Oh, Zack Snyder, you rapscallion! Zack’s over in Japan, pushing Man of Steel on a world audience now, possibly with a new sense of responsibility, as Japan Times thought to ask him about the BuzzFeed article that pegged The Battle … Continue reading

Zack Snyder Spins Myth With ‘Man of Steel’s High Death Toll

Zack Snyder

Oh, Zack Snyder, you rapscallion!

Zack’s over in Japan, pushing Man of Steel on a world audience now, possibly with a new sense of responsibility, as Japan Times thought to ask him about the BuzzFeed article that pegged The Battle of Metropolis with 129,000 innocent bystanders killed and around $2 billion in damage and repair costs. You, people of the world, come witness the American Jesus that saved you all while causing about forty-three 9/11-sized attacks on America!

Snyder starts the interview praising himself for doing so many commercials because “You can believe in your vision, but in the end, you’re selling the product for the client” and “It allowed me to thicken my skin for dealing with difficulties in movie-making.” Because “it’s easy to get all tyrannical. It’s weird, but a lot of directors get dictatorial when they come on the set. I’m not, and I think it’s because I’ve made a lot of commercials.”

Not exactly sure what a lack of tyranny and fore-knowledge of product contributed to Man of Steel, but Japan Times gets around to it, finally asking about the high collateral damage in the film’s climax.

Enter Zack Snyder, myth-weaver:

 “I wanted the movie to have a mythological feeling. In ancient mythology, mass deaths are used to symbolize disasters. In other countries like Greece and Japan, myths were recounted through the generations, partly to answer unanswerable questions about death and violence. In America, we don’t have that legacy of ancient mythology. Superman (who first appeared in ‘Action Comics’ in 1938) is probably the closest we get. It’s a way of recounting the myth.”

You heard the man! When you’re choosing what mythical movies to watch, feel free to leave out ones that feature any mass murders, genocides, infrastructure collapses, global tragedies and natural disasters that don’t have a significantly high death toll. But don’t forget to watch that one about that alien when he saved us from that other alien after watching his step-dad die in a tornado.

No, don’t watch Munich, that only has 11 people dying in it. It’s certainly not a true story leading to a myth to answer unanswerable questions about death and violence because the only mythical qualities in cultures such as Greece and Japan are how many people died.

Which is why Godzilla movies are across the board mythic as f*ck.

 

 

  • BQSTUDIOS

    huh?

  • NihilistZerO

    I laughed at the AIC coverage of Snyder’s comments that said Superman should have “found another way” as if reasoning with Zod was an option LOL. I had some problems with the film but the destruction of Metropolis wasn’t one of them. In fact it was the single best way to justify Kal-El killing Zod. Most organic thread in the movie to me. And it’s gonna serve as a great lead in to what might be a 3 way battle with Superman in the middle of Luthor and Batman. Both will likely be out to stop this far to powerful being in their own ways, without the destruction of Metropolis as a motivation how do you really get Batman’s panties in a bunch over Superman. The collateral damage gives a believable motivation for Bruce to go after Clark.

  • Piablo

    Interesting… questioning the level of destruction in a movie about an alien who can fly and has laser heat vision. The destruction was the part that didn’t feel right, huh?

  • justfor

    The last part of this article makes basically no sense.

  • Snydershmyder

    The whole thing didn’t feel right. But people only pick the tangible parts. The scene order was wrong. Amy Adams just was cast well in the part. Good actress, but not believable as a tough cookie. That fight with Zod should have happened before Supes sends them all to the Zone. Overkill. No emotional core. And having Supes be a brooder rather than an optimistic hero was just odd.

  • Batman the Bat

    Well, Batman will always have motivation. The dude doesn’t sleep. Superman could have saved the city and Batman would still go after him: he’s too powerful. A story should always be self contained. You can’t create a story and say: well, I’m going to fix this or add on to it in the next part. When a writer thinks this way, they create “half” a story or an empty shell.

  • Hephaestus1

    He’s spot on with Greek Mythology comparison. Hercules didn’t give a shit about humanity either.

  • RoR-Machine-Mark

    I hope man of steel 2 breaks all the record books see the avengers was cheap looking it felt like a MADE-4-TV Movie now when batman vs superman comes out its gonna be EPIC that’s what they should have named it EPIC THE MOVIE!

  • jamthemaj

    Superman saved the world.

  • jamthemaj

    Agreed! I loved the film, and I can’t wait to see where the story goes in 2.

  • jamthemaj

    I loved Man of Steel… it’s as simple as that. I loved almost everything about it. I had no qualms whatsoever with the destruction in the final fight. First of all, it’s Supe’s origin story; he’s figuring out what to do. Secondly, he didn’t cause the destruction. He didn’t toss Zod through buildings (except for a silo and gas station in Smallville); Zod punched and tossed him through buildings. I saw it three times. Supes didn’t launch the world engine. Supes SAVED the world. Even if all of that wasn’t the case, to all of you naysayers griping about the destruction, try watching an animated Superman flick or read a comic. Buildings get smashed all the time. I can’t wait for the sequel!

  • jamthemaj

    You didn’t like it; that’s cool. Different strokes for different folks! That said, I loved it, and I disagree with your points. The editing of the story should not have been different. He fought the other Kryptonians in Smallville. He couldn’t have faced all of them again and win. I loved the emotional complexity of the film, and it tugged my heart strings quite a bit. Adams was perfectly cast as Lois; I very much enjoyed what she brought to the role. As for Clark, there’s a difference between brooding and searching for your place in the world. I loved how that was handled. It reminded of Birthright. All in all, when the movie was over, I felt joyful and uplifted. That’s coming from a lifelong Superman fan. Man of Steel was excellent in my book.

  • Hephaestus1

    But without any care towards those who didn’t make it.

  • jamthemaj

    Oh please what a load of BS. Once again, he didn’t cause the destruction. He didn’t throw Zod through buildings. It was the other way around. I saw it three times, so I’m not pulling it out of my ass. Most of the destruction and death was a result of the world engine, which again was not Supes’ fault.

  • Hephaestus1

    When did I ever say the destruction was Supes’ fault? I said that he didn’t care about those who died. Big difference.

  • Jax Maxton

    I never get the “I hope movie A beats movie B!” Who cares? I do not have any investment in either movie and will not benefit from MoS 2 beating Avengers 2 or vice versa. I just want to watch a couple of fun comic book movies, and I hope both of them are awesome.

  • jamthemaj

    Oh gotcha. That’s still a silly statement. What was he supposed to do, cry everytime someone might’ve gotten killed? How can you know that he didn’t care? He killed Zod because he did care. I’m sure he grieved off screen before the drone scene. We’ll probably see him haunted by it in the sequel. At least I hope we do.

  • merwanor

    Actually this was one of the things I felt made the movie that much stronger, to actually see all the death and carnage that Zod brought to Metropolis was shocking, mostly all movies these days shows lots of destruction, but no deaths, people somehow miraculously avoid all the debris from buildings being destroyed, explosions, car crashes etc etc.

    For instance, in some movies you may see a helicopter crash, and they deliberately show the pilot crawling out with almost no injuries just to show that no one died.

    I also find it hilarious that people actually blame Superman for all the destruction, that is so typical of humans is it not, to blame the guy who saved the day, just because they have no one else to blame… I mean, it was Zod who tried to destroy the world, Superman just tried everything he could to stop him.

    It is one of the few movies I have seen super powered beings dish it out and actually believe that that would be how it would happen if such beings where real, that a fight like that would wreck havoc on the surroundings and its people is just more realistic.

    Man of Steel is now one of my favorite superhero movies, it brought Superman back to the big screen with a bang.

  • Hephaestus1

    I didn’t expect him to cry at every turn, no. I just expected him to know better than to make out and joke in the middle of a graveyard, congratulate himself without taking fault, or go into work in the next scene like nothing happened. You’re suggesting that Superman shouldn’t do too much grieving. My problem is that there wasn’t any acknowledgement of a tragedy, whatsoever. And frankly, I’m tired of the excuse “we’ll see the rest in the sequel”. A sequel has nothing to do with the quality of an original film. The Godfather didn’t need part two to be validated as a classic. It’s the same with any well done movie. They’re good by their own accord.

  • Symbol Man

    Mass deaths do not symbolize disasters. Mass deaths are a disaster.

    It’s like saying taking a shit symbolizes a bowel movement.

  • ManWhoRapesHarryKnowles

    We have sciences to that give us answers. American Jesus is a couple thousand years late to the mythology gives us answers over science party.

  • Jer Welch

    I don’t think Snyder is saying “more deaths=more mythic” just that the death tole contributes to just how serious things in Metropolis are. I mean if two aliens started duking it out in a busstling city and they were both God-like in the eyes of the Earth-natives, it’s a safe bet carnage would ensue. Plenty of speculation has cropped up about the mayhem being a plot element in the next movie, which would make sense. In Snyder we must trust, and now that Afleck is aboard, I’m sure he’ll make the story even more intense. Stoked!!!!

  • KaiChen

    Yeah, let’s end an action superhero movie in tears, pain and drama… Seriously? BTW, do you even know if that last scene wasn’t months later?

  • error404ts

    Not sure if this has been discussed before, but in Man of Steel Superman hadn’t had any outlet for using his powers until Zod came to Earth. Hell, he’d just learned to fly. With that said he had absolutely NO OUTLET for exercising his abilities and seeing how strong he was. He’d always been told to hide his abilities from the world so therefore he never developed them. He couldn’t even get in to an argument with a human for fear of bring hit and breaking someone’s hand without even doing anything. Clark/Superman had no idea how to fight, and when faced with the invulnerabilities of the Krytponians he had no idea how hard to hit, only how to practice restrained. So it makes sense that he lost it at one point and pounded the Hell out of any one of them.

    He had no experience when it came to protecting the innocents that got taken out. He’ll only learn that with experience, not right out of the gate like in Man of Steel.

  • Hephaestus1

    The two hours before it had been nothing but tears, pain, and (melo-) drama. Why should the ending be any different?

  • Steve Croft

    Absolutely. Don’t know where this ‘brooding’ crap comes from. Not once did I see him ‘brood’. I saw a lot of contemplation, I saw a lot of deep thought on his place in the world and I actually saw a lot of positivity in his character, like Superman has as a trait. But brooding? Snydershmyder you sure you weren’t watching The Dark Knight?

  • Steve Croft

    Pretty much what I thought, was the literary comparison of watching the Ms Teen USA video of ‘Why can’t US teens find the USA on a map’…

  • Steve Croft

    Really? Because he killed Zod to save some humans in a train station rather than letting them get fried…

  • Hephaestus1

    Once again, I said he didn’t care about those who died.

    And that was a poorly done scene tbh.

  • Steve Croft

    I really don’t get how you can come to that conclusion. The direct threat was infront of him, if he didn’t ‘çare’ as such, he would’ve let Zod run free and murder everyone. He stopped Zod, killed the last Kryptonian asides himself in known existance, therefore relegating himself to isolation, to save the human race from extinction. Seems a hell of a lot like caring to me?

  • Hephaestus1

    Those who died. Casualties. The aftermath of the destruction. I don’t know how much more I can keep repeating myself. I’m not talking about him his feelings towards saving people, I’m talking about his complete lack of care to the thousands who did die from the event. No remorse or even acknowledgement is shown afterwards.

  • HunterOfTROLLZ

    One child, family or innocent…
    Such as, just before the group Clark saves from Zod, by breaking his neck…
    Would have been enough emotional impact, done right.
    We know Zack can do it. He did it with Johnathan’s dad, in the hurricane.

  • Steve Croft

    Possibly because they didn’t have any scenes actually showing that… that’s probably why. Just because there wasn’t a scene showing it, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. They didn’t show a scene of him sleeping either, doesn’t mean he never does?

  • 7992

    Usually I get pissed when fanboys say snyders full of shit, but snyders full of shit, a politicians answer if their ever was one!

  • Darren William Kyle

    Is the article writer ripping into Snyder because he doesn’t like that in a film with super powered alien beings making war on our planet results in thousands of imaginary non-existent human beings not dying? Because it sure sounds like a load of crap argument to me.

    This film was better for it. Watching the old Supes’ films was good, but no-one ever really got hurt so the sense of danger was always missing. This time it wasn’t/

  • sircadlab

    what an incredibly dumb justification for being going the Michael Bay mindless action route. This is the lamest “I meant to do it” I have ever heard. Zack you’re simply not that good, sorry

  • Hephaestus1

    In that case, why show Lois and Clark sharing a kiss? We can assume that since they flirted a couple times, it happened anyway, right?

    Why show Superman snapping Zod’s neck? We can assume that since he wouldn’t let a family die and Zod isn’t in the next scene, it happened anyway, right?

    Why show Pa Kent’s death? Since he isn’t in any scenes outside of flashbacks, we can assume that’s what happened anyway, right?

    Are you seeing a pattern?

  • KaiChen

    I’m sorry Man Of Steel wasn’t Power Rangers that half the city grets destroyed but everyone is magically safe. A superpowered military-trained alien squad was on a warpath to terraform the entire planet. Such as life, wars do have causalities. Or do you believe in Avengers, nobody died? If that much destruction befell upon New Youk, hundreds of thousands would have died. In Man Of Steel at least they had some time to evacuate.

  • KaiChen

    Because those elements were crucial to the narrative?

  • KaiChen

    So what’s your complaint? Lack of drama or excess? Or you’re just going to criticize it either way? I thought so.

  • KaiChen

    Clark was rather proactive and genuine. He wasn’t the brooding type. He was warm with Lois, With his mother. He had a light sense of humor.

  • KaiChen

    A story should always be self contained. Why? Harry Potter movies, Lord of The Rings Movies, the original Star Wars, they all seem quite good and are beloved. In fact, speaking of Star Wars, Empire Strikes Back is the least self-contained (and has no real ending) and yet is considered the best of the bunch.

  • Hephaestus1

    Can’t it be both? When you have a movie that strives to be weighty and realistic for most of it’s running time, you can’t cop out on that seriousness when it’s most needed.

  • Hephaestus1

    You do realize you’re essentially proving my point, right? The fact that MOS is significantly weightier than The Avengers or Power Rangers, makes it even more troubling when the destruction isn’t acknowledged.

  • Hephaestus1

    And the deaths of thousands aren’t, when the main character is shown to care so much about humanity?

  • KaiChen

    To me that fact action had serious consequences made that movie much better. Otherwise, it would have felt like Power Pangers or most movies, where nothing really was ever at stake or had any consequence. I also like the fact that Superman was smart enough to know he had to stop Zod from terraforming the entire planet and not just save individual people, a mistake most movies make, where the hero puts everyone else at risk to save this or that person.

    This was war and that is what war is like. Zod was getting more and more powerful, more and more dangerous and that made the ending that much more satisfying. Clark didn’t kill Zod just because. He killed Zod because there was no other way. And doing so was painful, not fun and cool, like the death of Zod in the theatrical run of Superman 2.

    I understand you may have not enjoyed the movie. From what I have seen, Man Of Steel is one of those “love it or hate it”, polarizing kind of films. Unlike Singer, Snyder and Goyer did not play it safe. They made some bold choices, which some admired and some hated. And I applaud that, because nowadays most movies area bland corporate formula, trying to avoid any issues or nerves, being predictable and trying to find a boring common denominator. I heard people literally scream when he killed Zod at the theather and I was speechless. It was such a powerful scene! And, to me Snyder explanation does make sense. American movies and comics have been playing it safe. Everyone comes back from death. Everyone is safe. Crazy car-robots destroy several cities across the globe and it feels everyone is magically safe… But if you look at stories film-makers, writers and storytellers craft in other cultures, people do die, get hurt and not everybody gets out alive.

    Finally, was Clark/Superman a flawed character, like you put it? Probably yes, which was the best thing for this movie. Superman is usually too perfect, too bland (watch Returns) and see a character make mistakes, be in over his head and not always know what to do allows for a much more enriching character arch, where one is allotted enough space to grow. The Clark at the end of the film was vastly different from the one in the beginning. You can’t really say that about Donner’s film, for instance.

  • KaiChen

    No, it wasn’t.

    Where telling Clark’s story. Not John Doe’s, who tragically died, hit by falling debris. We just don’t care, as an audiece. And I can illustrate.

    Titanic originally was over four hours long. They ded screening with audiences to pinpoint what to cut out. You can watch these deleted scenes on blu-ray and DVD. Surprisingly, quite a lot of them are during the sinking, with plenty of action. And most of them show the fate of various characters we met in the movie, what was going on in different parts of the ship. Who real life characters made it or died. And no one cared about them. At that point, they cared about jack and Rose. Not The telegraphers. Not how Carl’s minion get a bloody forehead. Not who was that elderly people dying.

    If Snyder had intercut the action with these scenes you propose, he would have ruined the pace. If he had dumped them in the end, it would be a downer and destroy the film. Moreover, Superman is not Jesus. It’s not his responsibility to save every single person. Zod was the one initiating the events that caused the deaths. Superman was just trying his best to stop him.

    Anyway, The Dark Knight is also a gritty movie. Many of times Batman’s actions cause accidents and explosions where realistically, people would have died. That film, which is very beloved, did not acknowledge that either. And no one cared.

  • KaiChen

    A lot of people around the world today were violentely raped and murdered. Have you cried? Have you acknowledged them yet? Paid your respects? Sure Clark didn’t seem to be joyful and smiling about the carnage, but it’s not like he has to cry over every single person who dies. When firefighters save most people from a burning building, do you praise them or shame them for not saving everybody? That is your flawed logic.

  • jamthemaj

    Exactly!

  • jamthemaj

    Kaichen answered you perfectly already in most of these respects. I agree with him. I will say this though.. Man of Steel was fantastic in its own accord, but at the same time, it leaves things open. A movie like this should, as did The Empire Strikes Back. The scenes your clamoring for would have ruined the narrative and pacing of the film. It wouldn’t have fit. The kiss that lasted all but 6 seconds didn’t make Supes look bad. He saved the woman he loves, just like he saved the world from utter destruction. He sacrificed his heritage for his love of humanity.

    It’s cool that you didn’t like the movie. I have no qualms with that whatsoever. I just disagree with your analysis of the film. Have a good holiday weekend, Hep!

  • dark 00

    If Luthor finds the dna on the crashed ship then it should be bizzarro/ if its kyrptonite he should create metallo. Metallo would eventually be smashed up and arrested ( no more loss of life from Supes) but doesn’t realise Batman has observed the battle.

    Batman could then obtain some kryptonite, build himself kryptonite toe- capped boots and kick Superman’s a%%! (maybe create a gif and upload to the batcom?)

    Luthor now knows supes weakness and continues to GM and experiment (creating other villains part 3) maybe if Luthor finds the green kryptonite, bats could use the red?

    The key i think is to use batman the way joker was used in TDK. Joker had no backstory and was a force of nature appearing in different scenes to cause mayhem, batman should appear in similar circumstances the same way to fight criminals. Picture bats gliding down off a roof, appearing beneath the flickering street lights whilst surrounded by the exploded smoke capsules (like the mask of Phantasm).

    He could also be used to further the plot as he would be the main one to to investigate leads (good op for comparison supes asks workers during the day/ batman sneaks in at night.)

  • Hephaestus1

    Once again, I’m not suggesting that superman should break down and cry, but there should be at least SOME acknowledgement that thousands of people were killed in that event. If a movie’s going to paint a character as a Christ-like figure, you can’t just have him uncaring to such a large death toll that he’s partially responsible for. He’s Superman for God’s sake. Even a movie as cheesy as the Avengers had a short sequence showing a memorial to those who died, when the damage done was infinitely less than in MOS.

  • Hephaestus1

    “To me that fact action had serious consequences made that movie much better.”

    But there were no consequences for those actions. Clark makes out with Lois in the middle of a graveyard. They joke about Human/Alien relationships around scorched ground and bodies! The army is basically told to fuck off by Superman, when in their eyes, he’s at least partially responsible for the alien invasion. And the last scene in the movie is set in the Daily Planet like nothing happened.

    Nobody cares!!! This is basically Hiroshima in one of the largest cities in the world, and it’s swept under the rug like it’s nothing! You said it yourself. This movie is different from most blockbusters. The stakes and damages are higher. But if there’s no consequence, what’s the point? What difference does it make that so many deaths are shown, when nobody gives a damn about them anyway? It’s pointless. If you reduced the collateral to three or four people, there’d be no difference, and that’s a problem. Very irresponsible on Snyder’s part.

  • Hephaestus1

    “We’re telling Clark’s story. Not John Doe’s”

    And Clark Kent is SUPERMAN. The whole point of his character in comics AND in the movie, is that he cares about humanity, and wants to do his best for it. I’m not saying Snyder should’ve shown each and every person killed tragically during the invasion. I’m just asking for ONE SCENE AFTER THE ACTION, where they embraced that such a large scale tragedy occurred. That didn’t happen.

  • Hephaestus1

    A minute long memorial sequence would’ve sufficed. The Avengers, a much lighter toned movie in comparison, gave us that at least, when there was infinitely less death and destruction depicted in it.

  • KaiChen

    Man, you have your opinion and it seems you’ll just stick to it. No matter what I’ll say, you’ll just retort it. Fine, I respect that. After all, I myself said Snyder and Goyer took a shot, forwent the safe routes and delivered a polarizing movie you either love or hate. Your case is clearly the later and you have made yourself clear on why, very eloquently, to everyone.

    Good for you. Truly, no sarcasm.

    Your opinions (and neither mine) are facts though. I love the movie and I get what Snyder meant with these comments he recently made. You do not. So let’s just agree on disagreeing. We both made our points, I found your arguments valid and well based. Still, I do not agree, after carefully consideration. I get where you are coming from. Some people just want a squeaky clean, no harm, no foul movie. Other people just want a Superman movie to be more faithful to comics (although Snyder’s isn’t that far off from The New 52, where Superman has killed as well, he did take several liberties, completely changing Lois and Clark’s dynamics, for instance). Some want a movie more in line with Donner’s work. Finally, there are those who just did not enjoy the movie and period. None of that makes the movie either good or bad, both highly subjective concepts. So you may give up on passing your opinion as a fact.

    Again, you made your point, loud and clear and contributed greatly on the discussion of the topic, which is what a talkback is for. Nevertheless, from now on, whatever we say, we will just repeat ourselves.

    Thank you for your time and thoughts. You’re clearly passionate and articulate and that’s more than we usually get on talkbacks.

  • KaiChen

    As I have said, such scene amid battle would ruin the pace and at the end would make the movie an unsatisfying downer. Also, this is a new movie. It’s a new interpretation. Clark is just a more introspective character. He did not completely break down when his own father died. Finally, if I had just saved the entire planet, I would feel a certain sense of acomplhishment. As I said before, if we followed your line of thought, instead of prasing firefighters as heroes, we would be constantly shaming them for not being able to save everyone…

  • Steve Croft

    Not really. Your points actually strengthen exactly what I said…

  • Hephaestus1

    “Just because there wasn’t a scene showing it, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen”

    What am I missing here?

  • Hephaestus1

    “such scene amid battle would ruin the pace and at the end would make the movie an unsatisfying downer.”

    I repeat; AFTER THE ACTION. Not while it’s happening. The aftermath, dude. There wasn’t any.

    And I don’t think the firefighter analogy really relates to this. I never said Superman should’ve been able to save everyone. I said that he didn’t care about all the death’s that he’s partially responsible for. There’s nothing in the movie that shows such.

  • Hephaestus1

    “So you may give up on passing your opinion as a fact.”

    Please, don’t be condescending. If you want to agree to disagree, that’s fine with me. But I can likely say the same things about you from the other direction.

    You have your opinion. I have mine. If neither of us will budge, that’s cool too. At the end of the day, we’re just talking about movies after all.

  • KaiChen

    Had you cared to read, I did explain that if said scene took place AFTER THE ACTION, at the end, it “would make the movie an unsatisfying downer”. Why respond if you don’t read what I write? Well, I ask myself now why I bother… My mistake.

  • KaiChen

    I wasn’t condescending, I was quite gracious. I misinterpreted your intentions it’s just because of the relentless manner in which you retort each and every thing people say about the film that does not paint it in the same light you see it. That attitude makes you come across as if you were forcing your opinion as a fact.

    Also the fact you seem to ignore what people say on the whole and hang onto single sentences out of context. Had you read what I had to say previously, I paid you several compliments and was quite courteous, wasn’t I?

    Since you do not appreciate that, don’t worry, I won’t bother with any manners next time around, so I can address you in the harsh tone you decided to take.

  • flinky bollockhead

    Perfect outcome to the zod invasion, best superman film i’ve ever seen and the only one i could take seriously. Well done snyder.

  • Steve Croft

    Logic? A point? A cohesive idea? I mean you’re whining there wasn’t a memorial scene for gods sake lol. Jesus christ, how ridiculous, you’re the kind of viewer who needs *everything* spoonfed to them.

  • jamthemaj

    Completely agreed!

  • jamthemaj

    Yeah but I didn’t like that scene in The Avengers for the very reasons I’m glad a similar scene didn’t appear in Man of Steel. It was cheesy, and it didn’t fit.

  • Some Guy

    Well said, Hephaestus, although considering the nature of the comments you’re getting, you should probably consider changing your avatar’s name to Sisyphus.

    Superman would have made some kind of acknowledgement towards the people he could not save. The whole point of Superman’s character is not that he is super-strong, it’s that he is super HUMANE.

    He is not a saint (and I wouldn’t want to see him portrayed that way), but the whole point he became Superman was to help people.

    Otherwise he just comes off as some super-powered Rambo beating people up with no interest in the consequences of his actions.

  • Hephaestus1

    Harsh tone? Where? And how in any way more than what you’ve replied back to me? Don’t get so defensive dude. No matter what the disagreement, I’ve never attacked you, just your argument. That’s true of any debate. Don’t think that because I reply back to a certain part of your post, it means that I haven’t read it’s entirety. I just try to assert my argument concisely, that’s all. And honestly, I could say the same towards you. How many times did I have to repeat that I didn’t care that Supes saved everyone, but that he didn’t care about the death toll.

  • Hephaestus1

    And you’re apparently fine with whatever product’s given to you. For the last time, I’m not asking for something excessive. Just a brief scene after the action where ANY characters acknowledge the extent of the destruction/death in Metropolis. Both The Avengers and Batman Begins did it in brief scenes, and they had WAY less damage done overall. Why couldn’t MOS do the same with it’s much “darker”, “realistic” tone?

    You said that a scene didn’t need to be shown for it to have happened, so tell me why those other scenes I mentioned should’ve been kept in the movie?

  • Hephaestus1

    And yet I did add; “Even if a scene of lament did end the movie in a downer, at least that would be honest.”

  • Hephaestus1

    Thank you, Some Guy. I’ve never had a problem with Supes congratulating himself at the end of the movie, I just thought it was funny that he held himself to no fault either. I couldn’t have said it better with the “Super-Humane” comment. There isn’t a hero out there as kind or as loving towards humanity as Superman. The movie even paints him as such, but then has him forget that thousands are dead, and that it’s partially his fault. Snyder was going for a weighty Superman movie that didn’t play it safe, but it actually would’ve been more daring if he acknowledged the extent of this mass tragedy with the characters, as opposed to tossing it aside like nothing happened. Any superhero movie could do that. Hell, much LIGHTER superhero movies have given more weight to the collateral than anything we see in MOS.

    But then that’s actually the least of my problems with MOS.

  • Hephaestus1

    But the thing is, It doesn’t have to be cheesy. Imagine the weight on the characters mind, knowing that thousands were killed, and that he’s partially to blame. If Superman never made it to earth, this mass slaughter would’ve never happened. The world would be a safer place without him. That alone leaves room for a really weighty sequence, with Supes questioning his place on earth and if he has a right to be here. In a skilled writer’s hands, anything is possible.

  • Fernando Yanmar Narciso

    a little tip to both him and joss whedom: DIRECT FILMS! DON’T FUCKIN’ TALK!

  • jamthemaj

    I totally agree that the themes you mention would make for a great story and they definitely should be explore, but I’m happy that they didn’t explore them at the end of the first. For me, it ended as it should have. I do hope that they explore all of that in the sequel, and going by the fact Batman is in it leads me to believe that they will. I’m of the opinion that Superman shouldn’t feel responsible… it’s not his fault that he was sent to Earth, and it’s not his fault that Zod found him there. However, people suffer the same kind of dilemmas all the time in real life, and he will too.

  • Hephaestus1

    Fair enough. While I think the movie could’ve been improved with some reflection on Metropolis, there may be some room for it in the sequel.

  • yomamabinfartin’

    MOS is not The Godfather! Bad comparison!

  • Steve Croft

    I’m not the one that needs to explain anything. You’re asking for a memorial scene for fictional characters. Do you even possibly comprehend how retarded that is? lol. At all???

  • Hephaestus1

    You got that right.

  • Hephaestus1

    Except I’m not. All I wanted was a small sequence or line of dialogue that reflected on what happened. The movie goes from 9/11 style destruction, to a happy-go-lucky ending, without any transition. If you’re okay with that, that’s fine with me. I just want my “realistic” Superman movie to be a lot less hollow.

  • Chris

    The gravity weapon did the majority of the destruction in MOS. Sure, the fight between them definitely caused destruction as well, but not nearly as much as the weapon. I don’t know why there’s so much criticism against Superman, considering he saved the world. What’s more important, 129,000 citizens in Metropolis, or the billions of people across the world? I think that’s an easy answer.

  • Storymark

    I am totally with what you’re saying – but to some, just the fact that there was big, comic-level destruction means the whole film is beyond any critical analysis.

  • KaiChen

    Damn straight!

  • KaiChen

    You have been rude and offensive. Maybe it’s the cultural diference. In Brazil, we just don’t take rude and offensive in stride. And if you can’t see it, after how I went out of my way to be gracious, polite and find good things to say about you- no easy task, your mom has just failed you miserably when it comes to politeness and interpersonal relationships. And also have your teachers at reading comprehension, if you ignore the whole of what we say that actually address all of your petty and illogical complaints and single out phrases out of context.

    Either way, Man of Steel will have a sequel. Go on. That’s good news, right? You can still complain about how awful it was and offend people left and right, while all the involved laugh all the way to the bank and audiences still make these movies #1.

    Sorry Superman won’t ignore that he saved billions while a few thousand die and cry like a baby over every single death of everyone he never even ever met. I’m sure you’ve cried over the 100,000 plus civilians killed in Iraq comprared to measle 3,000 Americans on 9/11. 100,00 which had nothing to do with those 3,000 deaths…

    Either way, MoS was a 600,000,000 movie and it will have a sequel. Feel free to not attend.

  • Hephaestus1

    You have been rude and offensive

    And yet…

    So what’s your complaint? Lack of drama or excess? Or you’re just going to criticize it either way? I thought so.

    What did I do up to this point, besides make criticisms against a Hollywood movie, that would warrant such negativity against me. Please, point it out.

    This is the defensiveness I’m talking about. When I lay out my criticisms for a movie you like, you attack me. When you can’t prove my point as wrong, you attack me. When I point out that you’re attacking me, you attack me. At this point, your act is just coming off as childish. By all means, insult my mother, whatever country I live in, or the professors that taught me. It’s no bother to me. At the end of the day, I know I didn’t have to resort to bitter insults or accusations to get my point across.

    Sorry Superman won’t ignore that he saved billions while a few thousand die and cry like a baby over every single death of everyone he never even ever met. I’m sure you’ve cried over the 100,000 plus civilians killed in Iraq comprared to measle 3,000 Americans on 9/11. 100,00 which had nothing to do with those 3,000 deaths…

    And yet you still can’t tell me how an ending where thousands of people dead are swept under a rug, could be called anything more than shallow.

  • Hephaestus1

    Unfortunately that might be the case for some. I don’t mind mindless destruction in a Hollywood blockbuster, just as long as it’s honest.

  • nar

    superman’s character wasn’t developed. look at begins…wayne has his arc and is developed. look at IM…stark has his arc and is fully developed…same with captain america and thor…we knew these characters by the end of the film…cheese or not we knew who they were and what made them tick…if there were no sequels those films would stand on their own…this is a new take on the superman that we know and he was one of the least developed character in the movie…bad writing…

    it’s a ridiculous statement to say superman is not a jesus-like character. the entire mythology is based on a being sending his only son to protect, save and serve as an ideal for humanity.

    please listen to jor-el’s speech again…

    http://youtu.be/eWP4LFJdx2E

    in mos superman was emotionally inconsistent…and his lack of empathy after all that death and destruction flies in the face of the reason why he was sent to earth…

  • KaiChen

    Yes, I can. I have. I have extensively explained it and even used Titanic’s final cut as an example of how audiences do not care. You ignore all of that, cherry pick sentences out of context and just try to shove your opinion down my throat, even when I paid you compliments and asked politely to agree on disagreeing.

    Go on. Your rudeness, your obnoxiousness just make your arguments, which are already flimsy and contradictory (you can’t settle on whether the film was too dramatic or not enough, for instance), less appealing.

    By the way, Snyder and Goyer are great artists, because what they put out, no matter if you liked it or not, is something you can’t stop discussing and has on your mind even months after its release. That thought-provoking kind of work is art. Bad movies, we just forget. I sure did not waste any second debating how Transformers 3 was awfuk…

  • Hephaestus1

    No you did not. You said that with Titanic, the audience wouldn’t have cared about the side characters or aftermath anyway, and yet the entire ending has Rose reflecting on the tragedy. The last shot of the movie is of her dreaming about all those characters who were lost. Not just Jack.

    You go on about me taking your points out of context, when in reality I’m just focusing on the parts that relate to the topic. I don’t care about Superman snapping Zod’s neck. I don’t care that he couldn’t save everyone. I don’t care how MOS Clark is different from Donner’s. That’s never what I was talking about, and I’ve said that repeatedly, yet you continued going on with your off topic rants.

    And please, stop with the “You were rude” comments until you can answer this question that you’ve dodged twice now:

    So what’s your complaint? Lack of drama or excess? Or you’re just going to criticize it either way? I thought so.

    “What did I do up to this point, besides make criticisms against a Hollywood movie, that would warrant such negativity against me? Please, point it out.”

  • Hephaestus1

    “(you can’t settle on whether the film was too dramatic or not enough, for instance)”

    *Sigh*

    Can’t it be both? When you have a movie that strives to be weighty and realistic for most of it’s running time, you can’t cop out on that seriousness when it’s most needed.

    More…

    You said it yourself. This movie is different from most blockbusters. The stakes are higher, the damages are higher. But if there’s no result from them, what’s the point? What difference does it make that so many people are dead, when no one gives a damn about them anyway? If you reduced the collateral damage to three or four people killed, nothing would be changed. That’s problematic when you have a film that strives for a more ‘Dark’, ‘Realistic’ take on Superman.

    From my response to SteveCroft…

    The movie goes from 9/11 style destruction to a happy-go-lucky ending, without any transition.

  • KaiChen

    “What did I do up to this point, besides make criticisms against a Hollywood movie, that would warrant such negativity against me? Please, point it out.”

    I just pointed your inconsistency and the fact you just were hell-bent on criticizing it. There was no ofense in that al all.

    You know, what, whatever. I prefer to discuss with people interested on the dialog itself, not people who ignore what everyone else has to say and just repeat themselves non-stop. There’s no back and forth with you, just your monologues and rants. You opinion is formed, it doesn’t seem it will change, and you have made yourself clear many times. Why just state it again and again? I even asked you to agree on disagreeing, but you are just getting more and more nonsensical.

    We get it. You don’t like the movie. And you have told the world why Go watch another movie that you may like instead of weirdly obsessing over one you don’t, chasing down anyone who has enjoyed it and expresses their opinion.

    I ask again: let’s stop this conversation. If you want to reply to this post, please, reply to yourself, in your own mind. I have no interest in your ramblings anymore. I lo longer wish to engage in any sort of dialog with you.

    If it makes you happy, take it that you “won”. Do a happy dance. Scream “who-hoo”! Whaterver it is that you do that makes you feel special.

  • KaiChen

    “What did I do up to this point, besides make criticisms against a Hollywood movie, that would warrant such negativity against me? Please, point it out.”

    There’s nothing offensive in that. It just pointed out the inconsistency of your argument and you insistense on criticizing the movie.

    You know, what, whatever. I prefer to discuss with people interested on the dialog itself, not people who ignore what everyone else has to say and just repeat themselves non-stop. There’s no back and forth with you, just your monologues and rants. You opinion is formed, it doesn’t seem it will change, and you have made yourself clear many times. Why just state it again and again? I even asked you to agree on disagreeing, but you are just getting more and more nonsensical.

    We get it. You don’t like the movie. And you have told the world why Go watch another movie that you may like instead of weirdly obsessing over one you don’t, chasing down anyone who has enjoyed it and expresses their opinion.

    I ask again: let’s stop this conversation. If you want to reply to this post, please, reply to yourself, in your own mind. I have no interest in your ramblings anymore. I lo longer wish to engage in any sort of dialog with you.

  • Hephaestus1

    There’s nothing offensive in that. It just pointed out the inconsistency of your argument and you insistense on criticizing the movie.

    Again proving my point. I never attacked you, just the movie, and yet you couldn’t restrain yourself from making a slight against me. Typical fanboy childishness.

    I even asked you to agree on disagreeing, but you are just getting more and more nonsensical.

    Yes, I remember how you wanted a compromise, while all the same attacking me for things that you were guilty of as well.

    chasing down anyone who has enjoyed it and expresses their opinion.

    And yet all of your posts are replies to me….

    I have no interest in your ramblings anymore. I lo longer wish to engage in any sort of dialog with you.

    Toodles!

  • Kaiju Jaeger

    Not to mention there is plenty of jobs now in Metropolis