DC Extended Universe

The person that wrote the title of that article always puts troll titles to incite flame wars in the comments section.

If people actually read the articles instead of the title there wouldn't really be any flame wars in the comments.

Clickbait title? Thanks for the heads up.

He puts it that way, yet in the trailer we see images of Superman embraced by a crowd with the sun shining on him, and later, soldiers kneeling in front of him. There's another side to this admittedly, with that "False God" statue.

I don't think we are supposed to see the kneeling soldiers as a good thing either, and Clark surely doesn't think it is.

I agree with , and I don't think it's meant as those people think supes did nothing wrong, it's not like humanity hasn't worshipped powerful beings just because they have blood on their hands.

edited 4th Jul '15 10:07:18 PM by RetroActiveLiar

Honestly, I don't believe that it was always the intention to address the death and destruction. Mainly because in Man of Steel itself, there is zero hint of that. It's "It is only stuff" and "you have rescued us" all the way. Even the killing of Zod doesn't get addressed after the scream.

Let's please not start that again. Okay?

Oh, I am totally behind them showing it now....I just doubt that their originally looked that far past The Man of Steel. If there is one thing I like about Man of Steel than the fact that it doesn't try to push a cinematic universe but instead tells a fairly self-contained story.

I could understand where your coming from if there had been ANY shots of how people felt after Metropolis fell, but their ain't shit. Just the general, that one soldier, and Lois.

With the sheer scale of destruction in Man of Steel, there are several narrative reasons to go that route (not just rule of cool) and none are exclusive. One is that the threat has to be large enough that Superman's involvement is mandatory to stop it. Two is that the threat is large enough that such destruction is almost mandatory to stop it (ie punching the threat hard enough to hurt them causes collateral damage). Three is that it causes debates on how trustworthy and helpful Superman really is in solving these kind of problems (if it was just a bunch of superficial damage like store fronts instead of collapsing buildings the answer is much simpler).

There is evidence of all three in Man of Steel. As for that idea with the Dawn of Justice trailer, the ENTIRE TRAILER is about Superman being a controversial figure. That doesn't mean a handful of people have a contrary opinion, but that everyone has a criticism to add. Some say he is an icon, others that he is a god they should worship, others believe he should leave, others say he isn't doing enough.

There is certainly a lot one can do based on the destruction...I just say that none of this was in any way hinted at in Man of Steel which made me believe that this is not what was originally planned but instead a direction they choose after the reaction of the audience.

How do we know that? Man of Steel was originally intended to be a trilogy so they should have planned ahead.

The only thing we know about Man of Steel 2 was that Metallo was the intended villain.

edited 5th Jul '15 3:45:12 PM by Halberdier17

I can see that point. Although I think it's mostly because Man of Steel was most likely originally conceived as a standalone movie with some potential for vaguely-defined sequels rather then as the first step in a much larger DC cinematic universe. Essentially they wanted to end the story on a positive note because they didn't know if the story was going to continue.

edited 5th Jul '15 3:48:51 PM by Falrinn

There is some backlash from directors in being forced to do sequel hooks, some to the point of Two-Part Trilogy. Becomes sometimes even a Sequel Hook has the effect of making it so the story doesn't properly end or is, in fact, the actual start of a new story. Granted, it's likely the filmmakers didn't anticipate quite that much backlash to the destruction, but spending the final moments of the movie with everyone crying isn't exactly what they wanted to end on.

There are scenes with the military showing their opinion on matters, not just General Swanwick and Captain Ferris at the end but the guy who namedrops "Superman" seemed rather giddy about interacting with him.

edited 5th Jul '15 5:25:39 PM by KJMackley

They don't have to go all depressed in order to hint that this might be a problem later on. A very easy way would have been if Martha hadn't said "this is only stuff" but "we'll figure it out, the important thing is that we are still alive". Or if Superman has said: "The destruction..." and Louis had then said "You saved us" Considering how blithe all the characters acted concerning the destruction I have a hard time to believe that the writer actually thought about the consequences at this point. Plus, they could have ended it immediately after the battle. But they ended it with Clark going into the daily planet.

The Martha comparison is pretty unfair, because she knew it was "just stuff" and no one was hurt. If the dog got hurt, we know she wouldn't be cavalier about it. And unless Superman angsts extensively over the destruction, the same complaint that he didn't care holds up. One line won't fix that, and one principle shown by examples of Angst? What Angst? and Dull Surprise is that people will find excuses to verify that they didn't show enough emotion for a particular moment.

The only solution would be a reworking of the entire climax, both the Metropolis destruction and the Zod fight. A careful viewing shows Superman and Lois have a very shell shocked look after escaping the phantom zone trap, same with Perry White and others who were at ground zero. Superman certainly takes the situation seriously and is nowhere near as destructive as Zod is the fight, and there are people watching the fight from a distance with a stunned look. The solution would be to give those moments greater emphasis, showing the citizens having a mixed reaction to what is going on while also recognizing Superman as the good guy.

The necessary elements are already there, it just isn't made as obvious as it should have. Afterwards there is nothing wrong with the ending, it provides hints as to how the world has changed and what the new status quo will become.

Of course they could also copy The Avengers by surmising the events via a news broadcast, but that would be the easy way out.

One line or a different delivery can change a lot and give a scene a totally different meaning.

For an overt Sequel Hook, sure. I was talking about how to make the purpose of the destruction clearer without encroaching on the ending, making an overt sequel hook (ie introducing a new story and then ending the movie) or making him angst about it for a minute. Cause even if there was a line where he shows some grief over that, people would probably argue that saying "My bad" doesn't quite cover it.

Superman destroyed Metropolis! Literally the greatest discussion ever that never gets old ever forever and ever no matter what.

You know, I did think we were going in a different direction but I will apologize, as I see it can easily go back around to that.

So SDCC starts tomorrow. Think that we'll get some new material, like a new trailer for Bv S:DOJ or Suicide Squad?

We might get a full trailer for Batman v Superman and maybe a teaser for Suicide Squad.

We should probably learn some more details on them as well as Wonder Woman and possibly Justice League.

I'm not holding my breath. Though a full trailer of Bv S would be nice. If it has more plot information, that would be nice. Not just a bunch of quick out of context images. Some out of context scenes!

Comic Con exclusive trailers are common, at the least we'll probably get new character posters if not an official movie poster.

Jada Pinkett Smith would like to play Vixen in a Suicide Squad sequel.

http://www.comicbookresources.com/ar...-to-play-vixen