> "Man of Steel" on the other hand, begins with action, continues with action, and ends with action, taking only brief breaks to string along a flimsy plot and

> "Man of Steel" on the other hand, begins with action, continues with action, and ends with action, taking only brief breaks to string along a flimsy plot and barely flesh out stereotypical characters. Halfway through the city-wrecking final action sequence one finds oneself wishing the film would just get to the point! It's like the cinematic equivalent of "the loudness wars" in music production. In music, the idea is that people like volume and it makes songs stand out on the radio, jukebox, or a test screening so the only way to compete with loudness is more loudness. The fear is that compared to competing tunes your offering will seem too quiet and boring and some ADHD-addled listener might (gasp!) change the channel. In movies you also see this sacrifice of pacing and careful buildup of tension for wall-to-wall action and destruction. On the surface, more volume, more energy, more destruction, and more action seem like a sure way to ensure something memorable since you've maximized the "peaks" and avoided those dull, boring "valleys". In reality, the whole thing is mentally exhausting and you end up with no stand-out moments. When you start off at 11 and stay at 11, you miss the buildup. I'd argue that in music and in film, it's the "contrast" between high and low that elicit the most memorable experiences.