Episode 730

[RSS]

Ian Wilson debuts a brand new spin-off for Comic Reel-lief: The Soapbox. Allowing a guest the chance to dictate a conversation about a comic book movie in spoilerific terms, the very first Soapbox is used to discuss Man of Steel, as well as A Good Day to Die Hard for some reason. Moreover, the very first Soapbox marks the return of Adham Fisher. [ 1:44:30 || 50.5 MB ]

To listen, click here: http://www.earth-2.net/theshow/episodes/e2ts_730.mp3

[Venneh]

About halfway through. Wilson, you are a masochist, aren't you? Also, welcome back, Adham.

[slothian]

I had port with which to sustain me. Strong stuff, but obviously necessary.

[Donomark]

DAMN, looking forward to hearing this!

[Donomark]

"Roger Mortis". Dear GOD, that killed me!

After listening to the episode guys, I'd like to say this. While my feelings towards Man of Steel are closer towards your own, I feel it's a bit short-sighted to characterize the majority of the criticism on people who just wanted a Chris Reeve film. While there's certainly more than a fair share of those that did, I think generally speaking there was more wrong with the movie in terms of what people went into it than just a failure to live up to expectations based on assumptions based on nostalgia. The 55% on Rotten Tomatoes doesn't exactly register it as "Not like the Reeve films".

I think a large problem with the film is tone. Whilst it can be looked at as a reboot and re-imagining of sorts, the movie itself is almost completely humorless. The Krypton stuff is deservedly epic, but once things move to Earth there's still a sense of melancholy and displacement that kind of hangs itself over the film in a way that doesn't gel with the character. Comparing it to Batman Begins, Bruce has an idea of what he wants to do. He needs to work towards getting there. Clark wants to know where he comes from and how that determines his place in the world, and that's an absolutely valid bit of characterization. The presentation however makes things a bit more solemn and brooding in a way that feels inappropriate. Comparing Man of Steel to Batman Begins entirely, I'd say that Batman Begins was successful in that you come away from it feeling like it was 150% a Batman film. It had the aesthetics, the mood, the drama and the psychological underpinnings which felt "Batmany". How is Superman to be characterized in a new series of films? I think if you look back on what's worked and what hasn't, the filmmakers went with a more epic story, but as a result it came off as taking itself too seriously. When Batman shows up in Begins, you know he's gonna kick some ass and takeover the situation in a Batman-like manner, and even if/when he doesn't, it'll be a new and natural challenge for him to overcome. I think Man of Steel's script has it to where Clark is led around by the nose too often, where he's so unsure of what's going on that the majority of Cavill's dialogue has him just reacting to certain things.

Again to compare, Begins first sees Jesus Bale responding to a guy's threat by saying "You're practice". With an idea of who Batman is or will be, we see right away that Bruce is already mostly sure of what he wants. It characterizes him in accordance with an iconic view of the character of Batman yet presents it through a new situation (by having him in jail). We first see Clark save a ship which is totally "Supermany", yet when things slow down we see him drift about looking sullen and despondent. We know why he is and it makes sense, but it doesn't mesh with what we know or think/feel Superman as a character should be. He's so seemingly directionless that he never smiles. He keeps to himself and rarely meets people's gaze. It's a new take and one that makes sense within the confines of its universe and the confines of where Clark is in his life, but it doesn't feel like Superman, whereas at the start of Begins, despite Bruce first appearing in prison, it still felt like Batman (IMO).

And I think the opening Earth scene illustrates the overall tone of how the movie will be throughout. There's very little of an emotional range displayed by Clark or the characters throughout the movie. When Superman learns to fly and is gleeful for it, it's pretty much the only time we see him happy in the film. He smirks and is content in other scenes, but the range of emotions are far and few between. The feeling you get by the end is that this is a dark, violent, serious movie where serious things are happening and don't allow for any other types of expressions of emotion. Batman Begins is a dark film, but 1) Batman by nature is a dark character which makes the tone more appropriate than MoS, and 2) there's more variations of emotions displayed by the characters all through the film that you don't get bogged down by how dark it is. Pretty much everyone in the movie is happy, sad, angry, scared or determined at some point. In Man of Steel, does Lois smile once?

The Dark Knight and DK Rises are even darker films, but I'd still say that the ranges of emotion are more varied than those in Man of Steel's.

I'm not a film critic, and there are plenty of those who've dissected Man of Steel through videos easily found online. But when I hear the complaints people had with the movie, while they didn't affect me as much I do understand them. Superman's absolutely a character than can be taken in different directions (although less so than in Batman I feel), but at the end of the day I think whatever he's in needs to still feel like Superman. The Animated series didn't resemble the Reeve films, yet felt like Superman. Smallville (which got better in the final three seasons) stuck the landing at the end of the series and felt like Superman. Lois and Clark from what I remember (s'been a while) felt like Superman. Man of Steel from what I read was approached with a sci-fi film in mind, and while the characters' origins are science fiction in nature, that's not what the character is about. Why is Superman important in his world? What should we take away from Superman? I think the film was certainly earnest in what it was trying to do, but it also felt to me like they kind of balked at what they thought might scare away people with modern sensibilities if they approached Superman with a lighter touch than they did. They tried to make the character feel epic and important, but it kind of came off as them being stuck up their own ass and really wanting the Nolan approach to Batman to work for Superman. The two characters are not the same, so what works for one doesn't necessarily work for the other. I think that's what went wrong with the film, and I think it makes the concerns for "In the Case of Batman v. Superman" are honest and justified.

[slothian]

Gosh - I don't think anything I've ever done has provoked such a detailed response! Right then, we begin:

While my feelings towards Man of Steel are closer towards your own, I feel it's a bit short-sighted to characterize the majority of the criticism on people who just wanted a Chris Reeve film. While there's certainly more than a fair share of those that did, I think generally speaking there was more wrong with the movie in terms of what people went into it than just a failure to live up to expectations based on assumptions based on nostalgia. The 55% on Rotten Tomatoes doesn't exactly register it as "Not like the Reeve films".

Make no mistake, Man of Steel is flawed. As such, there are many things to draw upon as sources of criticism. That being said, the majority of reviews I have been exposed have sought to quantify these legitimate criticisms by making comparisons to other films. The Christopher Reeve Superman films is the most obvious example, but there were also comparisons to the Marvel Studios films to use as a "FUN!" contrast, and we mentioned in our discussion the comparison to Christopher Nolan's Batman films in terms of tone. I didn't mean to tar all people who weren't crazy about Man of Steel with the brush of just wanting a Christopher Reeve film, but I have seen some lazy dismissals of Man of Steel made on that basis.

And I don't think it's possible to read anything into sites with accumulated percentage scores, other than a general overview (ie/ largely positive/negative/mixed reactions). You have to read the individual reviews for precise opinions.

I think a large problem with the film is tone. Whilst it can be looked at as a reboot and re-imagining of sorts, the movie itself is almost completely humorless. The Krypton stuff is deservedly epic, but once things move to Earth there's still a sense of melancholy and displacement that kind of hangs itself over the film in a way that doesn't gel with the character.

I would have liked some more humour here and there, but where would it have been injected? If we agree that the destruction of Krypton quite rightly shouldn't be treated as a laugh-riot, where should Snyder have eased up on the melancholy. A happier childhood? Softening Lois Lane? More military banter? Probably not the final battle either. I'm not trying to put you on spot here, I just generally don't know if there was space in the film for a few fun lines given the story they were trying to tell. I don't know if that's bad writing/storytelling or alternatively commendable for not trying to water things down.

Comparing it to Batman Begins,

Uh oh...

Bruce has an idea of what he wants to do. He needs to work towards getting there. Clark wants to know where he comes from and how that determines his place in the world, and that's an absolutely valid bit of characterization. The presentation however makes things a bit more solemn and brooding in a way that feels inappropriate. Comparing Man of Steel to Batman Begins entirely, I'd say that Batman Begins was successful in that you come away from it feeling like it was 150% a Batman film. It had the aesthetics, the mood, the drama and the psychological underpinnings which felt "Batmany". How is Superman to be characterized in a new series of films? I think if you look back on what's worked and what hasn't, the filmmakers went with a more epic story, but as a result it came off as taking itself too seriously. When Batman shows up in Begins, you know he's gonna kick some ass and takeover the situation in a Batman-like manner, and even if/when he doesn't, it'll be a new and natural challenge for him to overcome. I think Man of Steel's script has it to where Clark is led around by the nose too often, where he's so unsure of what's going on that the majority of Cavill's dialogue has him just reacting to certain things.

Again to compare, Begins first sees Jesus Bale responding to a guy's threat by saying "You're practice". With an idea of who Batman is or will be, we see right away that Bruce is already mostly sure of what he wants. It characterizes him in accordance with an iconic view of the character of Batman yet presents it through a new situation (by having him in jail). We first see Clark save a ship which is totally "Supermany", yet when things slow down we see him drift about looking sullen and despondent. We know why he is and it makes sense, but it doesn't mesh with what we know or think/feel Superman as a character should be. He's so seemingly directionless that he never smiles. He keeps to himself and rarely meets people's gaze. It's a new take and one that makes sense within the confines of its universe and the confines of where Clark is in his life, but it doesn't feel like Superman, whereas at the start of Begins, despite Bruce first appearing in prison, it still felt like Batman (IMO).

And I think the opening Earth scene illustrates the overall tone of how the movie will be throughout. There's very little of an emotional range displayed by Clark or the characters throughout the movie. When Superman learns to fly and is gleeful for it, it's pretty much the only time we see him happy in the film. He smirks and is content in other scenes, but the range of emotions are far and few between. The feeling you get by the end is that this is a dark, violent, serious movie where serious things are happening and don't allow for any other types of expressions of emotion. Batman Begins is a dark film, but 1) Batman by nature is a dark character which makes the tone more appropriate than MoS, and 2) there's more variations of emotions displayed by the characters all through the film that you don't get bogged down by how dark it is. Pretty much everyone in the movie is happy, sad, angry, scared or determined at some point. In Man of Steel, does Lois smile once?

The Dark Knight and DK Rises are even darker films, but I'd still say that the ranges of emotion are more varied than those in Man of Steel's.

I don't disagree anything you've said in relation to Batman Begins and its storytelling. However, Adham and I were not seeking to make a direct comparison to it when talking about Man of Steel - I asked Adham if he saw similarities and he responded. If we HAD taken that approach, it would run the risk of descending into "I notice that Man of Steel didn't quite handle this aspect in quite the same way as Batman Begins did", and then we'd be talking about a film that is a) nearly 10 years old, b) a film that is more highly-regarded, and c) not what Adham had wanted to talk about in the first place. Also, though I think Zach Snyder is a perfectly capable director for blockbuster films, he's not on Nolan's level.

As to how Superman SHOULD be viewed, you make it quite clear where you stand on how you view Supes and his supporting cast. Its different to my view and the view of Adham, but that doesn't make it any less valid. I can only give my own subjective opinion and I teased a LOT out of Adham during that recording! To what extent smiling is an important Superman trope, I can't give an answer as someone who doesn't read comics much at all. I went in to my screening of Man of Steel willing to let a lot of things I held as "being" Superman go in the spirit of his universe being rebooted. As long as the origin boiled down to the foundations Grant Morrison-style (Doomed planet, last hope/son, raised by Kents etc), then it would still be recognisably the same character. There were missteps along the way, but ultimately, I liked what we ended up with. I could have done with re-watching the film before we recorded, in fact, but ultimately, I think the discussion turned out quite well. Or as well as discussions between Adham and I can turn out when drinking.

I'm not a film critic, and there are plenty of those who've dissected Man of Steel through videos easily found online. But when I hear the complaints people had with the movie, while they didn't affect me as much I do understand them. Superman's absolutely a character than can be taken in different directions (although less so than in Batman I feel), but at the end of the day I think whatever he's in needs to still feel like Superman. The Animated series didn't resemble the Reeve films, yet felt like Superman. Smallville (which got better in the final three seasons) stuck the landing at the end of the series and felt like Superman. Lois and Clark from what I remember (s'been a while) felt like Superman. Man of Steel from what I read was approached with a sci-fi film in mind, and while the characters' origins are science fiction in nature, that's not what the character is about. Why is Superman important in his world? What should we take away from Superman? I think the film was certainly earnest in what it was trying to do, but it also felt to me like they kind of balked at what they thought might scare away people with modern sensibilities if they approached Superman with a lighter touch than they did. They tried to make the character feel epic and important, but it kind of came off as them being stuck up their own ass and really wanting the Nolan approach to Batman to work for Superman. The two characters are not the same, so what works for one doesn't necessarily work for the other. I think that's what went wrong with the film, and I think it makes the concerns for "In the Case of Batman v. Superman" are honest and justified.

With respect to the bolded type, and I know a ton of people have done the same, but I dislike it when people project perceived motivations onto others, even when those others are key players in the American film industry. Save for when people openly admit to what their motivations are/were, it flat out isn't fair to declare them to have tried to have done something which they may not have done on the basis of outward appearance. Maybe its because I work in the law now, but I don't like assertions unless they can be backed up by hard evidence or are so overtly ridiculous that they are obviously false (and even then, I'm talking about comedy/satire rather than, say, Fred Phelps). I know Nolan was drafted in, but I have no evidence that Zach Snyder was commanded from on high to do a Nolan-esque film and take direct pointers from the man, just for the sake of being stuck up their own ass. Still, link me to an interview in which Snyder states that, and I will happily revise my position.

To paraphrase Victor Mature, I'm not a film critic, and I have 9 years of audio material to prove it! Ultimately, other people's opinions on a film does not affect my own enjoyment of that film. I welcome reasoned discourse - such as this! - when there are differences of opinion, and that is what the Soapbox has the potential to be. The irony is that on its debut, Adham and I talk about a film upon which we agree upon to a large extent! Had he talked about the greatness of Vampirella, then we would have had quite a different tone of discourse.

I hope that clarifies anything which may not have come across in the episode.

[Donomark]

You're right, my assertions on what Snyder had attempted to do with the movie were inferences I made and nothing more. I do totally get how that doesn't help anyone.

In terms of lightening things up, I would've definitely punched up more of Lois' scenes and given them more personality to bring humor out of. Her scenes with the military folks, and especially Perry. Lois really is that brash, cocky, "leap into things head first" kind of character where you can derive humor for it. I also would've contrasted the tough time Clark had at school with scenes of him being genuinely happy living with Jonathan and Martha. Something like that which showed at the end of the day he knows once he gets back to them, things will be okay (until he's 17 I guess). I got the sense that they were trying to keep things as un-watered down as they could, but even still like I said before, more instances of an emotional range I think could've easily been done.

I suppose at the end of the day the opinions on Man of Steel come down to how much leeway people were willing to give this new set of films and how much they enjoyed that new take....obviously. Superman is a lot more of a traditional character, more of a character for all ages so if nothing else the response to the movie really showed me how much people still care about him, despite worries to the contrary. A lot of the people who hated this movie (and this did lead to one of the biggest, bloodiest geek civil wars I have EVER seen in my life) really seemed to come at it with the sense that the character was done so wrongly, which shows me how much he's still beloved.