costumes, and fully-functional Batmobiles, while the studio screams in his ear about "Let's just use computers, it's cheaper! Everyone else does it like that!" And he's like "Nah man. There has to be a costume. This has to be a physical set."

He does green-screen a lot of backgrounds but you can't do everything practical. I make it a point to watch ALL the behind-the-scenes stuff on his movies, and I'm consistently blown away by his method. You really get the sense that if he could, he'd just build entire worlds from the ground up with his own two hands. If anything, his imagination is "too big" for the limitations of film. Perhaps he would be best suited for comics or animation. As I mentioned, "Owls of Ga'Hoole" was quite a hoot.

...I'm sorry, I don't make puns, but that was low-hanging fruit. Please forgive me this one vulgar indulgence.

He even storyboards his own work, and he's actually a pretty talented penciller. I draw a lot, it's hard. He's way better than I am.

I'm gushing, it's just... this "making movies" stuff is so much more than A Job to this guy, and I adore that. And I think that's why all the other "artist types" in the movie business fawn over him. He's a craftsman, operating in a push-button, paint-by-numbers world.

People can take his style or leave it, that's all subjective. But almost nobody works harder at what they do. I have to love and respect that. As an "artist", I have to.

But anyway... Honestly, going on almost 8 years, I feel like MoS's CGI holds up way, way better than a ton of CGI-heavy movies that came out less than five years ago. Or even two years ago **coughcoughFakeJusticeLeaguecoughcough**

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Yeah, some people forget Pa had a busted wheel. I forgot about it the first time, second time was like "ohhh yeeeah, whoops." People constantly argue with that movie and BvS, "Well, those are dumb situations to be written in, these constant No-Win Scenarios are just angsty for no reason," but I think that's arrogant. Every single thing that happens in the plot makes perfect sense within the framework and context. The entire Superman story in general is about getting caught in No-Win scenarios and trying to find the best possible solution with minimal collateral damage. That's the drama. If it's easy, why does it need to be a Superman story? He has THE HARDEST job, man. LITERALLY the hardest job.

LIFE is a no-win scenario. Not sure why stories have to pretend otherwise.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

LIFE is a no-win scenario. Not sure why stories have to pretend otherwise.

I do understand the "escapism" argument. "Real life is hard enough, just make me laugh, etc."

I guess I'm just wired differently than some. If I watch something REALLY bleak and dark and ugly - like "Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me", one of my all-time favorite films which I readily admit is like watching Suicide In Slow-Motion for two-and-a-half hours - I can get totally immersed in it, enjoy it for what it is, feel Laura Palmer's pain and despair and feel absolutely gutted by the constant abuse and horror she endures, and then the jubilation she feels when she ends up f*cking MURDERED but in her dying moments realizes that at least she's "free" now and doesn't have to suffer anymore, and weeps tears of joy as her Guardian Angel and Dale Cooper help shepherd her to the Other Side... and I can feel all those things and also be enthralled by the absolute beauty and majesty of the film itself as not just a tragedy but also a work of ART...

I can turn it off, and do something else, and I might be a little bit emotionally exhausted, but I'm NOT depressed, or even SAD. It doesn't put me in a bad mood or ruin my day, at ALL. Not even 1%. Rather, I'm ecstatic. Overjoyed. "Jesus, a goddamn MOVIE... something I know isn't real... can be so well-crafted and well-executed that it can literally make me cry Real Tears for a fictional character..." That's magical. To be taken for such a ride by something completely fake... it means the craftsmen have done their job.

In wrestling parlance, "I know it's all fake. I want to be 'worked'. I want you to make me forget that it's fake. I want to believe." THAT is what "entertains" me. THAT is the feeling I chase when I watch movies.

Some people can't "handle" certain things because they're "triggered" by them, or it's "too much to handle". I kind of empathize, but at the same time, we will never, ever see movies the same way, and it in turn becomes very hard to talk about movies with those people, because what to them is "Just Entertainment", to me, is part of an emotional journey that can be downright spiritual. I *want* it to be spiritual.

For the duration of the running time, I want it to be "real". I don't want to be winked at and reminded that it's just make-believe. I'm not a child and I don't need to be tucked in and given a warm blanket and told it's all okay. I want you to make me feel something.

That's literally ALL I ask of a movie. If you do that, you got me. I'm actually not that tough to lay. You just gotta rub me Just Right.