Why all this controvery about the Man of Steel ending *SPOILERS* | Page 4 | TigerDroppings.com

Posted byMessage
MasonTiger
LSU Fan
Mason, Ohio
Member since Jan 2005
8563 posts

re: Why all this controvery about the Man of Steel ending *SPOILERS*


The action was definitely better, I agree, and Cavill and Crowe did a fantastic job with their roles (Costner too). But for me the hand held type cinematography didn't seem to fit, and scenes just seemed to be too disconnected to make me feel anything for any of the characters. That said, I will probably give it another look to see if I like it any better.





Back to top
  Replies (0)
Hu_Flung_Pu
USA Fan
Central, LA
Member since Jan 2013
5704 posts

re: Why all this controvery about the Man of Steel ending *SPOILERS*


quote:

I kept wondering why Supes didn't get Zod out of the city at all cost.


I can't remember if I posted in this thread or another. The reason I stated was that Zod was a psychopath and wanted to end humanity. I believe he would have just tried to get back in the city and create the chaos like in the movie anyway.






Back to top
OMLandshark
Ole Miss Fan
Member since Apr 2009
39366 posts

re: Why all this controvery about the Man of Steel ending *SPOILERS*


quote:

I can't remember if I posted in this thread or another. The reason I stated was that Zod was a psychopath and wanted to end humanity. I believe he would have just tried to get back in the city and create the chaos like in the movie anyway.



Superman thrust him into space pretty easily though, and somehow manages to land back in Metropolis. The chances of them landing back in Metropolis after being thrust into orbit are almost zero and seems as if you almost have to try to land back there.

It's just nuts that Superman couldn't put him out of Metropolis. His main goal was to kill Superman at that point, and he would have followed him. If he was trying to first kill the people of Metropolis, then I don't think he would have sought out a fight with Superman and just run from him as he continued to destroy the city.



This post was edited on 7/2 at 10:53 pm


Back to top
Hu_Flung_Pu
USA Fan
Central, LA
Member since Jan 2013
5704 posts

re: Why all this controvery about the Man of Steel ending *SPOILERS*


Maybe. We don't know what he would have done but from a lot of movies that involved civilians, the psychotic villain usually tries to incorporate the civilians into the equation and make the hero have a handicap. This wasn't addressed in the movie but is what I accepted and it didn't bother me to the extreme like some others that I watched it with.


I also think that they went back into Metropolis to save confusion for some audience members so as not to create another environment that would lead to questions and stray away from what they should be focused on. It's just like most superhero movies that revolve around "New York", they don't want to wander from what is more important.

By simplifying the equation, the story can be told and enjoyed instead of a monstrosity of confusion the Architect in The Matrix portrayed.



This post was edited on 7/2 at 11:23 pm


Back to top
OMLandshark
Ole Miss Fan
Member since Apr 2009
39366 posts

re: Why all this controvery about the Man of Steel ending *SPOILERS*


On second thought, why did any of this take place in Metropolis. At the time, Metropolis is really nothing personal to Superman. It's just a random city. He doesn't live there and maybe not even been there as far as we know. It's irrelevant.





Back to top
Hu_Flung_Pu
USA Fan
Central, LA
Member since Jan 2013
5704 posts

re: Why all this controvery about the Man of Steel ending *SPOILERS*


Metropolis is associated with Superman. Falls into making the big picture simple instead of wondering why everything happened in another city. People would wonder that instead of watching the show.





Back to top
  Replies (0)


Back to top