Man of Steel

[johnnygobbs]

If you present your POV in a diplomatic, matter-of-fact way rather than as a prelude to a debate then I'm sure they'll be no need for any confrontations.

Ah, I see. So you can ask about or say whatever you like but the burden is on me to be "civil". Got it. So hmm, I don't think I'll answer your question.

Joker can do as he likes.

No, the burden is on all of us to be civil.

Heck, if you want to turn your answer into a political point be my guest.  I won't take any umbrage since I asked the question.  Even if I don't agree with whatever answer you give I will refrain from arguing since as I state, I asked the question and am, or at least was, genuinely interested in your answer from an entirely objective POV rather than as a prelude to a debate.  Not everything has to be an argument. 

My only concern when I made the point about being civil was about avoiding posting anything that would get any of our posts deleted for infringing the forum rules or whatever.  That point applies to all of us but in all honesty, over the last few weeks you and I are the two posters most likely of falling foul of the rules so I just wanted to ensure that we both agree to abide by them.  Not for my sake but to avoid any of our posts getting deleted again.  I don't see what's unreasonable or unfair about that.

[thecolorsblend]

My only concern when I made the point about being civil was about avoiding posting anything that would get any of our posts deleted for infringing the forum rules or whatever.

There's the rub. I believe Ral has modified the rules to eliminate political discussion. My answer to the worldview thing partially incorporates a political angle. Even if I was inclined to answer your question (and I'm not, btw), I couldn't do so in full without running afoul of his rule.

That point applies to all of us but in all honesty, over the last few weeks you and I are the two posters most likely of falling foul of the rules so I just wanted to ensure that we both agree to abide by them.

If we abide by his rules, we can't get political.

Not for my sake but to avoid any of our posts getting deleted again.  I don't see what's unreasonable or unfair about that.

Nor do I. But it's not my rule; it's his.

But let's not kid ourselves, even if he suspended the rule this one time, I'm still not answering your question.

[johnnygobbs]

Well you could always pm me your answer.  Like I stated, I am interested to read your analysis, and that of other posters on this site for that matter.

I hope your reason for not answering my question is nothing personal against me (despite our differences I don't see why we can't all get along - we're not BOF or the IMDb - we're more reasonable than those guys) and is simply just your concern about falling foul of the rules.  If it's the latter reason I sympathise with your POV.  Even though I was being genuine when I stated that I was prepared to read your views without commenting (thus avoiding any debate/argument) it is probably for the best that we don't infringe Ral's sensible rules about politics/religion firstly as a matter of principle and secondly because another poster might not be so willing to refrain from arguing.

[thecolorsblend]

I've given you my answer. And I think we've derailed this thread quite enough.

Right now, Man of Steel is sitting pretty at $282 million in the US and $620 million worldwide (according to Box Office Mojo). I suppose MOS will finally land somewhere around $290 million domestically and, oh, maybe $650 worldwide (that last is a guess based on no data whatsoever). When MOS first came out, haters aplenty were complaining about what a flop it is. Heh. The movie cost $225 million to make. It has (far) exceeded that number both domestically and internationally. That's not a flop. That's the textbook definition of success, in fact.

Go Singerman's numbers from 2006. Go on, I'll wait. You back now? See what I mean? THAT is a flop. It didn't earn back its production budget in either territory. Apologists love saying "it grossed $400 million worldwide", as if production costs mean nothing. News flash: When your movie has an actual budget between $220 and $240 million, you need to hit at least $450 million worldwide. Singerman was nowhere near that even after four months in theaters. MOS? It passed that mark shortly after Weekend #2.

White House Down, The Lone Ranger, Pacific Rim? Those are flops. Some people doubt some of those will even break $100 million domestically. They sound like they're smarter than me so I'll roll with it.

But anybody who's ashamed of Man of Steel's numbers should have his head examined.

[johnnygobbs]

There's no need for me to check MOS's numbers.  I'm a box-office nerd and I've seen the numbers.  It's the second biggest film of the year so far and in view of the competition for the rest of the year I don't suspect that position will change by much (the second Hobbit film which is one of the few remaining guaranteed blockbusters still to be released this year might, although the first film did slightly disappointing business last year and MOS is currently only about $20 million short of that film with a good few weeks/months left on release).  Whatever one thinks about the film, and for the most part I genuinely like it even though I'm nowhere near as enthusiastic as some posters on this thread, it's clearly a hit.  Also, I'm certainly no big fan of Superman Returns, although once again I don't hate it half as much as many posters here.  On balance I'd say MOS is a comprehensively superior movie to Superman Returns even if I don't consider either film to be a 'classic'.

It's still a pity that you don't want to answer my question though since it was asked in all sincerity and without malice.

[The Joker]

What is it about this Superman that corresponds with your world view colors, and Joker (assuming you agree), particularly in contrast to some of  the other ways Superman has been presented on film?

Since I have something else on the brain (to which I'll be posting about in another thread shortly), I'll just say that much of my affinity for MOS boils down to the film presenting a take that is (A) undoubtedly for a new generation, and (B) one that perhaps broke down the popular misconception that the character, is, and always has been in the past, submitted in a certain light. And from a audience perspective, it appears to be a very successful approach as well. As I recall following the film's release, and subsequently posting positively about it, some posters in this thread appeared to have a already preconceived negative view of MOS due to, I suppose, the critical backlash the film was met with following it's release (just too lazy to go back and be specific). Even going to the extent, i think, of saying such and such was a red flag because whoever did a review, and liked it. 

I'm not a MOS-hater but I'm not entirely comfortable with all the mindless destruction at the end of the film.  I don't think obliterating half of Metropolis to shreds was a necessary sacrifice for the 'greater good'.

Collateral mass property damage is an inherent part of superhero combat. And a logical consequence when you have a couple of physical gods go at it in an urban area. This is however, the best, most realistically portrayed example in live action movies that I've ever seen.

[johnnygobbs]

I'm not a MOS-hater but I'm not entirely comfortable with all the mindless destruction at the end of the film.  I don't think obliterating half of Metropolis to shreds was a necessary sacrifice for the 'greater good'.

Collateral mass property damage is an inherent part of superhero combat. And a logical consequence when you have a couple of physical gods go at it in an urban area. This is however, the best, most realistically portrayed example in live action movies that I've ever seen.

Realistically though, it wasn't just mass property damage.  Surely there were casualties in the destruction, perhaps even several deaths.  I didn't get a feeling that Superman had done everything he could to remove the conflict from such a built-up area.

[The Joker]

Realistically though, it wasn't just mass property damage.  Surely there were casualties in the destruction, perhaps even several deaths.  I didn't get a feeling that Superman had done everything he could to remove the conflict from such a built-up area.

A lot of people lay the blame for the destruction of the brawl on Supes, because we didn't get scenes of him sweeping and clearing the area before the battle with Zod, or taking the fight to Jupiter or something, rather than placing it upon Zod...which seems odd. This Zod, by the time of the final battle, is enraged, and much more aggressive. Which is clearly displayed by just the way he goes up buildings, which is akin to something like a rabid bulldog. And if you know anything about combat, when your opponent is being aggressive, you don't have as much time to plan and think, you have to be on your toes constantly to survive. That being said, and with this Superman being for a extremely short amount of time, I thought it was a valid interpretation of such a battle, and the 'collateral damage' being honest.

[thecolorsblend]

It's still a pity that you don't want to answer my question though since it was asked in all sincerity and without malice.

[johnnygobbs]

Realistically though, it wasn't just mass property damage.  Surely there were casualties in the destruction, perhaps even several deaths.  I didn't get a feeling that Superman had done everything he could to remove the conflict from such a built-up area.

A lot of people lay the blame for the destruction of the brawl on Supes, because we didn't get scenes of him sweeping and clearing the area before the battle with Zod, or taking the fight to Jupiter or something, rather than placing it upon Zod...which seems odd. This Zod, by the time of the final battle, is enraged, and much more aggressive. Which is clearly displayed by just the way he goes up buildings, which is akin to something like a rabid bulldog. And if you know anything about combat, when your opponent is being aggressive, you don't have as much time to plan and think, you have to be on your toes constantly to survive. That being said, and with this Superman being for a extremely short amount of time, I thought it was a valid interpretation of such a battle, and the 'collateral damage' being honest.

Of course it's Zod's fault.  Nobody is saying it isn't.  But he's the bad guy.  He's attempting to obliterate an entire species so it's what we'd expect from him.  Superman is the hero so unfortunately the onus does fall on him and take the fight elsewhere if he can.  I could understand if Zod was using the population of Metropolis as pawns and daring Superman to come in and save them, like when Zod, Ursa and Non toy with the bus passengers in 'Superman 2' but I didn't get the impression that this was happening on this occasion.

I'll level with you.  I'm probably not as avid an expert on the comic-books as you but I always saw Superman as being an advocate of less extreme means of justice, something which had gotten him and Batman into conflict on many occasions, and yet here under the aegis of Christopher Nolan we have a Batman who emphatically doesn't kill (of course in practice he does, but the speechifying in the TDK trilogy keeps trying to tell us he doesn't) and conversely a Superman who does kill and seemingly has minimal regard for collateral loss of lives.  Seeing as Superman is an alien, and a guest on our planet, his strong convictions about not wanting to harm human beings makes sense in contrast to Batman/Bruce Wayne who was damaged at an early age by the actions of a fellow human and thus learned to be wary and suspicious of most people, in contrast to Clark Kent who was raised by two loving adoptive parents, his first contacts from Earth.  Since Zod is a fellow Kryptonian, I have less issues with Superman taking his life at the end even though I had hoped that we'd at least start the franchise with a more optimistic and positive (i.e. non-killing) portrayal of Superman with room to move into possibly darker territory as the series progressed.