CHRONICLE Writer Max Landis On MAN OF STEEL & Superhero Movies

I like some of his opinions.

He's kind of funny too.

I have one question about man of steel... why didn't the family try to move or duck out of the way?

First of all, Superman would have a hard time saving people if he is battling other Kryptonians so how would he able to save others? Moot point from Max.

If Superman wasted time saving people, Lois would have died with the destruction of the plane, the Phantom Drive would have been destroyed and even more people would have died due to the terraforming device. I really don't understand why the [frick] is it so hard for people to understand this.

@RorMachine - If we would have had Max Landis version of MOS, Superman would be skipping in a garden tossing flowers and making sure nobody died in Metropolis while Zod recreates Metropolis into Krypton.

Hold on, only captain stacey died in the end of The Amazing Spider-Man.

@subzero1077, you're kidding right?

@MrMartinMarvel

I don't have a problem with his complaints because some of them are genuine, I'm just sick of people saying he could have taken Zod into space, lured him away or spent time saving more people. If he tried to do ANY of those things he would have lost, and the entire human race would have died.

I don't get the whole collateral damage arguments I was watching TIH yesterday & they did the same shit.Not to mention Banner even mentions it in The Avengers.So what's the difference between Zod vs Supes & Hulk vs Abomination?

I agree with you Ror. These people do realize that this is a movie about flying aliens destroying a made up city. I could maybe see their point if it was a movie where the US army allowed a column of Al Quada tanks duke it out with the US military in the middle of Manhattan

Now I'm sad John Cusack wasn't Superman : (

Why didn't Zod just throw on a pair of reading glasses when he was getting his a$$ kicked and then Supes would have wondered why he was kicking the teeth in of an innocent dude

His criticisms about Super Heroes not being 'heroes' don't hold weight, basically because 'hero' is such an ambiguous term.

Take Spider-Man for example. He makes fun of his enemies so... what? Spider-Man wasn't born a hero; he was born as an insecure individual named Peter Parker whose second identity let him express himself in a way he couldn't before.

Take Tony Stark. He says a hero that stands while society crumbles is not a hero, it's a rock star. Well... Yeah. Tony Stark is a rockstar. Have you even seen a movie about this guy? In the end of his very first movie he told, plain and simple, that he wasn't a hero.

And Thor? Thor is guy whose culture, morals and values are compeltely different from Earth's... Wanting him to be an 'ideal hero' would just make a bad story.

The only "ideal" hero you could have for example would be someone liek Captain America. A guess what... He did everything Landis attacked in this video: he helped people while battling, he tried to coordinate a way for damage to be minimized and the first opportunity he had to solve the problem (closing the portal) he ordered to do so.

I like the point he ilustrated until he started promoting himself. I'm sorry... I just could't stand it. He says Chronicle does a good job in his rampage because you care about the two guys involved... WTF? And in MoS you don't? In ST:ID you don't? In The Avengers YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT THE FIVE FIGHTERS INVOLVED?! But apparently you do in Chronicle. Seriously?

In the story, Superman did the best he could with the given situation, and he did save the day.

The alternative really, is for writers to only create situations that are more easily solvable, where everybody goes home happy.

I may be in the minority but I actually didn't like Chronicle.

While I'll admit he hits on a point with his "superman doesn't commit mass destruction" take, I only have to agree with him in the sense that the narrative didn't effectively convey to a mass audience the collective impact the aftermath of all those buildings being destroyed must have had as an impact on Metropolis.

Personally speaking, I think it's an exaggerated detail as many should let a detail that minuscule to the overall narrative just be left alone. The focus of that drawn out fight was done in a very Nolan-esque way to hit on a few points I feel revitalize the impact this superman take is supposed to ultimately have:

1. Sequel. It's been said to death on boards and in conversations about the film, but I think Goyer knew he had more freedom in a superman origin than an established superman film or sequel. You could see that he wrote in a scenario where Luthor could rise to power by rebuilding Metropolis in the next film and by using the power of the mind, of people, and societal restrictions to render superman essentially powerless against a man who controls the people he's spent his whole 1st movie deciding that he will ultimately kill for to prove that he cares for them as though he is one of them.

2. Early death has a profound effect. What I mean by this is that much like in Batman Begins we have 2 serious death scenes that make and shape the man who is becoming this hero. Same can be said here for Superman. While Batman had to watch his parents die, Clark had to watch his father die and realize that given the situation (despite his ability he has that ultimately could have saved his father) he's left with the pain of watching him die. The 2nd crucial death is in that of the villain. Just like in Batman Begins, Superman realizes that the death of his enemy is for the greater good. (On a side note, I think that Batman Begins' ending is far worse between the 2, as Ras Al Ghul would have been much easier to keep under lock and key, but i digress...) What ultimately makes this superman is that he sees in the final climactic beats of the film that he's severing any ties to his home world, he's definitely a protector of earth and it's people, and most importantly he cries out in agony over all the death and destruction he's caused to signify the pain this massive deal of destruction and loss bears on his soul. (which i believe will lead to an established code of ethics for how he handles his abilities in and future installments)

I could go on, but I'm gonna dial it back. It would be nice to have heard him say a simple line like "Never Again" as he looks out into all the destruction he's caused, but i feel thats ultimately too picky and i think the film stands on its own as a masterpiece. Let's wait for a sequel before we hate on every little thing about this movie.

What scares me in "The Avengers" is that amid the death,turmoil & destruction in New York city after that big fight, The Avengers went out to eat shawarma...