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

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

Marvel vs. DC Comics is a pointless argument when the DC Cinematic Universe currently consists of a single release. However, there are some startling similarities between Avengers: Age of Ultron and Man of Steel, and the former comes out on top for one obvious reason. Why? Find out here...

Editorial Opinion
By JoshWilding - Apr 30, 2015 12:04 PM EST
Filed Under: Man of Steel
 
I'll be honest; the first time I watched Man of Steel, the mass destruction in Metropolis never really caught my attention. Well, it did, but in no other way than the fact that it was just an amazing fight sequence between Superman and General Zod. The destroyed buildings and casualties seemed to be just part and parcel of a battle between two incredibly powerful beings, one of whom was trying to destroy the Earth and the other to save it. Whatever faults I might have with Man of Steel, this fight scene was exactly what I've always wanted to see in a Superman movie, and Zack Snyder did a stellar job here, just like he did with other comic book adaptations like 300 and Watchmen. 

Once Man of Steel was released, it didn't take long for think pieces to start showing up which took a closer look at the fact that Superman had effectively killed thousands of people. Of course, that wasn't half as controversial as the hero ending his battle with Zod by snapping his neck, but that too didn't bother me and is a conversation for another day. Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is actually going to pick up on that destruction anyway, but you have to wonder if that was always the plan or a result of the very vocal response online. It could be either one, though you have to give them credit for further exploring it regardless because some would just act like it never happened.

Looking back at those criticisms, I get it. Superman was never really shown saving civilians, and while it could be argued that saving the world was more important than a few lives of those in a single city, not seeing more of that definitely hurt this interpretation of the iconic DC Comics superhero. It's not that big of a deal, and I actually think it's pretty impressive that Superman was shown killing the only link to his home world to save a family, so Man of Steel no doubt deserves a lot of credit in other respects. However, Avengers: Age of Ultron gives a very different perspective on how heroes should act in situations like this. Yes, they're a team, and there's more than one of them. That's a fair point, and one which is definitely taken into account here. However, it still gets something right which Man of Steel failed greatly to. 

In the final act of Avengers: Age of Ultron, the team [minor spoiler alert] is threatened with an event which could end the world. Billions of lives are on the line, and they're all that stands between humanity and Ultron. However, rather than focusing solely on taking the villain down, the team makes sure to save and each and every civilian in sight, even if it means that they die. When Black Widow points out to Captain America that saving a few thousand people isn't as important as saving the world, he refuses to let a single person die. In fact, the line "If you get hurt, hurt them back. If you die, walk it off," says all you need to know. 

Their determination to save everyone means that great sacrifices are made on their part, and the team isn't the same as a result. However, they keep those people safe, and isn't that what superheroes should do? It's great seeing a being powerful beyond our understanding fight to save the planet, but how are we supposed to really relate to that when we're being crushed by falling debris? Meanwhile, a normal man with a bow and arrow is putting his life on the line to save a child from death, even if it potentially means the end of his own life. Even the billionaire in the iron suit takes a break from trying to stop Ultron's plan to rescue a family in a collapsing building. Superman is no doubt a hero, but The Avengers' actions in this movie make them feel like true heroes. The kind of real-life heroes who run into building burnings to save people or put themselves in great danger each and every time they go to work for the day. You know, firemen and cops. 

The destruction in Man of Steel has set up some interesting stories for the future. However, Avengers: Age of Ultron shows heroes actually protecting people, and isn't that what's really important? Is Batman v Superman going to be more "destruction porn" as some dubbed it when those heroes go to war? People die, thats a sad fact of life, but superheroes at least should be able to save those people...even if that's not how things go in the real world. What do you guys think? 
Zack Snyder Shares Never-Before-Seen Photo Of Henry Cavill As Clark Kent In MAN OF STEEL
Related:

Zack Snyder Shares Never-Before-Seen Photo Of Henry Cavill As Clark Kent In MAN OF STEEL
MAN OF STEEL Star Kevin Costner Reflects On Jonathan Kent's Controversial Death Scene
Recommended For You:

MAN OF STEEL Star Kevin Costner Reflects On Jonathan Kent's Controversial Death Scene
DISCLAIMER: ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and... [MORE]

ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

Do you have what it takes to write for us?
Want to contribute?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ...
JoshWilding
JoshWilding - 4/30/2015, 12:38 PM
spidey1994
spidey1994 - 4/30/2015, 12:41 PM
Just replace race with flame.
xxxxxxx
xxxxxxx - 4/30/2015, 12:41 PM
"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!
Peel
Peel - 4/30/2015, 12:42 PM
Oh boy another flamebait article...
KingJames
KingJames - 4/30/2015, 12:43 PM
STOP THIS WILDING. WHILE YOU HAVE THE CHANCE
SauronsBANE
SauronsBANE - 4/30/2015, 12:43 PM
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.
YeezusWept
YeezusWept - 4/30/2015, 12:43 PM
XMenMarvelFan
XMenMarvelFan - 4/30/2015, 12:43 PM
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?
HavocPrime
HavocPrime - 4/30/2015, 12:43 PM
It has been two years and still people talk about Man of Steel.
Pedrito
Pedrito - 4/30/2015, 12:43 PM
The flame war to end all flame wars is upon us.
Genaro
Genaro - 4/30/2015, 12:44 PM
Damn it I clicked for bait.
PAF
PAF - 4/30/2015, 12:44 PM
I know people are gonna be salty as [frick] but the was the main part I loved about the film. It was so heroic. That's what heroes are supposed to do.

Even though I didn't care about the destruction in MoS.
FrozenDiamondz
FrozenDiamondz - 4/30/2015, 12:45 PM
2 years later and MOS still living in people's heads

wheew!
sjoerdo0
sjoerdo0 - 4/30/2015, 12:45 PM
DC heroes are there to beat the Villains... and Marvel heroes are here to save people.
KingJames
KingJames - 4/30/2015, 12:45 PM
batz11
batz11 - 4/30/2015, 12:45 PM
SauronsBANE
SauronsBANE - 4/30/2015, 12:45 PM
I also hate the mindset that, after a certain amount of time has passed, we simply can't talk about specific movies anymore.

WTF? If you enjoy watching films, then don't you want to actually talk about films? Why put these arbitrary expiration dates on them?
LlamaLord
LlamaLord - 4/30/2015, 12:45 PM
If there was a thumbs down article button I would have clicked it, but since there isn't I'm just making this comment.
MonsterSquad35
MonsterSquad35 - 4/30/2015, 12:46 PM
It was the color. Blame the color of Man of Steel.

Shit, I thought it was entertaining....
BigDriggs
BigDriggs - 4/30/2015, 12:46 PM
This should be fun lol
DellRusk
DellRusk - 4/30/2015, 12:46 PM
"IT HAS BEGUN!!!!!"

-Shang Tsung
ekrolo2
ekrolo2 - 4/30/2015, 12:46 PM
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?
batz11
batz11 - 4/30/2015, 12:47 PM
KingJames
KingJames - 4/30/2015, 12:47 PM
Josh Wilding fails already lol

"Looking back at those criticisms, I get it. Superman was never really shown saving civilians"
ThedamnBatman
ThedamnBatman - 4/30/2015, 12:47 PM
Aside from some spelling errors, the article was a good read, though, enough about Man Of Steel already, we should be done discussing the film, and look forward to the next
gulducati
gulducati - 4/30/2015, 12:48 PM
Marvel heroes save everyone regardless. DC heroes save the pretty ones they want to bang later.
FormulaOne
FormulaOne - 4/30/2015, 12:48 PM
xxxxxxx
xxxxxxx - 4/30/2015, 12:48 PM
An exceptional article nonetheless. I'm just not a fan of intentionally insinuating fanboy nonsense about a movie most people on both sides of the spectrum won't be changing their opinions about. It's just asking for shenanigans.
Brainiac13
Brainiac13 - 4/30/2015, 12:48 PM
Both movies are good....but not great...

Villain wise.....Ultron is very weak compared to Zod..
PAF
PAF - 4/30/2015, 12:48 PM
The same way Avengers 1 is still on everyone else's mind. Keep it real ho.
ThedamnBatman
ThedamnBatman - 4/30/2015, 12:48 PM
That's a terrible title for the article though
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ...
Related Headlines
Latest Headlines

Hot Headlines Hot Headlines

Sci-Fi & Fantasy

Anime & Manga

Gaming

Horror

Cartoons & Animated Features

Action Movies & TV

Pro Wrestling & MMA News
View Recorder