NOTE: The first paragraph of this post contains a Terminator Genisys spoiler. Skip to the second paragraph if you want to avoid it.
By the end of Terminator Genisys we are to believe Skynet has been destroyed. That’s it, no more, all done. If you walk out of the theater as the credits roll and make it into the lobby before a mid-credits scene plays, that’s the impression you’ll be left with. However, as those that have now seen it realize, the Matt Smith character, seen briefly in the film’s opening and periodically throughout the finale, mimicking the behavior of Resident Evil‘s Red Queen, is still “alive” and Skynet still has plans of its own. The scene renders the entirety of the film moot as we now know Smith’s character was merely a creation to ensure the story never ends, thus allowing for more films to be made. Whether or not that story is ever told depends on the box office, which isn’t looking good so far, but it’s also turning movies into the first season of extended television series, ending on a cliffhanger, promising the audience more the next time around. Problem is, if a movie doesn’t get enough box office support the franchise is effectively cancelled, leaving audiences twisting in the wind, their money wasted on a story they’ll never get to the end of. Are we to interpret all franchise blockbusters in this way going forward?
This question and the one posed in the headline came to me while reading Zack Snyder‘s comments in EW regarding the climactic battle in Man of Steel, which see Superman and Zod destroy an entire city followed by Superman breaking the “Superman doesn’t kill” rule and snapping Zod’s neck.
Think pieces galore arrived, chastising the film for its lack of recognition for all that must have surely died while Superman and Zod went punch crazy in a major metropolis as buildings crashed and burned all around them. Then, as Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice was announced, rumors were the film would not only address the carnage, but serve as the catalyst for getting Batman involved, thus providing the “v” in the film’s title.
Personally, I took most of that to be a bunch of bullshit, at least the idea they had planned on it the entire time, but it seems that’s exactly what Snyder and team are rolling with as Snyder tells Entertainment Weekly he was surprised people reacted the way they did to the end of Man of Steel. “I was surprised because that’s the thesis of Superman for me, that you can’t just have superheroes knock around and have there be no consequences,” Snyder said. “There are other superhero movies where they joke about how basically no one’s getting hurt. That’s not us. What is that message? That it’s okay that there’s this massive destruction with zero consequence for anyone?”
Am I missing something? Was there a scene in Man of Steel where they addressed the destruction? Why would Snyder be surprised anyone responded the way they did? Is it because after the movie ends we’re supposed to assume the next film will address the destruction? Is that honestly what he’s saying?
The film didn’t end with Superman standing over Zod’s body, looking on at the destruction that resulted from their battle. In fact, the movie doesn’t end with the battle at all, instead opting to pick up some time in the future with Superman telling the government he’ll help them, but only on his terms and then we see him begin his career as Clark Kent at the “Daily Planet”. Where’s the part where Man of Steel addresses any of the destruction again?
Ben Affleck, who plays Batman in the new film, also chimed in telling EW, “One of the things I liked was Zack’s idea of showing accountability and the consequences of violence and seeing that there are real people in those buildings… in fact, one of those buildings was Bruce Wayne’s building so he knew people who died in that Black Zero event.”
Personally, I like the fact they are using the events the way they are, it’s a smart move and it makes sense, but it doesn’t excuse the fact Man of Steel now looks like an incomplete work. At 143 minutes long, that just shouldn’t be the case. Perhaps trade in some of the punching and product placement for storytelling. If you truly intended Superman to be called into question for the destruction his fight with Zod produced and the decision didn’t come as a reaction to audience reaction, then include it in the original film.
I can only imagine how much better Man of Steel might have been had it ended with the public shaming of Superman and his actions, what appears to be a complete lack of concern for public safety. Yes, we as an audience realize he let his emotions and the situation get the best of him. We know Superman has a moral code, but the film ignored that fact and now we’re meant to believe that was all part of the plan? If you intended to instill Superman’s set of morals in him, why not actually establish them at the same time you’re establishing the character? Because you know what this means right?
I can only assume the first minutes of Batman v Superman will be dedicated to fake news stories covering the destruction in Metropolis and growing concern over Superman, idolized by some, hated by others. Politicians and talking heads will weigh in with cameo appearances galore. After all, even the first trailer for the film did this.
Then they’ll bring Batman in with his Superman-proof/Robocop-esque outfit to battle Superman before the two join forces against a common enemy, taking advantage of the opportunity, eventually allowing Superman and Batman to come into the good graces of the public and eventually form the Justice League, likely with an ending left open so we walk away with more questions than answers. And who knows, it could be a lot of fun, but this idea of giving audiences incomplete movies has to stop. This is what separates movies from television.
Movies are contained stories, even if they are part of a larger story. Television shows are episodic, meant to be consumed over several episodes and/or seasons. With a film, a world can be built and a story can be told without having to tease or hold over aspects of the story for the next one. To do so is to immediately devalues the movie you’ve made. What you’re saying to the audience is that No matter what you thought of this movie, even if you thought it was utter trash, just you wait, you’re going to love what we’re going to do next! I noticed this first hand with The Wolverine credits scene. The movie was mediocre at best, but my audience actually cheered at the end, not for the movie itself, but for the scene that came at the end, having nothing to do with The Wolverine, but promising what was to come in X-Men: Days of Future Past. It’s a genius bit of marketing, but an awful bit of filmmaking.
