How AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTRON Succeeds Where MAN OF STEEL So Miserably Failed

"However, Avengers: Age of Ultron shows heroes actually protecting people, and isn't that what's really important?"

I'm not wasting my time giving examples of how Superman saved multiple people throughout the film, and when he didn't it was because the situation in the context of the film prevented it. It gets a bit dull using the same valid arguments against people who complain about a film regarding fictional characters two years after it's release just for clicks.

But hey, the headline got my click!

STOP THIS WILDING. WHILE YOU HAVE THE CHANCE

It's a shame this is going to be buried underneath the typical Wilding flame-war stuff, but I believe this actually makes a few good points.

Rather than fanboys arguing about the actual logistics of fictional fights (ie: "There are only 3 instances of Supes crashing into buildings, and that's because Zod threw him, and it's his first day on the job, and..."), it's MUCH more important to look at the intent of the author. What was Zack Snyder actually trying to say with the rampant destruction of Metropolis? He was leaning pretty hard on 9/11 imagery, that can't be denied, but virtually none of the aftermath of the battle is ever covered in the film. And if he was just trying to make it as "realistic" as possible, than that's kind of an empty sentiment too, IMO. It's more of an excuse to just fill up the screen with crazy amounts of cool-looking CGI.

But when you look at The Avengers climax in Manhattan (haven't seen AoU yet, so can't comment on that), it's clear that the Chitauri cause TONS of damage and death too. So why is that so different? IMO, it's because Whedon never revels in the destruction. The camera never focuses too much on collapsing buildings or aliens killing civilians (in fact, the deleted scenes are the only places where you even see dead bodies), because we always return to the actual Avengers kicking ass and directly saving lives. When you actually watch both movies and compare them to each other, there's a noticeable difference.

Simply put, Snyder filmed the destruction of parts of Metropolis for the imagery and the "coolness" factor, while Whedon filmed it to give the main characters their opportunity to prove their heroics. Just my 2 cents.

This is a fantastic article, but why are we STILL talking about Man Of Steel? Can't we all just let that damn movie go?

The flame war to end all flame wars is upon us.

2 years later and MOS still living in people's heads

wheew!

DC heroes are there to beat the Villains... and Marvel heroes are here to save people.

If there was a thumbs down article button I would have clicked it, but since there isn't I'm just making this comment.

This should be fun lol

The only reason the Avengers even succeeded in saving nearly as many people during the last battle is because Fury had a Hellicarrier conveniently hidden away along with a whole crew to man it and its various rescue ships. I would've LOVED to see them save them all without bullshit Deus ex machina (they wouldn't and they'd fail miserably).

Also, neither Tony nor Wanda get ANY shit for the events that transpire throughout the movie, unlike Superman who's gonna have hell to pay in BvS. So really, HOW is this any better than MoS?

Both movies are good....but not great...

Villain wise.....Ultron is very weak compared to Zod..

The same way Avengers 1 is still on everyone else's mind. Keep it real ho.