For very strange reasons, the current double standards of the European and American audiences are playing very slippery. For some movies, people will say, "What else can you ask for this kind of film, and what plot to watch, as long as the handsome guys play well and have JQ", no matter how stupid or illogical the role is. , Use "Sell Meng" to easily conceal the past. But for some other movies, the appearance of a little bug will be evaluated as "weakness to complain", and the more dazzling scenes will be accused of "being asleep from beginning to end"-this is a good thing, which shows that everyone The expectations for Warner and DC are very high, and the requirements are stricter, which will undoubtedly urge the filmmakers and directors to do better in the future.
There is no doubt that no matter how good it is, it is impossible to satisfy everyone. For example, Frank Miller personally admitted that Nolan’s Batman trilogy completely captured the essence of the Dark Knight Return and shaped the Gotham he intended to create. Even so, there are still quite a few original fans who think this Batman is not them. Batman wanted. Then let alone this Superman in MOS who is different from any other Superman.
Reasons: 1. Superman is annihilated; 2. Superman is murdered.
The first point made many people suspect that Zach and the copyist were in the same place, after all, the latter allowed Optimus Prime to destroy his hometown of Cybertron at the time of the dark, in order to protect humanity. The second point seemed even more unacceptable. Nolan simply said No way after learning the ending of the story, but the two screenwriters convinced him. Zach believes that Superman was not a perfect god from the beginning. Although it is generally believed that Superman will not make human mistakes, in the setting of this world, Superman is very young, needs to grow, and needs to learn lessons. Why will he not in the future? Kill again? It is because he has experienced similar pain. In the face of General Zod, Superman had no choice but to kill him because he couldn't find a better way. This was the first and last time. This reason can also be used to explain the first point. When we recalled that episode on the screen, we thought about it and maybe we could think of a plan to prevent Krypton from annihilating the race, but for Clark, who was in crisis and struggling, this requirement was slightly higher. Zod is coming aggressively, pressing every step of the way, without human morality, it is conceivable that even if he finds a replacement planet, he is still happy to destroy the place where Clark grows. The aircraft intended to destroy the plan to create the black hole, so Clark had no choice but to let it crash. The extermination was not intentional, but a very serious additional damage.
This is an inexperienced superman, and when he thinks about this in the future, he will be annoyed that he has not done his best. But I think this is the superman that the beginning of the article intends to show-he is not perfect at the beginning, he will make mistakes, he will make imperfect decisions while anxious, he is closer to humans in the growth period, and Not a "human being in disguise."
Although there is no branding of Nolan throughout the story, and the story is not his, it is clear that Warner acquiesced that Zhenglian would follow a similar realistic route, at least as realistic as possible. This is also the difference between MOS and previous Superman movies, completely separating it from other superhero movies. What we see are realistic heroes, heroes who are troubled by real difficulties (perhaps growing chores). Such a crisis is not because the film party wants to create a dark atmosphere and deliberately adds to the characters, but is closer to real life and let Convincing type. The adoptive father who has been criticized by many people does not seem to be like any elder who encourages heroes to "the greater the ability, the greater the responsibility". Compared with those NPCs, the adoptive father appears very "selfish", and he would rather let Clark not save people but also cover him. Identity, oh, this is obviously too unheroic and too "cruel", but it is not incomprehensible. Please imagine your parents. In a similar situation, the person who loves you will always appear very selfish, and the safety of your children is better. Live everything.
Similar atypical settings may be unacceptable to some people, but it is built on the principle of "reality", but the details are not handled well enough. For example, there is no need for an adoptive father to sacrifice for a dog. It makes sense to replace a dog with a child. This is what I am most dissatisfied with in the whole film. It is obviously a sensational point, but because of the absurdity of saving dogs, people can't laugh or cry (*Update: After watching MOS several times, I think the main purpose of the father in this passage is to avoid sons. His identity was exposed to the world so early, so it was for his son).
The second flaw is editing. There is nothing to say about the flashback paragraphs, they are well connected. But the scene of the sudden transfer from the interrogation room to the desert is very scary. I have never seen such abrupt editing in Zach’s movies. The horror of living in a mountain in a second. Even cutting to the desert and the army is more suitable than a heterosexual couple suddenly appearing on the screen [.
As for many viewers who feel aesthetic fatigue about smashing, I think it’s because we are used to small slapsticks with limited destructiveness. The fact is, once you encounter a serious, serious alien villain with high intelligence (not a cute, silly, or stupid villain), isn't it normal that the destructive power caused by the two gods has such an effect? Is it just because the colors are not bright enough, only red, blue and gray, not light green, dark green, gay purple, gold, national flag red, tomato red, and rust red, so they are disgusted? It's because the villain's purpose is clear, the willpower is strong and the determination is strong, there is no nonsense and the smashing is so stable and ruthless that people are dizzying, so everyone feels that the dialogue is too little and the script is too cutting corners, isn't it?
Take it. This is the choice DC made, with a distinctive style, unlike any type of film.
The good news is that Batman Begins has opened a dark age, which makes followers feel embarrassed to sell the film without dark elements; and even though MOS is directed by Zac, who is not bright at all, he unexpectedly abandoned it. dark. Even if Superman kills, it’s incredible, but it’s not because he is a dark little pervert. He is just a young man with inexperience, but he is positive and hopeful-with loving adoptive parents, he has been saving people since he was a child. , The film also shows the bright side of mankind from all angles, such as the hand of friendship extended by his friends, the captain of the fishing boat pushed him away from the falling object, and the self-help of the newspaper trio. These details somewhat hinted at Superman. "Humanity deserves to be saved." It's a complete healing system. So it is in line with Warner’s positioning of the Zhenglian series, at least it conveys such a message to the audience-this is not a pure popcorn film, we considered a lot when creating it, to make it look more serious and more realistic. , To make the hero's growth path more credible, but believe us, this has nothing to do with the pretentious darkness.
I really want to praise Zach. 300 is a MV, and the personal impressions of the watchman and sucker punch are also very heavy, with mixed reputations, but from MOS, it can be seen that he tried his best to control the restlessness in his heart, but he is not a coward who wants to please the original fans. Maybe the story level is not up to Nolan's level, but his advantage lies in the control of the action scenes, from the Krypton starry sky battle to the smashing through the city, the effect is outstanding. The shaping of the emotional line is enough to express his sincerity. Zach has never been a fighter of love, but he can easily create tears with flashbacks. As for the flaws in David Goyer's script (yes, save the dog), I heard that Jonathan will personally guide his writing in the next film, so there is no need to worry about this issue.
As I said, like BB, MOS has reached the standard as the beginning, and there is a lot of room for improvement in editing and details. The reason for the four stars is that five stars will be reserved for the second part. The sequel does not need to explain the background, nor does it need to pave the way for a perfect ending, there will probably be a better story. And the production of the second part is bound to be like the growth of Superman, becoming perfect day by day.
ps. Because it's not fancy at all, there is no obvious bromance distraction, and it's not a foolish and cute killer, so I can watch MOS quietly. Warner is still very backbone at this point, applause.
======== This reply is very good:
2013-07-01 10:53:56 lahael-cabiria (The answer is blowing in the wind.)
I don’t think Superman has betrayed anything, he is of Kryptonian blood. Wrong, but in fact, he grew up on the earth since he was a child, and he was nurtured and educated by humans, and even his superpowers are also given by the sun. Moreover, what he did was obeyed the last wish of his biological father, and at the same time was guided by his biological father's values (should not harm the innocent for his own benefit). The dispute on Krypton is a matter of the father's generation, and the father's generation has also tried to do the best, but they have not been able to eradicate the roots. The biological father implanted all hereditary genes (similar things forgot what they were called) into Superman's body. In fact, he hoped for revival. No matter how you think Superman's actions can't match the betrayal. It's just that it was not what he wanted to kill General ZOD in the end.
View more about Man of Steel reviews
