Superheroes

RE: "The destruction in Man of Steel wasn't meant to look cool."

I recently rewatched the Zod vs Superman fight in MOS. Then I watched the climactic fight in Chronicle, and saw a world of difference. The MOS fight is absolutely shot to look "cool". There's high-energy zooming shots, long holds on explosions filling the screen and framing the heroes, little injury to the two fighters as they wale endlessly on each other, the camera flying alongside the battlers, and dramatic blaring music identical to all the other "see how cool this is!!" scenes. One could tell Snyder was having fun directing the scene.

The climatic fight in Chronicle is horrifying. There's no music, the audio is constantly full of people screaming, no zooming Oner shots, most of the shots are stationary and from the ground, and a greater emphasis on grievous injuries being dealt to the fighters and to the civilians below. If anything, the flashback of the Metropolis attack in BVS is filmed somewhat close to the style of Chronicle, with Bruce providing the ground's eye view and witnessing the injuries dealt. They're designed to bring up memories of news footage of natural disasters and terrorist attacks.

Most of what I felt during the Zod-Sup fight was exhaustion. Most of what I felt in Chronicle was fear.

So my conclusion: the destructive battle in MOS was definitely meant to look "cool". The repeat of it in BVS less so, but 3 years too late.

The destruction in Man of Steel looks more like some kind of fight from Dragon Ball. It was definitely framed to look cool in the context of Man of Steel.

Having read Dragon Ball twice, I can tell you few of its fight happen in cities. Whether or not the damage they do to lakes, rivers, mountains, valleys, deserted islands and cave systems is any better, I'm sure that's a debate worth having, but when the characters fight in populated areas they're extra careful to keep destruction to a minimum, and there was a mass evacuation involved with the first character who didn't. "Let's take this somewhere else" in fact became a much mocked cliche in the series, (especially after Trunk's final fight with Cell-who incidentally depopulated cities rather than smash them)

Okay, the GT anime had a lot of fights in cities, but like, only one in ten fans like GT, and even then Goten was horrified when the first villain to come to Earth started knocking over buildings. The Super Anime also had a villain who operated in cities but he caused relatively little destruction, in fact lamented over what damage he had done. He only cared about killing humans and was fine with drawing it out.

edited 11th Nov '17 6:01:50 AM by IndirectActiveTransport

Everything happens in degrees. Compared to the average blockbuster and especially comic book movie, the destruction in MOS is treated as a serious, life-ending, "where were you when it happened" kind of event as it is going on. The Hostile Terraforming evokes straight up 9/11 imagery at the ground level, it is a drawn out disaster with a couple of named minor characters (Perry White, Steve, Jenny) shown trying to survive and even have a moment where they accept their deaths right before they are saved. There is a shift in focus when it is about the superhero fights but the overall tone is the same, it is not treated as a fun exercise but a clumsy brawl that escalates because of the sheer power of the characters.

Compared to disasters films, the destruction is usually viewed much more objectively, meaning we see glimpses of people dying but they are just random civilians with no names. The destruction tends to happen rapidly, a wall of fire, tidal wave or asteroid strike that is very sudden and over after a minute, limiting how immersive and personal the destruction feels. Compare to superhero films, the destruction is kept to the background or otherwise ignored as all that matters is that the hero beats the bad guy. Any potential deaths during the action are ignored unless plot critical, and anyone put in danger exists just for a token "cat from a tree" rescue. In some cases for either films there is humor in how the people die or what, exactly, gets destroyed.

In short, MOS is closer to Chronicle than it is Independence Day. What I think we can agree on is that MOS does dwell on the destruction a little too long and is so meticulously depicted that it gets, as you said, a little exhausting rather than immersive. People actually said the same thing about Cloverfield, and that film is anything but "fun and cool" about the destruction.

I disagree...the problem with Man of Steel is that there is zero acknowledgement that people died in the city (prior to Bv S...that is the one thing I like about Bv S, the one moment when the whole situation is shown from a different perspective, as stupid as the scene is set up). The movie acts as if everyone made it out fine or if people who aren't visible on screen are unimportant.

That is btw a constant problem with both Man of Steel and Bv S, Gotham and Metropolis both seem to be kind of empty.

Do you really believe that? The complaint has always been that the death toll was too big. The movie is rather blatant that massive amounts of people are killed, that's the whole point of showing the Daily Planet staff running for their life. People lifted up and slammed back down, screams are silenced, entire buildings collapsing on crowds of people, fighter jets crashing into the city. Perry and Bruce experience the same exact "ground level" view of what happened, even pairing up all the major events that happen. Short of showing a field of corpses MOS couldn't make it any more obvious. Other films rely a lot more on generic running crowds (with someone stumbling so another can help them back up), gasoline fireballs that never catch anyone on fire and superficial plaster damage to buildings so it can harmlessly rain down on the street. In Civil War they show comparable "ground level" footage of their previous battles and it barely resembles how it was originally depicted.

Never mind how Marvel can't stay consistent with just how many people died in the movies. In Daredevil, it is established that the death toll for the New York invasion was in the hundreds. Yet Civil War, claims it was only in the double digits. And we're to believe that only a total of 274 died in the climaxes of Avengers, Winter Soldier and Age of Ultron.

That isn't even getting into them ignoring Steve causing a pile up in a tunnel in Civil War or the cops he doubtlessly killed

Yes. It feels like there are only a dozen people or so working for the Daily Planet, the protesting crowd when Superman comes to testify is way too small for an event like this, even the courtroom feels kind of empty. In Man of Steel it feel like Smallville is an empty set in which only five people or so are running around in, and Matropolis doesn't feel all that populated either. There simply aren't enough extras around and the ones which are there are shot in a way that they don't really register.

This is not DC vs Marvel. "Look, the other does too" isn't a good argument, weather it is true or not.

edited 12th Nov '17 1:11:43 AM by Swanpride

You can see plenty of people in the background of Smallville and I fail to see in any way how the crowd outside the courthouse is too small given how many people we see.

And maybe I wouldn't make this a marvel vs DC thing if it weren't so blatant that the former can get away with things the latter does or doesn't do. The destruction in Metropolis is discussed in at least two movies following Mo S yet it takes more than five before New York's destruction is followed up on and only so to give the heroes angst. Superman is a monster for not being able to stop mass destruction on his first day on the job yet Wanda can still be called a hero after sicing the Hulk on a city.

Shifting slightly the usual MvDC discussions, one thing I notice DC still struggles with is in trying for a more lighthearted approach, yet without devolving into utter camp or random inanities. The film universe is pretty dark and serious, the shows are cut from virtually the same mold (with the possible exception of Supergirl, but I've no firsthand experience with it yet), while the currently ongoing cartoons are all but parodies of the source material.

Mind you, Marvel also seems to be having an identity crisis, with the Russos clearly wanting to write spy thrillers rather than superhero films, all while GOTG and now Ragnarok going for wacky disco-era hijinks. The cartoons are a lot better, however, in a remarkable reversal of the nineties and early naughts, when the DCAU was universally lauded, while any non-X-men Marvel cartoon was so bad it was good at best.

My question is, how inherently difficult is it to have a lighthearted yet non-parodic superhero mythos, and how much of the above developments is due to producers intentionally jumping on bandwagons and vapid fashion trends instead of doing their own thing?

That is because both events are portrayed differently.

1. The Battle of New York happens in New York because that is where the wormhole is. Superman on the other hand could have tried to move Zod out of the city the moment the doomsday device or whatever it is, is destroyed. There is in-universe no reason whatsoever for Superman to fight Zod at exactly that place after we have already established earlier in the movie that Superman is perfectly capable of pushing Zod along for miles - and there he moves Zod from a farm in the middle of nowhere in the middle of the only town in the vicinity. So the Avengers can't move the battle, they can only try to keep it into specific parameters (which they do), but Superman could, but doesn't even try to get Zod out of the city.

2. In The Avengers we see constantly people fleeing from the Chitauri while the Avengers and the police try to evacuate them as fast as possible. When Hulk storms through an office we see people ducking away from him left an right. Meaning we constantly see that the destruction doesn't happen in a vacuum, but has an effect on everyone who is unlucky enough to get caught in the crossfire. In every shot which shows the street, you can see people running away. Man of Steel doesn't have that, it has a few scenes focussed on a few characters, but it lacks the larger scale when it comes to human suffering, while it goes really big in terms of destruction.

3. When The Avengers ends, we see a couple of different images. We see people lighting candles for the ones lost, we see people celebrating the Avengers, but we also see people accusing them of being responsible for the destruction. We see just enough to understand that this was a world shattering event. Man of Steel goes from destruction to a kiss in the ruins to Superman killing Zod and then we end up somewhere in the desert where Superman lays down the ground-rules for future interactions. Oh, and Clark Kent just walks into the Daily Planet as if nothing happened. There is no humanity in all this, no sense of consequence. Bv S belatedly adds this sense of consequence, but it isn't there in the original movie and it doesn't feel like Snyder has actually understood why so many people had an issue with the destruction of Metropolis.

And this is why "but X does too" is such a useless argument. It is not about what happened, but about how it is portrayed and the larger context. Something which works in one movie doesn't work at all in another movie.

1) The first time Superman moved Zod it was a) an accident and not done on purpose and b) because he was able to take Zod by surprise. Neither of these apply to the second battle with Zod.

2) Both the battle of Metropolis and Smallville do see people being affected by the destruction. People lifted up and slammed back down, screams are silenced, entire buildings collapsing on crowds of people, fighter jets crashing into the city etc. There's as much impact probably even more so given outside of one shot of the a civilian being vaporised by a Chituari weapon (the same type of weapon which somehow fails to kill any of the heroes) the battle is largely ignorant of human casualties.

And of course, this still doesn't answer the lack of fucks given over Wanda sicking the Hulk on people or Steve causing a pile up.

3) Snyder already acknowledged the death and destruction during the battles themselves. The next movie followed up on it.

The MCU is only concerned with collateral damage when it needs an excuse for its heroes to start hitting each other. The destruction in the DCEU is shown to have multiple effects and perspectives beyond the main heroes.

A lot of people did like the Spider-Man animated series from the 90s. The 90s Hulk shows was also considered good. The first season any way.

I honestly don't know how you can do light hearted superheroes without devolving into camp.

edited 12th Nov '17 7:40:14 AM by windleopard

Wait a minute, Chitauri weapon actually killed someone? The last time I saw them using their weapons, those alien stormtroopers missed.

About light-heartedness, original Teen Titans? I don't think that show is that camp, unless my definition of camp is skewed.

edited 12th Nov '17 8:15:27 AM by kaalban

I'd say the original TT cartoon worked in a sort of self-contained way, where the adventures of the team weren't analyzed with regard to public consequences. They didn't lead a double life, they didn't squabble with authorities or other teams. The whole thing was just good clean action-packed fun, akin to the numerous eighties cartoons like M.A.S.K. or The Centurions, where the titular teams' activities are well within established civil authority.

Which in turn raises the question - does this sort of framework count as superheroic? I notice it's precisely the double life / anti-establishment element that brings about most of the angstier aspects of superhero stories. The other major source is having villains undeterred by the legal system... which is what usually necessitates said elements in superhero methodology in the first place. But without them, do we still have superheroes per se, or do we have paramillitary government agents wearing tights?

All things considered, I'm mostly inclined to believe the former, and consequently, I'm willing to conclude that a cheerier superhero story would feature villains that are already considered public enemies, as well as heroes who work in conjunction with civil authority and don't maintain a secret identity more so than the usual stylish spy.

Funnily enough, a lot of proto superheroes, like Doc Savage or Mandrake the Magician, function very much like that. Notably, even a straightforward cape like Superman was a lot jollier before Lex Luthor was retooled into a smug legally bulletproof tycoon and an allegorical stand-in for The Man. Say what you will about the DCEU, but at least it got rid of that overdone cliche early on.

edited 12th Nov '17 9:15:23 AM by indiana404

As far as camp, I think The Incredibles struck a good balance: serious without taking itself too seriously; funny without turning to outright camp or undermining itself.

Or at least it was a different sort of camp, since large portions of it (particularly the soundtrack) felt more like a James Bond film.

edited 12th Nov '17 9:34:55 AM by MetaFour

The "Metropolis was empty" claim is pretty much baseless. Nearly every step of the way we see people running for their life or watching the chaos dumbfounded. The only time the Daily Planet characters are by themselves is when Jenny was trapped under rubble right before the gravity pulse stops. When Zod carves the building in half we see it from the viewpoint of people in the street. When Superman crashes into the parking garage we see people reacting and running away. If it's about the amount of people even in the biggest city not every corner is going to be packed to capacity.

Regarding the Dragonball Z comparison, the "Let's take this somewhere else" only happened a couple of times. And it only worked because the villain was looking for a good fight with a Worthy Opponent. If the villain wanted to harm others there was little anyone could do, early in the series being able to destroy the moon was a feat the characters were capable of.

In other works, when dealing with someone willing to cause wanton harm the best approach is to direct their attention elsewhere by engaging them. There is no guarantee they will follow you to a save location to duke it out, and if capable of restraining them until you reach a safe location how are they even a threat?

edited 12th Nov '17 1:00:31 PM by KJMackley

I saw way more civilians in MOS than in any other superhero films (at least, as far as I remember).

And, MOS (and BVS, for that matter) do focus more on normal people than other films. There is even a video about that.

edited 12th Nov '17 5:24:56 PM by kaalban

@Indirect Active Transport

That's not what I meant. I'm a Dragon Ball fan, I know those fights don't take place in cities. I meant in terms of style, motion, and the general set up of "flying dudes punching the shit out of each other", it feels similar to Dragon Ball.

edited 16th Nov '17 8:29:30 PM by AdricDePsycho

That is classic Flying Brick action. Saiyan's power are similar to kryptonians.

Doing a lighthearted superhero work without devolving into camp.

Was going to say Batman The Brave and The Bold, but then remembered that the show not only did intentionally went into camp category but also have its share of incredibly dark/heavy episodes.

So my second choice is The Tick, but than again that series is a deconstrutive parody on the genre. Same can be said for Freakazoid.

My next choic would be My Hero Academia which could be the right choice since it is a relatively light hearted shonen manga and showcase a reconstructive take on the genre. Though again it has it share of dark moments here and there.

So yeah those are three works I considered lighthearted super hero works.

Now on that Saiyan and Kryptonian comparision. I say their powersets are different, especially their given biology where Kryptonians get stronger (and gain powers) via being place in certain environments, while Saiyans get stronger through the many fights they experience. Kind of like a race version of Nature vs. Nurture.

Thematically, the main difference between fights in Dragon Ball and Superman, from a super powers perspective is that Dragon Ball has the oxymoron concept of stealthy speed. Early on, there is a fight in a martial arts tournament where the audience couldn't see or hear anything and the announcer asks what happened. It turns out there were many complicated maneuvers, spitting, snorting and even a conversation in the span of a few seconds, all things that should by rights be making noise. So even if the audience couldn't perceive it, necessarily, they should have had an idea. And the very concept of "after image", where the fighter leaves a visual distortion of themselves; if they are moving that fast a whole lot of air should be displaced, that shouldn't be a "quiet" technique anyone has any chance of not recognizing.

And it gets worse on the next tournament when Goku develops the "move so fast you're invisible technique" everyone and their mother uses not just in Dragon Ball but every would be manga/comic that would be the next Dragon Ball. He does this without so much as ruffling the hair on anyone's head, when there should be at least 300 mile an hour winds being generated, which should be very uncomfortable for all the non super martial artists in the vicinity, even if they are being generated by a tiny boy? Splinter Cell is really the best contrast, where you have to chose between stealth and speed, but as far as I know, Superman has never operated in such a manner. Everyone can always tell when he is in action. "Look up in the sky! It's a bird. It's a plane! No!

Of course there is a justification for it. Dragon Ball uses the youki-ora-genki concept of qi, or ki. Genki in this formula being the energy at the root of all things, beyond the microscopic, atomic, protons-neutrons-electrons, close to very source as we know(which is why the genki dama can draw from the wind, water and even the stars). Someone with the mind to manipulate and magnify their genki, their ki as whole, for their own uses, would essentially be a mystical being, in this case virtual reality warping through martial arts. With a slight few exception, everything thing seen in Dragon Ball is a martial arts technique based on ki. Some of them are biologically specific, for whatever reason(nameks can regenerate, saiyans can transform, Freezas can survive in a vacuum, humans can serve food) but with Superman, it's pretty much all biologically specific, sometimes even individually specific.

Kryptonians absorb sunlight. This lets them do whatever the author wants(usually "limited" to being super strong, super tough, super fast, super sensitive, having expanded senses, shooting heat beams through eyes, having freezing breath far longer lasting and expansive than their diaphragms would suggest and flight). In the event another character who is not kryptonian gains sunlight related powers, they're often completely different. Nuclear man has all these powers and weaknesses Superman doesn't. You'd think The Ray would have most of Superman's powers, but he doesn't. You'd think DC's Apollo would have all of them, but he doesn't. I don't even think DC Apollo has the same powers as DC Ra. It's not a stellar art they're constantly honing, developing for years, lifetimes, generations, it's a you got it or you don't deal, and I think that's why people scoff more at Superman's new developments(super ventriloquism, the S shield, rebuild The Great Wall Of China vision) more than someone like Goku's. Why people use the phrase "gods among us" as sarcastic criticism, or even ominous tags for Darker and Edgier video games while no one bats an eye at Goku literally being offered godhood as a wedding gift.

But Goku isn't a superhero either(though his son is, and his best friend's a super cop who's the brother in law of a super park ranger). He's a fighter, and the only reasons that isn't his official occupation is that his wife doesn't think it's respectable and they're really not that many people he'd enjoy fighting anyway. Maybe if Gohan, Krillen or Android 17 were the main focus of Dragon Ball I'd get the Superman comparisons more, but as is Goku's a guy with superficially similar powers and a similar backstory but the powers gradually developed while the backstory was added retroactively. The first chapter presented him as a bastardized Sun Wukong. After that arc ran its course he spent four arcs as a wuxia student akin to Chien Fu. Then Goku played Superman for two arcs. Then he played Sarah Connor.

The Ray manipulates light.

Yeah, Superman's cells absorb solar energy and enable him to do all the stuff he does. He's fueled by solar energy, but his powers are not themselves really solar or light related. The Ray, on the other hand, like Lightray and Dr.Light, actually manipulates light in a variety of ways.

I've heard an interesting idea that Kryptonians, at the time of their planet's destruction, had a biology that was just on the cusp of becoming pure energy, so Superman is essentially an energy being with the mass of a man. Which makes about as much actual sense as anything else.

One of the things that I've frequently found tiresome about manga like Dragonball (or at least the anime based off of them) is the endless exposition about power moves, special techniques, and how they work. They seem to spend an inordinate amount of time telling each other, and the audience, just how it is they're kicking each other's asses. I must assume that there are fans who care about such things, but the explanations are all nonsense anyway, and I personally don't care.

edited 19th Nov '17 1:59:49 PM by Robbery

That tradition comes from the Wuxia genre.

edited 19th Nov '17 2:04:49 PM by RAlexa21th

That and shonen in general focus A LOT in fight, with details movement and explanation of how each chararter beat each other, while comics in general are very simplistic about it, see how shonen usually talk baout their power work compare to comics: superman can shoot eye beams, freeze from is mouth, fly....that it, he just can.

Anyway, about Sydner metropolist fight....Cool is not the work I will use, at least no in the rock star variaty that fit Marvel....I will said more EPIC, Clark and Zod battling is kinda more like gods, is like saying "If Hercules and Horus decide to kick each other, who would win" both at the same time the fight focus in the fact that Clark can barely contain Zod, the part when he fight they look kind force of natures so to speak, Diana vs Doomsday is pretty much God of War gameplay.

Comparing this with Marvel, they look more like rock stars, showing uo all the cool moves they have while the kick the crap of the bad guys, Avenger is good in a least understanding how bloody the battle is but AOU is just nonsense, with hulk filler fight that give us Wanda the unabomber and Sokovia.

And about the destruction...look, as much DC fan that im this is inevitable, the city got trash TWICE between suicide Squad and Justicie league and repair easly, Marvel did it with South africa fight, the whole stupidity of Sokovia(which again they dont want you to remeber it happen) and even this Pale to destruction fest that was X-men apocalipse.

In the end heroe have been to damn callous about colateral damage, and it seen its going to be that way soon.