C.K. Burch's Blog, page 306
February 9, 2014
It doesn't ignore the loss of lives and of course none of this could actually happen since Superman isn't real. What about the loss of lives in the avengers? Did people complain about that? Cause there's no way during that whole invasion no one died. Even
I disagree. Your comparison to the Avengers is fitting, but the main difference is thus: in Avengers we see the heroes actively attempting to contain the damage and save civilians, whereas in Man of Steel we see Superman say one line — “Stay inside, it’s not safe.” — and beyond that, there is little regard for civilian life, on both the parts of Superman and the military. From nearly leveling Smallville to attacking the Kryptonian ship multiple times and doing only more damage, the military does more harm than good, and this is swept aside. Superman, on the other hand, does battle with Zod at the end, and not only does he smash through multiple buildings carelessly, he even leaps over a gas truck that is flung at him and allows it to crash into a building and explode. Superman never makes an attempt at preventing destruction from happening. His sole focus is on Zod, and only at the end when he is forced to kill Zod rather than allow human death is Superman shown making an attempt to prevent destruction from happening.
It retold Superman’s origin in a fascinating, visceral way, but when it came to the destruction and the loss of life, you bet your sweet bippy it was ignored. Go watch The Avengers again and notice the distinct point made to show that our heroes are heroes, not just superbeings blasting stuff. They were made out as protectors.
It doesn't ignore the loss of lives and of course none of this could actually happen since Superman isn't real. What about the loss of lives in the avengers? Did people complain about that? Cause there's no way during that whole invasion no one died. Even
I disagree. Your comparison to the Avengers is fitting, but the main difference is thus: in Avengers we see the heroes actively attempting to contain the damage and save civilians, whereas in Man of Steel we see Superman say one line — “Stay inside, it’s not safe.” — and beyond that, there is little regard for civilian life, on both the parts of Superman and the military. From nearly leveling Smallville to attacking the Kryptonian ship multiple times and doing only more damage, the military does more harm than good, and this is swept aside. Superman, on the other hand, does battle with Zod at the end, and not only does he smash through multiple buildings carelessly, he even leaps over a gas truck that is flung at him and allows it to crash into a building and explode. Superman never makes an attempt at preventing destruction from happening. His sole focus is on Zod, and only at the end when he is forced to kill Zod rather than allow human death is Superman shown making an attempt to prevent destruction from happening.
It retold Superman’s origin in a fascinating, visceral way, but when it came to the destruction and the loss of life, you bet your sweet bippy it was ignored. Go watch The Avengers again and notice the distinct point made to show that our heroes are heroes, not just superbeings blasting stuff. They were made out as protectors.
It doesn't ignore the loss of lives and of course none of this could actually happen since Superman isn't real. What about the loss of lives in the avengers? Did people complain about that? Cause there's no way during that whole invasion no one died. Even
I disagree. Your comparison to the Avengers is fitting, but the main difference is thus: in Avengers we see the heroes actively attempting to contain the damage and save civilians, whereas in Man of Steel we see Superman say one line — “Stay inside, it’s not safe.” — and beyond that, there is little regard for civilian life, on both the parts of Superman and the military. From nearly leveling Smallville to attacking the Kryptonian ship multiple times and doing only more damage, the military does more harm than good, and this is swept aside. Superman, on the other hand, does battle with Zod at the end, and not only does he smash through multiple buildings carelessly, he even leaps over a gas truck that is flung at him and allows it to crash into a building and explode. Superman never makes an attempt at preventing destruction from happening. His sole focus is on Zod, and only at the end when he is forced to kill Zod rather than allow human death is Superman shown making an attempt to prevent destruction from happening.
It retold Superman’s origin in a fascinating, visceral way, but when it came to the destruction and the loss of life, you bet your sweet bippy it was ignored. Go watch The Avengers again and notice the distinct point made to show that our heroes are heroes, not just superbeings blasting stuff. They were made out as protectors.
It doesn't ignore the loss of lives and of course none of this could actually happen since Superman isn't real. What about the loss of lives in the avengers? Did people complain about that? Cause there's no way during that whole invasion no one died. Even
I disagree. Your comparison to the Avengers is fitting, but the main difference is thus: in Avengers we see the heroes actively attempting to contain the damage and save civilians, whereas in Man of Steel we see Superman say one line — “Stay inside, it’s not safe.” — and beyond that, there is little regard for civilian life, on both the parts of Superman and the military. From nearly leveling Smallville to attacking the Kryptonian ship multiple times and doing only more damage, the military does more harm than good, and this is swept aside. Superman, on the other hand, does battle with Zod at the end, and not only does he smash through multiple buildings carelessly, he even leaps over a gas truck that is flung at him and allows it to crash into a building and explode. Superman never makes an attempt at preventing destruction from happening. His sole focus is on Zod, and only at the end when he is forced to kill Zod rather than allow human death is Superman shown making an attempt to prevent destruction from happening.
It retold Superman’s origin in a fascinating, visceral way, but when it came to the destruction and the loss of life, you bet your sweet bippy it was ignored. Go watch The Avengers again and notice the distinct point made to show that our heroes are heroes, not just superbeings blasting stuff. They were made out as protectors.
It doesn't ignore the loss of lives and of course none of this could actually happen since Superman isn't real. What about the loss of lives in the avengers? Did people complain about that? Cause there's no way during that whole invasion no one died. Even
I disagree. Your comparison to the Avengers is fitting, but the main difference is thus: in Avengers we see the heroes actively attempting to contain the damage and save civilians, whereas in Man of Steel we see Superman say one line — “Stay inside, it’s not safe.” — and beyond that, there is little regard for civilian life, on both the parts of Superman and the military. From nearly leveling Smallville to attacking the Kryptonian ship multiple times and doing only more damage, the military does more harm than good, and this is swept aside. Superman, on the other hand, does battle with Zod at the end, and not only does he smash through multiple buildings carelessly, he even leaps over a gas truck that is flung at him and allows it to crash into a building and explode. Superman never makes an attempt at preventing destruction from happening. His sole focus is on Zod, and only at the end when he is forced to kill Zod rather than allow human death is Superman shown making an attempt to prevent destruction from happening.
It retold Superman’s origin in a fascinating, visceral way, but when it came to the destruction and the loss of life, you bet your sweet bippy it was ignored. Go watch The Avengers again and notice the distinct point made to show that our heroes are heroes, not just superbeings blasting stuff. They were made out as protectors.
My third viewing of Man of Steel led me to appreciate it just a little bit more, but not much. The...
My third viewing of Man of Steel led me to appreciate it just a little bit more, but not much. The visuals, the (overall) story, the acting, the direction it took, all of it was pretty good. Not great, but good. Superman was Superman, the villains were nasty, the Kryptonian tech was superb, and it did a good job of portraying a boy growing up with powers he didn’t understand. Meanwhile, the actual script is still atrocious, the film largely ignores the casual decimation and loss of lives, and tells a fairly straightforward story in the most unnecessarily complicated way while completely ignoring how literally none of this could have happened. After loving it the first time, then hating it the second time, now I’ve seen a film that I can get behind, but still recognize that it’s not a good movie. Like, from the standpoint of making sense or storytelling. Am I in for the second film? God help me, yes. But I’m very wary. The thing is, Man of Steel is the kind of superhero film that, in the 90’s, wouldn’t have gotten a sequel. Right now we’re experiencing a surge of comic book movies that are being plotted out as trilogies or better, with massive studio backing because people keep going to see these films. So we’re getting films that are being slapped together out of spit and baling wire with expensive effects that look flashy and enough action to keep the popcorn makers in business. These films cannot fail anymore; they are guaranteed successes from the moment of inception, and they are simply because there is already more on the horizon. So we’re going to get Superman vs. Batman, then Justice League, and perhaps a Wonder Woman film. This is all decided. We’re also getting Spider-Man 2 & 3 along with a Sinister Six and Venom films. X-Men has Days of Future Past this year, then Apocalypse, then potentially a crossover film with the Fantastic Four once the FF film has been released. Studios are banking on these movies. They are plotting them out in advance, crafting stories that bleed over from one to the other, and we’re not going to get solid stand-alone films. This ought to be worrisome. Instead we’re just going to keep seeing them in theaters and buying them on blu-ray. Because, when WE were kids, we wanted these movies. Desperately. Now we’re money-spending adults, and we’re spending money on seeing them come to life again. If they keep maintaining some kind of quality, that’s great. But it makes me worry that, at some point, the quality will drop to zero, and we’ll just have flashy effects with zero substance. I yearn for the days when a film had to bank on how good of a film it was on its own merits, and not on how well it would set up the next movie. Funny thing is, that was only a couple of years ago.
steam-girls:
Ts9by Exphilosopher
You know, me and steampunk,...
You know, me and steampunk, we’ve never really seen eye-to-eye. But then we started talking. And I started writing it (in a sense). And then I started finding glorious cosplays like these. And I just.
February 7, 2014
"They’re the salt of the earth, those girls. They don’t sit each night and compare notes on groups,..."
-
David Bowie on fangirls (via fuckyeahrockgroupies)
- Hazel
(via knitmeapony)
Amazon.com: CK Burch
Online shopping for Books from a great selection of Books Featured Categories, Refinements & more at everyday low prices.
Are you snowed in, got nothing to do? Surf the web on over to my Amazon page and maybe find yourself an interesting read to get you through the cold snap. Bonus: if you have Amazon Prime, you can get the ebook versions of my novels for free!
