DCEU Film & Culture Analysis - Part 1 (of 4) | Renegade Cut

we are living in a golden age and a dark age the old quotation on the best of times and worst of times but with something as unattentive and let's face it silly as superhero movies [Music] these films cost hundreds of millions of dollars to produce and hundreds of millions of dollars more to market like a Queen's ransom on top of a king's ransom Hollywood re-centered its gaze to the stuff of comic books and ultra tight spandex the most important people are not movie stars anymore their characters franchisable characters Thor is a star Chris Hemsworth stars in 12 strong in the heart of the sea and black hat January dumping ground movies that nobody sees or remembers the comic book fans got everything they wanted the movies the attention the respect the lack of side-eye when wearing an Aquaman t-shirt in public and yet instead of being enthusiastic and thrilled with this unprecedented attention some DC comic fans are furious not at the movies but at the critical reaction to these movies the biggest offenders of these movies I will call them tribalists from here on in for reasons that I promise will become clearer Marvel tribalists were largely happy with the critical and financial successes of their films DC's tribalist culture progressed differently if you tell a Marvel fan that the Incredible Hulk was a mediocre or a flat-out bad movie they might grudgingly agree because it doesn't feel too harsh when said fans luxuriate in greater films in their chosen franchise but if you tell DC's tribalists that Batman V Superman sucked having few other options in their Cinematic Universe to fall back on as proof of its worth they might react badly calling you a Disney shill or a paid off critic this is one part tribalism and one part broad misunderstanding of how film criticism works that is the focus of this miniseries not a simple deconstruction of why most DC extended universe movies are bad but an examination of the discourse and how fan culture shouts down genuine criticism and the emergence of hyper consumerism as well as an exploration of how discussing popular films has changed due to the advent of the Internet and intensification and mainstreaming of geek culture this will of course need to happen side-by-side with a critique of these films yes but mainly as a means in which to show the bad counter arguments to sincere criticism fans of big blockbuster franchises all have their near du Ellis and bad fans of course but DC EU tribalist culture is a wee bit different due to all of its films except Wonder Woman being critically panned and widely derided by everyone who is not one of the aforementioned tribalists the culture is always on the defensive and defensiveness breeds an uncompromising attitude because giving an inch when you are on the defensive feels like giving up everything goals for this mini-series number one discuss societal attitudes that explain both admiration and defense of DC EU number two explain what is and is not film criticism number three discover the difference if any between fan culture and toxic fan culture number four create an honest framework for discussing the authentic observable problems with these films devoid of said toxicity not goals make you feel bad about a movie you like that's it criticism is not designed for the explicit purpose of shaming admirers of a piece of media but to help us question what we enjoy the society that helped create it and the subculture it in turn created if you're watching this because you want to hear someone dunk on DCE you well it's more my intent to explain genuine problems without much rancor if you're watching because you want to hear someone dunk on DCE you fans you have definitely come to the wrong place I'm here to help not to shame but if you are here because you suspect you are one of the efforts and tribalists the most hardcore of the hardcore fans who will not give an inch bear in mind that this still isn't entirely about you because it's bigger than you because it is this studio that has manipulated you into feeling this way all will be explained in this very very long miniseries let's begin in 2008 Warner Brothers listened to pitches from a number of comic book writers and screenwriters on a new Superman film ideas from Grant Morrison Geoff Johns Mark Waid and others were eventually shut down in favor of a concept pitched by Christopher Nolan based on something he and David s Goyer once discussed gore was signed on to write and much later Zack Snyder came into the project that became Man of Steel for anyone who is watching a very long video about a movie without first watching the movie first of all why why would you do this thing second here is a brief synopsis long ago on Krypton Lara gives birth to kal-el our future Superman which is unusual because Krypton does not do natural childbirth the planet is about to explode so General Zod takes control of the government but it's too late and Lara and jor-el Supes daddy sent him to earth after a series of flashbacks we learned that kal-el now called Clark grows up with superpowers and his adopted father wants him to conceal his powers even at the cost of letting people die Clark disagrees because he is not made of stone Superman discovers a Kryptonian ship and meets a hologram of his biological father who tells him about his past after a Hamlet's ghost dad pow-wow Superman becomes Superman Lois Lane tracks down Superman because it's big scoop General Zod and his minions come to earth to get the Codex a record of Kryptonian DNA so that Zod and company can restart Krypton on Earth turns out the Codex was imprinted in Superman's cells and Zod's got to have it eight million punches and a triple nine eleven later our big bad threatens to murder a few innocent people that could easily get out of the way and Superman snaps Zod's neck like a chicken bone even after saving the world the government still understandably wants to keep an eye on Superman but the Man of Steel says no and apparently that's just something he can do this is a bad movie if you like it I can't persuade you not to like it liking something is often an emotional reaction more than a logical conclusion but that's not why I'm here I want to talk about its objective structural problems and the reasoning made by its tribalists to rationalize said problems if you liked this movie that's a gut feeling that I probably can't change and I'm not gonna try to but much like a pair of old shoes that you personally find comfortable Man of Steel visibly has a bunch of holes in it and it's not useful to pretend they're not there [Music] okay before we go any further we need to make some solid definitions tribalism is the state of being organized by tribes of lifestyles human evolution has occurred in small groups which means humans naturally maintain a social network human evolution also prioritized fear of outsiders as a means of keeping us alive so weirdly enough it's natural for DC fans and Marvel fans to plant their flags in their favorite franchise and see anything even resembling danger or opposition as the enemy thereby becoming tribalists rather than fans the blind hand of evolution has found a simple and completely vicious solution to our survival but this natural occurrence is also a malfunction tribalism is everywhere protecting us by completely overriding reason and in more dire cases than movie fandom and at the very same time it's threatening us I need to get super serious for a second I promise it won't take long think about the history of the Catholic Church authorities abandoning their beliefs and forfeiting the safety of children by covering up and denying the existence of abuse by a number of priests tribe comes first reason and morals come second refugees seek safety in America but Americans don't see a refugee as one of us and so many are turned away tribalism tribe first morals second we identify ourselves as members of all sorts of tribes if you know someone is a murderer you might alert someone to that fact like the authorities but if that murderer is your brother you might keep that suspicion to yourself because of tribalism the fact that the murderer is someone's brother is irrelevant to his victims but tribalism places such emphasis on loyalty that it bypasses judgment and more we even identified tribally just based on where we live go Yankees go Red Sox go United States World Cup team if you're into that whatever now this is some heavy stuff and we're here to talk about super spandex movies but we need to understand where these attitudes come from another example of tribalism is the polarized way we argue about issues in this case the quality of the DC extended universe or lack thereof we ignorant lis close our minds to views that conflict with our own because doing so is disloyal to our tribe now this should go without saying but not all ideas are created equally white supremacism is a form of tribalism but people rejecting the white supremacism is not tribalism this is because the rejection of white supremacism comes from a pre-existing understanding of what white supremacists historically want to do not just because they're in another tribe this is judgment based on evidence not tribalism our views are often shaped so they agree with the beliefs of the groups with which we most identify the more challenged our views are the more we defend them remember when I said DC EU tribalists are distinct from many other geek fandoms because their franchise is critically panned the more challenged the opinion the more powerful its defense and let's be real here the more intense and toxic the defense not all people who like the DC EU movies or just some of the DC EU movies are tribalists liking something does not necessarily mean your attitude about it will be so intense as to achieve that title so when I say DC EU tribalist here I am referring to those who refuse to see or admit the obvious problems with these movies I'm talking about the people who question the honesty of film critics who are just doing their jobs by claiming they're taking bribe I'm talking about the people who question the bias or objectivity of both film critics and the average moviegoer as if there is some kind of conspiracy I'm talking about the people who make other bizarre erroneous claims about the discourse and criticism surrounding the DC EU again tribalism is not confined to fans of the recent Batman and Superman movies but it is more pronounced than average in this case due to how widely derided these films are and how entrenched that makes its diehard fans if these things do not describe yourself relaxed if these things do describe yourself all I ask is that you hear me out now even more than critics and the fans nobody gets the poison of the DC EU tribalists like Marvel Studios to quote journalist Mac van Arden Marvel vs. DC 20 years ago it was just a discussion between nerds nerds who had been collecting comics for decades and would hold imaginary bear versus shark matches in bedrooms and dens Batman vs Iron Man Deathstroke vs. Punisher Thor vs. Wonder Woman while lamenting the fact that we'd never see those heroes on the big screen not the way they should be Stanley would refer to DC as the distinguished competition in public while likely saving the harsher language for behind closed doors while editors gamed out how to steal market share Marvel vs. DC has always had tribalism among its fans dating back to the days when they were primarily known through their comics and only a smattering of major motion pictures but this tribalism has intensified partly due to how easily it has become to argue with each other the internet the cause of and solution to all of our problems not just that but the movies exploded superheroes into the mainstream in such a way that even people who never read the comics or stopped reading the comics years ago could get in on the action the fan bases grew bigger and that also meant that the tribalists multiplied in vast numbers a swell of new recruits in this completely avoidable war Marvel fans were pretty happy Iron Man was both a critical and financial success and the seeds of an Avengers movie were planted on day one DC fans had a wholly different experience it was night and day day versus night shut up Lex like I said if you tell a Marvel tribalist that Iron Man 2 wasn't as good as the original or some other criticism they will probably agree and move on because there are so many other movies made by Marvel Studios that are just so much better but if you say Man of Steel was a goddamn mess they have nothing to fall back on except Wonder Woman and they didn't have that for a while in the comics at least when I read them DC was for proud glorious heroes with unshakeable morals and Marvel had more of an edge more grit in the movies the tone is different it's the Marvel movies that are funny and have the world's greatest human being and it's the DC movies that go for darkness and edginess yet these same DC fans who loved DC Comics for what they were claimed they loved the DC EU movies for the opposite reason they claimed that they always loved at the harder-edged even while previously reading Plastic Man and Booster Gold this can't be true so the culprit to this dishonesty is say it with me now tribalism now some people love the DC EU for authentic reasons and it would be disingenuous and unhelpful on my part to claim otherwise I have some respect for the Wonder Woman movie and I am personally very excited about the Shazam movie coming up Wonder Woman for whatever reason resonated with me and for some the DC EU in general resonates with them and does not cause fractious fighting and pointless sniping between studios there's nothing wrong with loving a movie or series of movies and I want that to be clear because the sarcastic bad faith argument of oh so we're not allowed to like something now is so on full and I would prefer to avoid that nothing is more transparent than arguing against a point that someone is not actually making I'm not looking down on people for enjoying a movie I mean I like crawl so you know there's no accounting for taste but the issue of tribalism which is different and how it affects the discourse surrounding media and its impact on culture is not something to be ignored some people don't love DC because of its tone they love it because it's DC and that's their tribe see tribalism is a double-edged sword one side makes you feel at home with people it makes you feel part of something it's warm and inviting on the other side there is the sharp cut for anyone who is not part of the tribe when fans insist that everyone love what they love it bypasses the borders of fandom and reaches tribalism it ruins the discourse about movies on social media and it ruins the minds of those who consume media because it narrows their interests Media is often our window into the world outside of our own limited experiences if our media interests are narrow so too is our worldview and our attitudes about others [Music] Man of Steel features a great number of flashbacks throughout the main thread of the narrative the present-day tale of Superman learning who he is Lois Lane tracking him down and general Zod's invasion of Earth we see a lot of glimpses into Superman's past who he is who his adoptive parents were etc they occur when someone says something that reminds Superman of past events this movies Slumdog Millionaire is all over the place now one would assume that these flashback scenes would parallel what is happening in the scene that preceded it but that is not actually the case some of it appears to be out of order and tells the story in such a way that the natural and necessary build of the narrative is cut down removing tension the flashbacks do not fit chronologically which is okay chronological order is not the problem but the real problem is they do not fit somatically with what preceded it or followed it sorry actually this is not Slumdog Millionaire I'll show you what I mean after the long prologue on Krypton an oil rig disaster threatens the lives of the workers and he chooses to save them in spite of the fact that this reveals his superpowers to strangers this undermines or even outright ruins the tension and conflict of the rest of the first half of the movie will Clark Kent become Superman afterward we begin to see flashbacks of Clark as a youth struggling with his emerging powers but even more importantly struggling with whether or not to use said powers to aid mankind one such flashback has his adoptive father Jonathan Kent tell a young Clark that he might have to let people die in order to keep his secret another flashback shows Clark being bullied and his father being proud of him for not fighting back and revealing his super strength another flashback shows Jonathan faced with death motioning for Clark not to save him because this would reveal his powers to strangers a screenplay creates and removes tensions some tensions are short and exist within a few scenes and some tensions are related to a central question of the film whether or not Clark will become a hero who uses his powers to save people is the big question and major point of tension in the first half of the movie or it would be without this one scene we begin with the revelation we begin with a scene that undercuts the tension during the prologue calles mother fears her son will be rejected on earth jor-el counters that they will see him as a God instead so what will Clark do well the first thing we see him do in the movie is get set on fire display his super strength to strangers and save lots of people the flashbacks happened in the wrong order the flashback with Jonathan and Clark debating whether or not to use superpowers means nothing to the tension because we already know what he's going to do if the flashbacks happened in the right order the tension would build and build and then we would see the oil rig scene as Superman's revelation of who he must be so in the movie when we see these flashbacks about whether or not he should fly around in a big red cape it adds nothing to the tension or rising action of the film now in defense some would claim that this is a Superman movie and ultimately he will help people and wear the suit it's on all the posters and that much is true we know Superman will be Superman in a Superman movie but that's not actually the point watching him slowly make that choice over the course of his life building to it one step forward one step back second-guessing himself before finally making the decision it is this tension and this slow build that would make for a strong narrative but it is dashed when the first scene on earth is Superman saving the workers on an oil rig and revealing himself so there's no tension or rising action in the traditional sense and this Rob's the film of the catharsis of the protagonists epiphany about who he must be we will get into this more later but one of the themes of the film is freedom to choose this is set up on Krypton when we discover that jor-el rebelled against everyone being born with a predetermined occupation and goal in life we immediately know the conclusion that the film wants to draw as it pertains to this theme with the scene or the oil rig being first we get the solution before the problem in the movie men nothing happens in chronological order it goes backwards but that's okay because the conclusion is still at the end of the film even though chronologically it is the first thing that happens we see it at the end for the audience it is the last thing that we see this movie is structured well Man of Steel is not now you might think that these flashbacks and non chronological storytelling serve a greater purpose that nullifies this criticism but what would that purpose be in the 1978 Superman film Clark's morality climax is when he chooses between what jor-el wants meaning not to use his powers to change the course of human history and what Jonathan wants the opposite of that Superman makes a choice and changes human history a Man of Steel this flashback to teach Superman a lesson and morality never really comes into play Man of Steel's entire structure this series of flashbacks it just doesn't work the flashbacks are also out of order not chronologically obviously they're out of order chronologically but formally they're out of order the flashback scene with the bullies belongs in concert with the present-day scene with the bully trucker if those happens side by side it would make a lot of sense but they don't in the flashback Superman learns not to hit bullies in the present Clark does not hit the bully that would be the best placement but the movie does not do this the scene with Jonathan telling young Clark to potentially let people die belongs immediately before the oil rig rescue scene again that would be best placement but the movie does not do this these would work if the flashbacks and present-day scenes paralleled one another but the placement is incorrect the audio of the flashback scenes bleed into the present-day suggesting the flashback and what is happening immediately prior to it or immediately following it are related but then it just isn't the resolution of Clark deciding to help people at the risk of his secret happens at the wrong time if someone re-edited the movie and certain scenes happened for other scenes instead this movie might almost be good not every movie needs its chronology in order but because the whole narrative tension is about Clark deciding whether or not to be Superman this movie does another noticeable problem in the story structure of Man of Steel is how it attempts to portray Superman as the classic hero as explained by Joseph Campbell the hero's journey or monomyth works more or less like this we are presented with either an ordinary world or an ordinary life with someone living in it there is a call to adventure initially the hero refuses the call for one reason or another not long thereafter something happens that changes the hero's mind and he accepts the call to adventure this all happens within the first quarter of the story to put it in screenplay terms this all happens in the first act a Man of Steel most of the film is about the refusal of the call which is supposed to be one brief stop on the hero's journey Superman is not an active player in his own story now not every movie needs to be a hero's journey or follow the monomyth but this one does it is literally a hero's journey it is literally a superhero origin movie it did not have to follow the journey beat for beat that might be too predictable but it needed to work within this theory if star wars used the Man of Steel method Luke Skywalker would spend most of the film on Tatooine at drinking blue milk occasionally debating whether or not he should do something with his life and having flashbacks Man of Steel does this and it makes for a completely unengaging story its strands itself on the island of the refusal of the call and we as the audience are stuck there with the hero that is somehow not the hero of his own story the hero is supposed to be the driving force behind what is happening the driving force of Man of Steel is everything around Superman a bus crash an oil rig explosion an alien invasion Superman becomes a reluctant hero he never properly answers the call to adventure some reluctant heroes can work especially if their supporting characters and make a conscious decision to answer the call even if they don't have to Superman must save the world because he is eventually given no choice by General Zod it's Superman's world - superman spends most of the movie being completely passive in fact one could argue that he's still passive about his decision to reveal himself to the world at the end of the film because he doesn't reveal himself to the world he reveals himself to the United States military which is absolutely not an appropriate stand-in for the world he also doesn't even fully reveal himself to said military because he continues to have an antagonistic relationship with them even at the end of the film so nothing is resolved his decision to become a journalist in the last couple minutes of the film is more decisive than his decision related to his heroics there is an incredible dissonance between what the film says and what the film shows jor-el says that Superman will be the ideal human being strive towards they will race behind him but eventually meet him in the Sun except Superman never becomes active enough to be that ideal and his actions are less than ideal the film simply does not realize that it framed Superman's punch-out with Zod as a triumph when it's actually a disaster and makes Superman a killer it frames Superman sacrificing his father as for the greater good even though it clearly is not and he could have saved them in two seconds with minimal fallout for himself and his secret identity there are what a dozen people there what the actual hell ah but back to the screenplay again not every film needs to follow the hero's journey step-by-step but it is a formula for a reason even beyond formula it is theory not theory like a scientific theory but academic theory meaning something that frames a work in terms of history interpretation etc theory is taking while not rules but a guideline of thought to make comparisons film theory as it relates to the three-act structure and where things fall basically is comparing based on precedent applying film theory related to the three-act structure of Man of Steel we see that it has a poor foundation compared to other films of its genre and other films that attempt to display similar stories when screenwriters write for film they might start by trying to fit their outline into the structure or they might not but in the end they will probably come up with something that can at least be defined by the structure by accident this means that this structure is not limiting it's only a bit of film theory that we apply to movies to compare them favorably or unfavorably to their contemporaries or analogues overlapping the hero's journey here we are consciously stuck in the refusal of the call in act 1 while narrative Lea being propelled forward into X 2 & 3 psychologically Superman is stuck in act 1 while everything around him and also the audience is drifting through acts 2 & 3 because of this there is this bizarre incongruity about where we are throughout the entire film sequences create and relieve tension and these tensions relate to the main tension of the film will Superman do the thing except as I said the main tension of the film is relieved in act 1 instead of much later in the film where it belongs this creates another bizarre incongruity throughout the film in short if you watched Man of Steel and thought something was amiss but couldn't quite explain it that is why the acts sequences and tensions are supposed to help build the film but they are arranged in such a way that they're not only ineffective but actively kneecap the film the problem is not that flashbacks exist or that the movie is non chronological those things can be fine in movies it's that the flashbacks and Man of Steel are placed poorly and the rising action doesn't work so the defense by DC EU tribalists that Man of Steel is good because it's different does not hold up to scrutiny because it actually can be explained through the three act structure it just follows it poorly and unevenly for all the reasons previously given and because of this it's unsatisfying to watch one screenplay formula is not necessarily universally superior to others it all depends on what kind of story you're trying to tell in the case of Man of Steel it's trying to tell the hero's journey and classic superhero origin story in 3x and I say it is trying to but it's also failing to its prologue as long its first act has no tension its second act is passive and its third act is loud grey and unpleasant its interwoven flashbacks are demonstrably out of order and our protagonist has so little to say that we do not get a sense of who he is outside of our pre-existing ideas about Superman based on earlier properties the screenplay went through a lot of rewrites and frankly it needed at least one more [Music] throughout Man of Steel jor-el either in flesh for more digital ghost forum extol the virtues of personal choice see on Krypton long ago the inhabitants decided that sex just wasn't for them it's icky and they started growing at their own children instead these new Kryptonians would not be subject to the same random chance of skills and ambitions as other people they are grown to have specific jobs and specific desires to perform sent jobs the recent General Zod is laser focused on protecting Krypton even at the expense of earth and even after Krypton became space dust is because he was born that way he was built to be a soldier whose singular goal is the protection of his planet a desire that lasts long after the destruction of said planet jor-el was bred to be a scientist so good and so sciency that he determines that Krypton is doomed and even though he obviously knows what he's talking about because he was bred to do that very thing nobody listens to him the Kryptonian politicians with World Series trophies on their heads were bred to be politicians so that probably means they received the gene that ignores good advice Lara gives birth to big blue the old-fashioned way something that is forbidden on Krypton George tells Zod about this and about the importance of having a choice in who you become and what you will do with your life when jor-el computer consciousness speaks to Superman he tells the son all about this and about how choosing your own destiny is the way to a fuller richer life for those skipping high school literature class this is a theme in the narrative a topic that the text examines a theme in a book or a movie is what the work is about a man of steel the central theme seems to be personal choice in who we become jor-el sees a society revolving around no choices changes it and that his son spends the whole movie deciding whether or not to be the ever-loving Superman Man of Steel is a story of have control over the ability to choose one's own path it's not particularly novel it's just an outgrowth of any protagonists character arc it's also the subject of every Disney Princess song you know the one in the beginning of the film where she sings about wanting more than what has been decided for her same thing Superman is Ariel he's an outsider on earth who wants to be here's the thing jor-el says he believes in this wacky new hippie concept called freedom of choice he says that kal-el will forge his own destiny his words General Zod thinks that if anything Krypton has too many choices and the best way to make Krypton great again is to take out what he deems to be inferior bloodlines from the baby making machines and the catalog of Kryptonian DNA called the Codex in short man of Steel is a freedom versus oppression narrative centered around the ability to create one's own path and choose one's own life except that it also totally is not see a screenplay goes through several drafts before it's finished and it generally has input from multiple people David s Goyer is credited as the sole screenwriter but the story also comes from Christopher Nolan and probably had some input from director Zack Snyder and a bunch of other people including uncredited script doctors so whether through a mistake by Goyer himself or because of too many cooks in the kitchen Man of Steel has a thematic dissonance problem a dissonance is a lack of harmony or a clash between two elements a contradiction of sorts a thematic dissonance in a movie is a contradiction between what the film says is its theme its topic its purpose it's lesson and a contradiction in the narrative after jor-el tells his son and by extension the audience about the central topic of the film choosing your own destiny he tells his son that he needs to be Superman he planned this all out for him his job his focus in life he even made a suit for him jor-el says that people must forge their own paths and then in the same breath tell Superman that he needs to be Earth's greatest hero it's Shepard it's Jesus and he really needs to do it while wearing this blue and red outfit with a cape jor-el has laid out his son's entire life for him in the same way that the Codex of Kryptonian DNA laid out the lives and occupations of Kryptonians now technically Superman could just say no thanks ghost dad and walk away after all by the time they meet jor-el doesn't even have a body that won't work though jor-el messed with his son's DNA an action he expressly is against by the way by infusing a copy of the Codex into Superman's cells that makes Superman solely responsible for the resurrection of the entire Kryptonian species it's also why General Zod launches a world killing assault on earth which only Superman is capable of stopping by being Superman so kal-el is free to choose his own path in life sure but due to circumstances created by his father including genetic manipulation of his own son he really only has one choice he can be Superman in fact he might have even less of a choice in what he can be than the average Kryptonian this is thematic dissonance the theme says one thing the narrative displays another thing entirely it's an example of bad or at least inconsistent screenwriting imagine someone telling you the importance of non-violence while strangling someone that is thematic dissonance now a little dissonance in a big story with tons of characters and ideas is normal the Lord of the Rings has one part in which Gandalf tells Frodo the importance of being careful about dealing out death but the main characters do end up solving all of Middle Earth's problems with violence however Gandalf's lesson is not that violence is never the answer only that we should be cautious and judicious about it also this is never set up as the central theme of the story anyway there is only dissonance in a superficial way and it's key to the story in the first place a Man of Steel oppressive lack of choice versus personal choice is hammered into us from the very beginning and like any good central theme it reoccurs several times afterward if you have ever heard a critic say that they don't think Man of Steel knew what it wanted to be this is an example of why people think that [Music] people who argue in favor of something questionable like a bad movie or a problematic opinion often fall back on the principle of their ability or right to like that movie or express that problematic opinion rather than justify the content of the movie or opinion a rationalization of concept rather than content you might have heard someone say something awful on the Internet let me rephrase that it's the Internet there is no might about it right you have heard someone say something awful on the internet and when challenged on the opinion that was disgusting or vile in some way the person who expressed it cried freedom of speech I have a right to say it as if that were in question that is a logical fallacy called a red herring an attempt to move the goal posts of the discussion or change the topic when person a challenges person B on the content of an opinion person B expresses person a is not calling into question whether person B has the legal right or ability to express it person a is calling into question either the veracity of the opinion or the morality of what was said the content of what was said not the ability or right to say it a similar fallacy occurs when discussing questionable movies person a challenges person B on the content of person B's claim that the movie is good and person B instead of providing useful evidence simply says that movies like all art is subjective as if that were a way to win an argument it's not it's really just a way to avoid an argument and that's fine nobody is obligated to argue in favor of the things that they like but ducking this debate does not win it saying art is subjective to end the debate is not the kill shot that those who say it believe it to be saying art is subjective to end the debate is forfeit so is all art subjective anyway well not exactly see I'll explain a movie is made up of a lot of different jobs run by a lot of different people and the line between something that is an art and a craft begins to blur the subjectivity of art comes from those witnessing it not from the craft itself meaning if someone in the audience enjoys a movie that is their subjective feeling and that's fine but there are objective standards to what makes something effective or engaging in a movie for example someone claims that a film has a plot hole by providing a discrepancy between one scene and another one can provide objective evidence for what is and is not strong cinematography based on what the human eye finds striking one can provide objective evidence for what is and is not coherent editing based on what the human brain finds easy or difficult to either remember or follow film critics I'm sorry but it's true usually have a greater understanding of these truths about film than the average moviegoer and definitely the average tribalist partly because critics often have degrees in this field but also because well you ever notice how their reviews explain why a movie does or does not work instead of just saying art is subjective well that's because they know it's a bull non argument that does not explain anything and it's not even entirely true their review is what is subjective their feelings are what is subjective there is no such thing as a truly objective review because a human being cannot escape their humaneness but a review or an explanation on why a movie is bad can contain objective evidence review of a movie or opinion movie subjective evidence to that end potentially objective here's an example outside of Man of Steel in Transformers the last night the aspect ratio of the film changes many times throughout the course of the film in fact it even changes many times over the course of a scene the eye generally finds this jarring and distracting in the same way that noticing a boom mic in a shot can be distracting the frame is compromised now whether this bothered you as an audience member is subjective but the fact that it exists and that it can be distracting to the human eye our objective pieces of evidence against the quality of this film example within Man of Steel the human mind reacts to various colors differently and associates different colors with different moods Man of Steel has a washed-out color palette throughout the film rarely does it deviate from these muddy gray colors this creates a consistent mood in the entire film which means the audience may feel the same way during the scene in which Clark can't become Superman as we do when Clark Kent is sad and loadly whether or not this bothered you is subjective whether or not it exists and can be judged based on how human beings often experience color in visuals is objective in terms of visual intensity and film there is affinity and contrast affinity means similarity contrast means difference not every scene in a movie can have high contrast or high affinity because the audience needs to be told through film language when something is important and when something is not in this scene in Blade Runner 2049 Ryan Gosling is silhouetted against a brightly exposed background we get the sense based on this visual that his journey is momentous and it is because this is the beginning of the next stage in the film when he discovers great truths and meets an important character it's not just pretty it informs the audience about the significance of what is about to happen but not every shot the film can have this high level of contrast in Man of Steel there are scenes with high contrast but so much of the film contains such affinity even during intense and important scenes that one questions some of the color choices so many scenes are just shades of washed out blue or grey and Superman does not pump visually the color of Superman here is also roughly the color of the background this affinity occurs during the scenes taking place in the present and during flashback scenes from the past it can also be seen in Kansas or in Canada or in space so it's not a visual reference to time or place it's not a way to inform the audience through visual film language about when and where this takes place instead it seems to serve less purpose in Man of Steel then it would serve in other more carefully crafted films in terms of color dramatic scene in which Superman's father dies affinity low impact scene in which Superman walks down a road affinity again now affinity is not inherently worse than contrast or vice-versa rather these are both tools in film language to communicate meaning and importance to the audience both are required for a film to have any kind of visual coherence and Man of Steel feels less coherent because of it critics and others argue against the visuals of Man of Steel due to the film's inability to use both tools effectively cinematography and color grading after the fact are not just arts they are crafts and crafts can be judged by certain standards to sum up when people say they hate the way Man of Steel looks it's not just because they have some personal vendetta against the color blue it's because the human eye and human brain interpret things different ways and also because a century of film language has given us a visual shorthand that Man of Steel does not fully embrace or utilize well the use or misuse of contrast in a in Man of Steel is only one example of how objective evidence can be used to explain why this film does not work it doesn't mean that your subjective enjoyment of man of steel is wrong but it does mean that there is demonstrable evidence about the film's problems our reaction to art is subjective but the art itself contains objective facts this is something that film critics generally understand but it can become muddied on say reddit and other places tribalists for these movies have a high population it's particularly difficult to explain this complex subject on Twitter people want short answers on social media particularly social media with character limits and art equals subjective though misleading is easier to express the DC extended universe has a tone problem Man of Steel came off the heels of the highly successful and critically acclaimed trilogy of Batman films directed by Christopher Nolan they merged the pop culture aspects of Batman with heavier ideas about the nature of justice and whether or not such a vigilante as The Dark Knight can enforce justice and if he can should he enforce justice is he creating more problems than he is solving is his worth a net positive for Gotham City or a negative while the films are far from perfect and have some problematic bugs lurking around in the innards of the trilogy the attempt to make Batman more mature but without alienating the popcorn audience was a solid move that established one of the best series of superhero films ever said films touched on weighty subjects but never in such a way that felt pompous and it kept just enough of a sense of humor and fun that it avoided accusations of pretentiousness Man of Steel based on a concept by Christopher Nolan himself aimed to establish a similar gravitas to Superman but grafting a serious and grim face onto a character who traditionally has been the polar opposite of that was a little hard to swallow Batman can pivot from superhero to Sirius figure more easily in doing this man of steel codified atone for the DCE you serious often grim sometimes bleak and only occasionally triumphant it's why the score was done by hans zimmer and not i don't know meatloaf this can work if the point was to pose the question should superheroes even exist showing them as flawed sometimes villainous characters with too much power but the DC EU presents this super seriousness without any self-awareness it presents Superman as someone with whom we should immediately sympathize it presents Batman's lethal violence as exciting rather than questionable it presents the Suicide Squad as villains who we should cheer for because they are still better and more interesting than those who control them superhero movies are usually power fantasies at their worst but hopeful at best the tagline to the 1978 Superman was you will believe a man can fly but Superman and other superheroes of the DC EU spend more time in the gutter we look down not up Man of Steel was a box-office success and with the tone established and Zack Snyder he'll make more movies going forward it couldn't really change this was the dark superhero universe tell me you're playing I'm just gonna hurt you really really from the DC Universe now for some fans this is not a bug it's a feature and while there were a few quiet moments and hopeful sequences and Man of Steel these were mostly excised in the next movie creating a grim dark movie series that is the darkest and grimaced it could be without receiving a heart our rating there is so much more in the DC EU to talk about that I don't even have time right now to talk about the deluge of product placement so bad that it would inspire a thousand obnoxious Tyler Durden speeches I will save discussing I hop for another video I will save that for my worst video you

Channel: Renegade Cut

Views: 237,158

Rating: 4.7122865 out of 5

Keywords: renegade cut, dceu, dceu news, dceu reboot, man of steel, man of steel review, man of steel analysis, man of steel trailer, man of steel scene, man of steel clip, batman v superman, justice league, wonder woman, suicide squad, man of steel didn't work, man of steel christ, man of steel opening, man of steel clark kent, man of steel superman kills zod, dc extended universe, man of steel superman, man of steel ending, man of steel explained, tribalism, marvel, mcu, dc vs marvel

Id: -fhjyAUUHg4

Length: 52min 40sec (3160 seconds)

Published: Thu Dec 20 2018

Reddit Comments

[u/UnjustNation]

Marvel tribalists were largely happy with the critical and financial successes of their films. DC's tribalist culture progressed differently if you tell a Marvel fan that the Incredible Hulk was a mediocre or a flat-out bad movie they might grudgingly agree because it doesn't feel too harsh when said fans luxuriate in greater films in their chosen franchise but if you tell DC's tribalists that Batman V Superman sucked having few other options in their Cinematic Universe to fall back on as proof of its worth they might react badly calling you a Disney shill or a paid off critic.

This is so accurate.