sethsez

Filmmaker, when there's a common complaint among just about everyone regarding one scene being confusing and out of left field in a movie, there are two possibilities. Either the audience is stupid, or the scene wasn't handled as well as it should have been.

I take it you think the audience is stupid. I tend to think the scene was just handled poorly and relied too much on knowledge of the comics to establish the power. Superman being able to fly and being amazingly strong was, and is, common knowledge regarding the character, so those did not come out of nowhere for viewers (the film did not exist in a vacuum), but his ability to reverse time was not a power general audiences were aware he had (even if comic fans knew), and thus should have been built up a bit more, especially since it wound up being the climax of the film.

In short, the movie assumed too much knowledge of the character from the audience, and used one of his more obscure powers as the central element of the climax without explaining it for those who were most likely out of the loop and only knew Superman as "the guy in blue who's strong and can fly."

Filmmaker

Now this an argument I can get behind, because that's where you are superceding your peers' arguments: they are stillt trying to argue that it's a deux ex machina, and that is the argument I am fighting; if you find it weak not because its an alleged DEM, but simply a weaker scriptwriting crutch than any of the other super powers Superman displays, designed solely to get the writer out of a fix, then I have no beef with that (though even then I don't entirely agree with you, since I feel the meat of that moment from a writing standpoint is not the "easy reset" but the depths of emotions the scene wrenches from our hero, and the "crime of passion" it causes him to make).

chess

Quoted for truth.

Filmmaker

I've already explained that the pseudo-science behind it is IDENTICAL to what is shown in STAR TREK IV: THE VOYAGE HOME, substituting Superman for a Klingon Bird of Prey and the Earth's gravity for the Sun's, yet no one gripes about the latter. Why?

(Potentially) Wrong. When he was reversing, he was opening a time portal; that time portal conceivably could continue to exist once created, without a need for Superman to continue generating it; then, when it was time to "kick start" the time line into its proper direction and speed, he jumped back into "time portal opening" mode, negating the original time portal by opening this second one. When the timeline was properly restored to normal condition, he just dropped back into it and voila!

Filmmaker

One of the stronger arguments made yet, so I respect your take on things. I would question your desire to place the onus on explaining things down to the lowest common denominator on the filmmakers, who may very well have been designing their film primarily for fans of the comic, however. So the arguments breaks down thusly; if the argument is that the time travel power, unlike all the others, came out-of-left-field for a film that "doesn't live in a vacuum" and that's why it is decried, I can respectfully disagree (mainly because I feel for the film to have the weight it has, it had to be designed "from the ground up", choosing what it wanted to keep, alter and drop from the comic book history of the character). If the argument is that it is unclear what is actually happening on screen, though, then I disrespectfully disagree.

sethsez

Because time travel is long established in the Star Trek series, and pointless technobabble is a central part of what makes the series so endearing to some people in the first place. It fits entirely in with what both fans and the general populace expected. Superman's time traveling ability was known by comic fans, but not by the general populace, and the movie didn't do a very good job of setting up that ability.

Context matters, and Star Trek had more context for it than the Superman movie did. Likewise, I can accept Anakin Skywalker being able to push things without touching them through his command of the force, but it'd be a bit out of place seeing Billy Crystal do it in When Harry Met Sally. Obviously a ridiculous comparison, but my point is that people expect Star Trek to pull technological bullshit out of its ass, but by the same token they expect Superman to have clearly defined powers and limits, so if the filmmakers were going to introduce a new one (or, as the case was, bring up an obscure one), a bit more effort should have been made to define and emphasize its existence before making it the central part of the climax.

This wasn't portrayed as clearly as it could have, and should have, been. We knew time travel was taking place, but what exactly was going on was pretty vague. I'm not entirely sure where the blame for this goes (the script, the direction, the effects or the editing), but time travel is typcially something audiences can deal with without confusion, and that should have been the case here as well.

iggystar

Iggystar, exhausted with the endless debate of the ending of Superman: The Movie in the Deus Ex Machina thread, throws a mind numbing, psychic explosion wiping the memories of DVD Talkers so they will stop the madness and move on.

Worst..Deus Ex Machina..ever.

Filmmaker

You've got my vote...moving on...

daniel18

I don't think that's Deus Ex Machina at all.

The Dead Men owed allegiance to the King of Gondor. When Aragorn commanded them and freed them, he was able to prove he was Isildur's Heir. They didn't just appear out of nowhere, as Isildur's Heir was the only one to have been able to comand them.

The Gandalf coming back thing was by far and wide the worst DEM in LOTR, IMO.

Robertwoj

He could use time travel ALL the time to stop crime and tragedy BEFORE any of it happens. All he needs to do is sit back watch the news, then go back in time and prevent whatever it was that happened. It would be boring.

Dead

Filmmaker, you have every right to your opinion on the topic. But, that's no excuse for being rude and insulting to those who hold different opinions. In the future, please learn to make your point with out denigrating others.

chanster

First, the writers attempted to establish that Superman had the ability to time travel throughout the movie. Jor-El's statements to him that time travel is forbidden implies that he has the power to do it. However, its a weak set-up and not established strongly.

Secondly, spinning the Universal logo going backward doesn't prove diddly squat about a visual that shows Superman going flying really fast, making the Earth stop spinning on its axis and then reversing time because of it (and then having to go forward to "start the Earth spinning again"

Finally, even the timeline of earthbound visuals don't make sense. It shows the river going back from behind the dam - but in the new timeline, it clearly establishes that Jimmy Olsen was taken by Superman and dropped off in a valley. Guess where Jimmy Olsen was when Superman rescued him? He was on the dam!! So did he need to be rescued again? Perhaps, but why wasn't Lois car just re-engulfed then?

So did Jimmy Olsen need to be rescued from a dam that wasn't blowing up?

I accept it for what it is, a comic book movie that takes liberties with the whole idea of time travel, etc. I love the movie, its still my favorite my comic book movie (and will remain that way) but the time travel visual and storyline never made sense for me, even as a kid.

kcbrett5

Well you are wrong. And wow, somebody has watched that movie wayyyy too many times.

All I know is that the good guys had lost and there was only 3 more people outside the walls who could help fight an entire army. But at the last second those 3 show up with an invincible ghost army.

Brent L

I haven't seen the movie in a while, but why didn't he just hang on to that "invincible ghost army" to help deal with everything up to the very end? Was there a reason given for that? Since they did that one deed for him did that mean that they were then free to "pass on"?

sethsez

There was a big scene setting up the ghost army long before it showed up, and it implied that they'd be used to fight a massive battle. They showed up at a lucky time, yes, but it didn't come out of nowhere.

The birds rescuing Frodo and Sam at the end, on the other hand...

Filmmaker

Well, I did mention my style usually isn't a moderator-preferred one, but some risks ya just gotta take. I can't promise I'll take the advice, but I've noted it, and will accept future consequences if I don't take it...

covenant

Or read the books a time or two....

rw2516

How about Excalibur .

Aetherus

How do you consider the gunships' arrival in We Were Soldiers Deus Ex Machina, considering this was based off true events? The Gunships were already on their way and arrived in the nick of time. They did not show up randomly.

GoldenJCJ

It's been years since I've seen We Were Soldiers so I don't know, but was there any mention that the gunships were on their way anytime during the film? If not, regardless if it was true events, it could still be condsidered a DEM in the movie.

TimeandTide

I don't think this qualifies. Gunships obliterating an enemy force--last second or not--isn't unusual or unexpected. Plus, the location of the soldiers wasn't a mystery, so the arrival of gunships makes sense considering the circumstances.

Filmmaker

I made iggystar's day by promising to move on...won't you join us?