This thread is for those who have seen the film to discuss it openly. If you want to discuss Man of Steel without spoilers, there is a thread for that here:
This thread will be chocked full of spoilers. You have been warned.
It is still around 8:00 pm on the Pacific coast and MoS won't start for around four hours (midnight show). East coast people are probably in the theater watching in now. I've no idea what's happening around the world.
So, I've got my ticket and apparently some time to kill.
Who else is going, or have already gone to an early showing?
As for the movie, I'm excited to see the non-insane version of Zod. I didn't like how he was done in the 80s version, nor in Smallville. A soldier looking to scour Earth and remake it into a new starting place for Krypton civilization (where everyone gets to be a god) is an interesting take.
I've got to wait two weeks before I have a chance to see it, thanks to stupid Australian release dates, but I have a couple of questions for before then:
1. How much is the movie weighted towards the origin story trailers (which I hated) compared to the "YOU. ARE. NOT. ALONE." trailer (which I loved)?
2. How do they treat Faora (General Zod's right-hand woman). She looks awesome, but her comic counterpart was apparently some man-hating strawman feminist. I'd rather they avoided that.
Okay. I must admit that I enjoyed this a hell of a lot more than the Avengers.
Seeing Superman throw punches, use his heat vision, and fly super fast is so much of a relief given the emo Smallville version or the milktoast turbo-nerd of Christopher Reeve.
I see the hints of how Luther will come to be Superman's enemy given the large scale destruction of Metropolis. Man, that city looked worse than when the alien destroyed it in Cloverfield. Damage was amazingly realistic, too.
Zod as a genetically engineered soldier instead of just a guy who became a soldier is also an interesting choice. A society where everyone is genetically pre-programmed to fulfill a role was handled really well here.
Quibbles include the destruction of Krypton. Core implosion that results in an explosion? Really? Still, not a big issue. The other is where Superman is constantly looking like a chump who's just gotten his arse beat. Every punch he takes, he's on the ground acting like he's done for. It was really done too often and made Superman look a little too weak given that the rest of the Krypton soliders basically shrugged off similar punches.
So, now that those of you reading this thread have (hopefully) seen it, what do you think?
AlexHolker wrote: 1. How much is the movie weighted towards the origin story trailers (which I hated) compared to the "YOU. ARE. NOT. ALONE." trailer (which I loved)?
2. How do they treat Faora (General Zod's right-hand woman). She looks awesome, but her comic counterpart was apparently some man-hating strawman feminist. I'd rather they avoided that.
First question. Of course this is heavily weighted toward the origin story. But it's a different take than what we've seen previously in the movies or on Smallville. It pays only slight homage to the 80s film and none to Smallville. Man of Steel starts out showing the demise of Krypton, the stagnation and dysfunction of Kryptonian society, and sending Zod & Co. to the Phantom Zone while Kal-el is shipped off to Earth. Krypton is a "post" intersteller civilization and all her colonies have been lost. On Earth, the story of Clark's childhood is told through flashbacks and finally through Lois Lane tracking him down to his home in Smallville.
Second question. Faora is a cold arse soldier and little else. She was genetically bred to be who she is and has no morals like Clark does. Neither she nor Zod are insane, thugs, or mustashe twirling villans. This version, imo, is much improved over the previous almost comical version.
Best Superman movie yet, but pretty unremarkable otherwise. The first 15 minutes were probably the best. It's fun watching Supes and Zod duke it out on the big screen, if you're willing to pay 11 bucks for it. I wish I hadn't.
AlexHolker wrote: 1. How much is the movie weighted towards the origin story trailers (which I hated) compared to the "YOU. ARE. NOT. ALONE." trailer (which I loved)?
A little of both. Once the Krypton story is out of the way the movie jumps ahead 33 years. It tells bits and pieces of his back-story as it goes along, so that it jumps from the current day to the past and back and forth.
I enjoyed. Some of the camera work I was less than enthused with, but overall I thought it was a good job. They mad Zod and his forces relocatable, still wrong mind you, but they aren't mustache twirlers as noted above. It was nice to see them do super combat in a movie finally. The sheer amount of destruction was impressive. While they don't show much of it, the death toll had to be pretty staggering, excluding Krypton's population of course. I liked the relationship set up between Lois and Clark. Only through my amazing, unprecedented levels of masculinity that kept me from crying when Johnathan Kent died. It did a god job of setting up why Superman acts the way he does, even if it is doubting in himself or in us.
I really dislike the Star Wars prequel inspired Planet Krypton. Worst part of the movie for me. I was deeply disappointed with the rushed backstory of Zod and Jor-el whom both seemed to be attempting to do the same thing and yet felt the need to oppose each other for it. I would have much rather seen 30 minutes of this film solely dedicated to establishing the narrative. Zod spending 33 years looking for Kal? How unrealistic, why could they not simply have used the phantom zone as Zods reason for being absent for 33 years instead of asking us to believe that he would just mindlessly be doing the same search the entire time. After like 10 years I think Zods people would have just said feth it lets build a new Krypton somewhere and sexually reproduce. Lois being in on Clark's identity from day one it pretty lame. And Clark's willingness to kill and callously fighting Zod in metropolis was very out of character. They really should have held Zod for the sequels and kept a smaller more grounded narrative to reboot the franchise. I feel this movie ultimately was to large in scope and it will make Superman fighting a human like Lex in the sequels less impactful on audiences.
Still a good movie and I think All the actors were rightly cast in their roles, but I gave it a 7/10 because there were just some major missteps that hurt this film and ultimately I feel the DC brand was not helped after the failures of DKR and Green Lantern.
NecronLord3 wrote: I really dislike the Star Wars prequel inspired Planet Krypton. Worst part of the movie for me. I was deeply disappointed with the rushed backstory of Zod and Jor-el whom both seemed to be attempting to do the same thing and yet felt the need to oppose each other for it. I would have much rather seen 30 minutes of this film solely dedicated to establishing the narrative.
I think that the conflict between the two did a good job explaining what was wrong with Krypton and their way of life. Both were genetically engineered for their purpose. Zod was created to be a soldier, a military solution to any problem. He didn't decide to be General Zod, he was created to be General Zod and everything he knows about protecting his people would always require a military solution. Jor-El was created to be a scientist, to think and to experiment. That was the only way he knew how to solve this problem. Krypton has engineered both these people to such an extend that they could not compromise against their genetic engineering. That's why the whole thing about Superman being able to make choices is such a big deal, even from the very beginning of the movie.
Zod spending 33 years looking for Kal? How unrealistic, why could they not simply have used the phantom zone as Zods reason for being absent for 33 years instead of asking us to believe that he would just mindlessly be doing the same search the entire time. After like 10 years I think Zods people would have just said feth it lets build a new Krypton somewhere and sexually reproduce.
They needed the Codex, without it they could not rebuild Krypton. So they kept on looking for it. And even if they just would decide "hey guys, Jor-El was right and we should just feth" you might remember that Krypton was gone. Kaputt. And with it every piece of their technology. The movie made it clear that they didn't just hop from planet to planet going "nope, he's not here". They also gathered supplies and resources to eventually build a new Krypton which they found in the old outposts. They wouldn't have been able to attempt to terraform Earth if they wouldn't have spend 33 years gathering supplies.
Lois being in on Clark's identity from day one it pretty lame.
Lois being in on Clark's identity is a lot better than the ace reporter being to stupid to figure out that both the guys she wants to bang is the same guy with removable glasses IMO.
And Clark's willingness to kill and callously fighting Zod in metropolis was very out of character.
There were lots of implied deaths, but not because Superman "killed" them. I think it is in Supermans character to fight and risk some lives instead of not fighting and letting every single human on earth die. And I thought that having him kill Zod, after a very emotional struggle before being forced to make that decision and clearly struggling with what he did afterwards, was a great moment in his character.
They really should have held Zod for the sequels and kept a smaller more grounded narrative to reboot the franchise. I feel this movie ultimately was to large in scope and it will make Superman fighting a human like Lex in the sequels less impactful on audiences.
I thought it was a good reboot. He killed Zod because he had no other reason, he fought and fought him and realized that he could never stop him in any other way. No prison on Earth would hold him, he would never stop attacking, so he had to go. Fights against Lex will be able to show the need to balance the fighting against his ability to kill.
Still a good movie and I think All the actors were rightly cast in their roles, but I gave it a 7/10 because there were just some major missteps that hurt this film and ultimately I feel the DC brand was not helped after the failures of DKR and Green Lantern.
Agreed on good casting. I would give it a 8.5/10 and I think it was a good step for DC. I'm not too worried about the failures of DKR and Green Lantern. I don't think the Batman Triology will be a part of the Justice League and the Avengers were able to recover from a few bad Hulk movies before taking off.
NecronLord3 wrote: I was deeply disappointed with the rushed backstory of Zod and Jor-el whom both seemed to be attempting to do the same thing and yet felt the need to oppose each other for it.
I can understand that. I think Jor-El wanted to see Kryptonian civilization restored in all its glory while Zod wanted a perfect society which meant elimination of any bloodlines that didn't meet his specs. I also didn't get the feeling that Jor-El ever really liked Zod to begin with.
NecronLord3 wrote: Zod spending 33 years looking for Kal? How unrealistic, why could they not simply have used the phantom zone as Zods reason for being absent for 33 years instead of asking us to believe that he would just mindlessly be doing the same search the entire time. After like 10 years I think Zods people would have just said feth it lets build a new Krypton somewhere and sexually reproduce.
Zod wasn't looking for Kal-El. He was after the codex that was "supposedly" hidden in Kal's ship. The film pointed out several times that Zod was genetically engineered to be a warrior who would protect Krypton at all costs. When Krypton popped, Zod's only way to proceed was to reestablish Krypton using the codex. Zod's back story didn't really strike me as him having a whole lot of free will the way you and I define it.
NecronLord3 wrote: And Clark's willingness to kill and callously fighting Zod in metropolis was very out of character.
Superman had lots of mano a mano fights in downtown Metropolis in the comics. Stuff was always being destroyed. This was just the first time they showed it in a movie. It also seemed that Clark really didn't want to kill Zod and only did it because those people were about to be flash-fried right in front of him.
NecronLord3 wrote: They really should have held Zod for the sequels and kept a smaller more grounded narrative to reboot the franchise. I feel this movie ultimately was to large in scope and it will make Superman fighting a human like Lex in the sequels less impactful on audiences.
I agree with your concerns but past movies have made Superman way too small compared to who he is in the comics.
NecronLord3 wrote: ...ultimately I feel the DC brand was not helped after the failures of DKR and Green Lantern.
I don't think DKR was a failure on the same scale as GL but I see your point. However, I think Man of Steel has fewer problems than those two and a far more solid story than The Avengers did.
No, the worst part of this movie was the asshats in the audience who thought it would be cool to try to start a slow clap or let out a "Whoop!" or like that. I really dislike people who have poor impulse control.
I had some issues. I thought a lot of the dialogue was just people spouting platitudes, and there was some deep misunderstandings about how tornadoes work. But I did like a lot of the art direction, as far as the Kryptonian tech and everything.
Plus, if you're enhanced by the radiation you absorb from the sun, why would breathing "kryptonian air" immediately weaken you to the point of being a normal human? I mean, he goes into vaccum just fine, so I guess I must have missed something.
oh yeah, one other thing that bugged me - turning Earth into Krypton isn't terraforming. Terraforming means making a planet more like Earth - terra. You can't terraform Earth. That always bugs me in movies.
8/10, it was pretty damn good. A little goofy here and there with a couple staggers and missteps but good over all. I thought the anguish after killing Zod was a nice touch. Also really liked Lois Lane for the first time in ANY Superman media, and not just because the character is wearing Amy Adams at the moment. (Yowza!)
Bromsy wrote: oh yeah, one other thing that bugged me - turning Earth into Krypton isn't terraforming. Terraforming means making a planet more like Earth - terra. You can't terraform Earth. That always bugs me in movies.
That and referring to other star systems as "solar systems". There is only one Solar System in the entire universe. Ever. Our sun is named Sol. The system created around it is the Solar System. Any other star system should be named after the parent star. The problem is that that scientists give stars stupid names like Beta Centauri instead of using the common name (Hadar for Beta Centauri). Hadaran System sounds better and is more correcct than saying, "Beta Centauri's solar system".
Loved every minute. I was not just entertained, I was astounded. This film does full credit to Superman. It hits every meaningful note and goes above and beyond on most of them. I have been so nervous about this and for my money it's a home run.
I watched Man Of Steel last night with my mate and our two teenage sons.We were blown away, the lads more from the explosive battles,my friend and i by the way kryptonian life was portrayed and by how they actually showed krypton as a living breathing world and not just a hokey white desert background.
I also liked how superman behaved in this film and found him a lot more likeable as a result.The effects were beautiful and believable on the whole(once you look past the super powers thing).It may sound harsh but i liked how there were actual casualties from the battles and there were consequences from all the destruction.
This was a great Friday night movie and the audience around me seemed to love it too.
I think they sought out DM's for advice, as they have a lot of experience with creating untenable situations for paladins, such as at the end where Superman had to decide between saving Earth or ending Zod. Even in the comic he has fallen before and killed, so it isn't as if there isn't precedent.
I'm fine with almost all the changes they made, finding new spins on old hoary tropes. I'm ok with Lois knowing earlier rather than later as movies generally don't have the luxury of moving at comics snail pace for character development. It gives them time to develop the relationship.
I liked the look of Krypton, though the liquid metal all around didn't do much for me visually, but that is an aesthetic choice.
Having Pa Kent die in the tornado fit in with the character they had developed of Johnathan Kent up that point, and was not an issue for me.
I don't recall the Kryptonians calling it terraform, they just called the machine a world changer. It would make sense that the humans wouldn't take the time to create a new word for the process when we have a word that used in that sense already. Commonly used phrases don't always mean exactly the same thing as technical use, just look at the 'traitor' thread where we discuss the normative use versus the legal meaning.
I don't really get the complaint about the F-35's 'sucking'. They did as much as a vehicle could against such a physics defying piece of equipment, especially one that is in the air.
I liked when Jor-El told Zod that he had a natural born child and Zod got all flustered and called him a heretic.
They foreshadowed both Brainiac and Lex, and I hope they keep doing interesting takes on the characters. I don't really need to see Donner's Superman repeated ad naseum. I will commit modern heresy though and say I'm a bit tired of the billionaire business Lex Luthor. Implementation will matter most, but I wouldn't mind a fresh look at the character.
This was the first time in a long time where I saw people leaning forward in their chairs, so enraptured with the events of the film and just totally buying into it. It was the scene where Superman was fighting the world changer and I saw a bunch of people in different parts of the seating lean forward, you could practically hear them in their heads cheering Superman on.
Almost forgot, so did anyone else notice the Wayne Corp symbol on the Satellite? Batman is gonna be sooooooo pissed. The LexCorp stuff was more overt.
My friend and I went to see it, full of expectations, thinking the trailers looked awesome, and thought the poor reviews online MUST be wrong, this thing looks great! Half an hour into the movie, we were both ready to drive off (went to the drive in), but figured we'd stick it out and hope it got better. The scenes were all over the place, the timeframe jumped back and forth and was difficult to follow, and it just felt blah and boring. The trailer is a perfect showing of the movie: the scenes bounce all over, both in time and in location, and there is no real character growth at all. It looked like they just tried to throw as much stuff in as possible and hope people got it. I suppose I should have expected this: 300 did nothing for me, Watchmen sucked ass, and Zach Snyder has proven himself to be a crappy director to me (opinion here). I'll be honest, Green Lantern was better!
Manchu wrote: Loved every minute. I was not just entertained, I was astounded. This film does full credit to Superman. It hits every meaningful note and goes above and beyond on most of them. I have been so nervous about this and for my money it's a home run.
I admit to being somewhat surprised that Superman killed Zod, but as already noted, I guess there really was no other choice?
And I suppse that Superman did kill Zod 'in the Comics', so there is that too.
Thought it was very good--it had moments of brilliance then some rather poor moments. Characters seemed like they were giving speeches rather than engaging in conversation at times.
My 8 year old son would nudge me during the fight scenes with a crazy maniacal grin and whisper "This is awesome!"---so I think it probably hit the young ones pretty well. Scene where it showed Kevin Costner looking at Supes when he was a kid--with a cape around him--was probably the most quiet I've heard a theater in a bit.
For me: - the codex being a skull (just a gut feeling) - the look/operation of Kryptonian world engine tech - the fate of the Kryptonian colonies - the absence of an explanation for why they abandoned the colonies
Ahtman wrote: This was the first time in a long time where I saw people leaning forward in their chairs
I didn't notice anyone doing this ...
... because I was doing it!
Alpharius wrote: I admit to being somewhat surprised that Superman killed Zod
My jaw dropped. I thought it was an amazing choice. Will make for good dialog with Bruce in JL.
Manchu wrote: - the look/operation of Kryptonian world engine tech
- the fate of the Kryptonian colonies
These two mostly, though the AI servants following them around everywhere and their reliance on them to some extent as well. The one that attacked Superman, and later Lois, inside the ship sets a p[recedent for how they created their machines and what they were capable of.
Alpharius wrote: Am I just missing it, or is Superman snapping Zod's neck being met with a sort of "Meh" response?
It would be hard to not 'justify' it, given what Zod not only was about to do, but what he'd already done, and was threatening to do...
I've actually seen a lot of backlash to it, though often from those I wouldn't call well steeped in the characters history. One reviewer (AV Club):
This sort of “cool,” over-the-top brutality—while pretty typical for a Snyder movie—doesn’t gel with Superman’s character.
Forcing Superman to do something un-Superman-like can often make for a good story. In this case, however, it comes across as unearned; by the time Cavill kills Shannon, he’s only been Superman for a few days.
Besides that fact that Superman has done it before (General Zod and lackeys, Doomsday) it seemed to me that the fact that he is inexperienced would make it make more sense, not less. I liked that they made him have to make hard, difficult decision and didn't give him a family friendly movie cop out. It gives weight and importance to the decisions he has to make if there are actual consequences. He made a tough choice and is going to have to live with it. It seems as if one can not win win doing Superman. Make him to goody goody and people complain that he is boring and irrelevant, make him have to deal with hard choices and people complain that he isn't Superman.
Besides that fact that Superman has done it before (General Zod and lackeys, Doomsday) it seemed to me that the fact that he is inexperienced would make it make more sense, not less. I liked that they made him have to make hard, difficult decision and didn't give him a family friendly movie cop out. It gives weight and importance to the decisions he has to make if there are actual consequences. He made a tough choice and is going to have to live with it. It seems as if one can not win win doing Superman. Make him to goody goody and people complain that he is boring and irrelevant, make him have to deal with hard choices and people complain that he isn't Superman.
It is the classic Superman "problem".
I suppose it both bothered me and didn't.
Did - old Superman Comics Continuity History 'hangups'?
Didn't - It clearly wasn't something he wanted to do, and felt he had no choice on, and certainly appeared to feel horrible about...
Bromsy wrote: oh yeah, one other thing that bugged me - turning Earth into Krypton isn't terraforming. Terraforming means making a planet more like Earth - terra. You can't terraform Earth. That always bugs me in movies.
That and referring to other star systems as "solar systems". There is only one Solar System in the entire universe. Ever. Our sun is named Sol. The system created around it is the Solar System. Any other star system should be named after the parent star. The problem is that that scientists give stars stupid names like Beta Centauri instead of using the common name (Hadar for Beta Centauri). Hadaran System sounds better and is more correcct than saying, "Beta Centauri's solar system".
This is actually incorrect, our solar system is the Sol system, not the Solar system. The solar system Krypton resides in is the Krypton system. Note which words are capitalized and which aren't. To make it clearer, Sol system is a proper noun referring to a specific solar system. Solar system is a noun used to define a category of systems orbiting a star.
I thought that Superman killing Zod was a great jump in how he is portrayed in a movie. You can tell that he tried everything he can without having to resort to it, and that there was some emotional trauma afterwards. I know that it makes sense and that he had to do it, and that he has done it in the comics before. But I was still sitting there going "he just killed him by just twisting his neck!"
I think showing that he is able to break the neck of one of the most powerful villains makes his choice to not squash any other 'lesser' bad guy that much more compelling.
No, the worst part of this movie was the asshats in the audience who thought it would be cool to try to start a slow clap or let out a "Whoop!" or like that. I really dislike people who have poor impulse control.
I'm afraid I was obligated to let out a quiet, "That's what she said." when Lois exclaimed, "It's supposed to go all the way in!" in reference to the command key as they were about to bomb Zod's ship.
This movie did not feel like a "Super hero" movie at all.
This was a fantastic Science Fiction movie!
And I was totally OK with that.
Loved the movie. I really liked the Kryptonian scenes in the beginning. It kind of made me recall the first time I saw the Movie Heavy Metal when I was a kid, and brought back that sense of wonder.
Really amazing movie.
If I had to quibble about something it would be that it kind of got tiresome after the 14th time seeing Super Man fly into or one of the Kryptonians fly into Super man, knocking each other down or into a building. I mean I think seeing that 3 or 4 times would have been sufficient.
One other thing that kind of made me wonder...where the heck was the Justice League while all this was going on? Maybe they don't exist yet?
generalgrog wrote: One other thing that kind of made me wonder...where the heck was the Justice League while all this was going on? Maybe they don't exist yet?
The Justice League was founded by Superman and Batman, iirc, so it wouldn't have been around yet.
chaos0xomega wrote: This is actually incorrect, our solar system is the Sol system, not the Solar system. The solar system Krypton resides in is the Krypton system. Note which words are capitalized and which aren't.
I'll have more to say later, but I'll make a few quick comments.
If you're someone who's hung up on the Donner films -- wisecracks, crystals, Williams theme, etc -- you might not like this film. And I think that explains at least some of the reviews.
Personally I thought it was very entertaining and a strong and badly needed reboot. Not perfect, but then The Dark Knight wasn't either. TDK was a better film, but MoS doesn't deserve some of the reviews it's getting. It's interesting to me that how some reviewers are calling it a radical reimagining when in fact many of the new elements existed in the comics in some form at some time....Kal having a unique birth, the body suits, killing Zod, etc. The creators definitely looked at the post Crisis Byrne books. Even some of the Kryptonian headdresses reminded me of the Byrne books.
Particular highlights for me include Krypton, Cavill's performance, the Smallville scenes, Zimmer's score and a whole lot of punching and destruction.
Here's something I think is telling. My wife, who isn't allergic to genre stuff but isn't a big fan, really liked it and commented that she liked this interpretation because it made more sense than the previous stories/movies/etc. She made similar comments leaving Batman Begins. So I think the creators accomplished their goal and that this movie will be huge and well liked no matter what some embittered critics say about it.
Merriam Webster defines it as: the sun together with the group of celestial bodies that are held by its attraction and revolve around it; also : a similar system centered on another star
It would seem you are both right. There is The Solar System, referring to ours, and a solar system, meaning a series of celestial bodies centered around a sun.
For me:
- the codex being a skull (just a gut feeling)
- the look/operation of Kryptonian world engine tech
- the fate of the Kryptonian colonies
- the absence of an explanation for why they abandoned the colonies
Manchu, I think you nailed it with those last two comments. I didn't think about it at the time, but something happened to the colonies and there was the suggestion that violence was involved. An AIR going rogue is a strong possibility.
d-usa wrote: When critics complain about this being a radical reimagening of Superman they are really just saying "this isn't a Christoper Reeve" movie.
I have to agree with this sentiment. And I've really no idea what all the orgasiming over Brando is about.
Breotan wrote: No. It's off topic. Start a new thread if you want.
Says the guy who brought it up in the first place and then brought it up again, and now a third time. People have only responded to you bringing it up, you don't want to talk about it, probably should stop broaching the subject.
Overall I enjoyed the movie. That said the amount of times Superman got laid out and bravely climbed to his feet and the number of times super heroes punched each other thru buildings started to get old.
Really enjoyed the take on Krypton. I know I watched to much Smallville when I saw Pete and thought why is he white.....
Casting overall was excellent.
My wife fell asleep actually and didn't much care for it. She much preferred Batman Begins.
Went for a Superman movie, Got a Superman movie. It wasn't a superfriends Christoper Reeve movie, it was a Henry cavill Superman. A good start on the road to the justice league.
I thought it was average. I didn't feel there was enough interaction between Superman and Lois for them to have an attraction yet. It all happened to fast for them. I agree the fights lasted two long, but at least they didn't stoop to having a bad guy hold a good guy by the throat and threaten to kill them unless Superman leaved.
Some storyline faults (these things are pet peeves of mine).
1. How did the Jor-el A.I. On the ship know about Kal-el, when the ship has been in the artic for at least 20,000 years and Kal-el was only born 33 years ago?
2. I don't think it should take a Pulitzer Prize winning journalists to now piece things together. The aliens were after Superman and they only went to two places. Metropolis and Smallville. Many of the people in Smallville already know about Clark's abilities. Ding, ding, ding.
I enjoyed the scenes in Smallville and Alaska more than the second half and as been mentioned before the final scene in the movie with Pa Kent looking at his boy with the cape, maybe its because I have two boys myself, but I was ballin.
generalgrog wrote: This movie did not feel like a "Super hero" movie at all.
I was thinking about this and you are correct. This is the Man of Steel before he becomes a superhero. I expect we'll see the full-fleged superhero film as the close to the trilogy, or perhaps it the Justice League movie (slated for 2015 !!).
DarthDiggler wrote: 1. How did the Jor-el A.I. On the ship know about Kal-el, when the ship has been in the artic for at least 20,000 years and Kal-el was only born 33 years ago?
The "key" containing Jor-el's AI was put into Kal-el's ship when Kal-el was sent to earth. I expect it has some sort of biometric ID recognition built in.
DarthDiggler wrote: I don't think it should take a Pulitzer Prize winning journalists to now piece things together. The aliens were after Superman and they only went to two places. Metropolis and Smallville. Many of the people in Smallville already know about Clark's abilities. Ding, ding, ding.
I liked the movie. When I went in and saw that they started on Krypton my first thought was "Oh my god, we are going to have to sit through Superman's entire childhood". I was glad they didn't do that. I also liked the action scenes but disliked how every punch seemed to throw people 3 blocks. I mean... are all Kryptonians bad at standing their ground? It seems like they only did it to add more destruction porn.
I also thought that part where Supe's father sacrificed his life for a -dog- of all things was hilarious. What made it even funnier was that not too long after it was shown that ma Kent got another dog. Delicious irony.
TheCustomLime wrote: I liked the movie. When I went in and saw that they started on Krypton my first thought was "Oh my god, we are going to have to sit through Superman's entire childhood". I was glad they didn't do that. I also liked the action scenes but disliked how every punch seemed to throw people 3 blocks. I mean... are all Kryptonians bad at standing their ground? It seems like they only did it to add more destruction porn.
It's intended to show just how powerful Kryptonians are. It's a way to differentiate Superman from his less superpowered compatriots like Batman. There was a good clip posted in the other thread from one of the animated films where Superman talks about how he has to "hold back" for fear of really hurting anyone, since he can dish out and take such extreme amounts of damage.
I also thought that part where Supe's father sacrificed his life for a -dog- of all things was hilarious. What made it even funnier was that not too long after it was shown that ma Kent got another dog. Delicious irony.
That's not really irony--and the fact that you find it funny suggests that you did not really understand the point of it.
Jonathan Kent has always been described as a man who believes that the right thing is what should be done and that life is something to be treasured...and not just human life. So why would he not sacrifice himself for a dog?
Kanluwen wrote: So why would he not sacrifice himself for a dog?
In Lone Wolf McQuade Chuck Norris's character doesn't really get mad until the bad guys kill his dog, at which point he engages the mechanism. The moral of the story is not to underestimate the importance of the dog as family member.
Ahtman wrote: Besides that fact that Superman has done it before (General Zod and lackeys, Doomsday) it seemed to me that the fact that he is inexperienced would make it make more sense, not less. I liked that they made him have to make hard, difficult decision and didn't give him a family friendly movie cop out. It gives weight and importance to the decisions he has to make if there are actual consequences. He made a tough choice and is going to have to live with it. It seems as if one can not win win doing Superman. Make him to goody goody and people complain that he is boring and irrelevant, make him have to deal with hard choices and people complain that he isn't Superman.
This is spot on. I think most of the reviews I've read for this movies seem pretty flaky. Maybe it's because I actually like and follow the character.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
gorgon wrote: Manchu, I think you nailed it with those last two comments. I didn't think about it at the time, but something happened to the colonies and there was the suggestion that violence was involved. An AIR going rogue is a strong possibility.
Well, if you remember the guys that Zod found, they didn't look like they just starved to death. They looked frozen in terror.
TheCustomLime wrote: I liked the movie. When I went in and saw that they started on Krypton my first thought was "Oh my god, we are going to have to sit through Superman's entire childhood". I was glad they didn't do that. I also liked the action scenes but disliked how every punch seemed to throw people 3 blocks. I mean... are all Kryptonians bad at standing their ground? It seems like they only did it to add more destruction porn.
It's intended to show just how powerful Kryptonians are. It's a way to differentiate Superman from his less superpowered compatriots like Batman. There was a good clip posted in the other thread from one of the animated films where Superman talks about how he has to "hold back" for fear of really hurting anyone, since he can dish out and take such extreme amounts of damage.
I also thought that part where Supe's father sacrificed his life for a -dog- of all things was hilarious. What made it even funnier was that not too long after it was shown that ma Kent got another dog. Delicious irony.
That's not really irony--and the fact that you find it funny suggests that you did not really understand the point of it.
Jonathan Kent has always been described as a man who believes that the right thing is what should be done and that life is something to be treasured...and not just human life. So why would he not sacrifice himself for a dog?
I can understand if they're thrown around a few times but it happens like nearly every punch. It's cool at first but it starts to wear on after awhile.
It's ironic since a man sacrifices his life for a dog yet the dog dies anyway and is simply replaced Ma Kent could get another dog but her husband is very much irreplaceable. That's irony but I forget the specific kind of irony it is.
That aspect of "all life is precious" was not made clear with his character.. if at all. It just seems strange that a man would run back for a dog in the middle of a tornado. It's a waste of a life. Sacrifice is noble but pointless sacrifice is stupid. What would've made more sense in line with the narrative is if he ran back for a baby or something. And what really detracted from it was the fact that they got a new dog. Really, the emotional impact came when Jon told Clark to not save him.
Also, I dislike movies that require you to "Do your homework". Movies should be self contained. I shouldn't have to study to be entertained.
Near as I can tell, Jonathan saved the dog Clark grew up with. The shot with the new dog is many years later when Clark is 33.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheCustomLime wrote: Also, I dislike movies that require you to "Do your homework". Movies should be self contained. I shouldn't have to study to be entertained.
MoS requires no homework. If you didn't get it, it's not because the movie left out important information.
Manchu wrote: Near as I can tell, Jonathan saved the dog Clark grew up with. The shot with the new dog is many years later when Clark is 33.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheCustomLime wrote: Also, I dislike movies that require you to "Do your homework". Movies should be self contained. I shouldn't have to study to be entertained.
MoS requires no homework. If you didn't get it, it's not because the movie left out important information.
I know the dog survived. It's just that the fact they got a new one cheapens the sacrifice. They could've just gotten a new dog and kept Jonathon as well.
Was there a scene that said that Jon held all life precious?
I don't get your point about the dog. Pa Kent died saving their dog, which they had for years. So when that dog dies they can never get another one?
There doesn't need to be a scene where he says all life is precious. In this movie, that's not why he saves his dog. The character is presented as a salt of the earth kind of noble guy, in the American mold. Such a man would not just abandon his dog like a Starbucks-guzzling yuppie (who probably would go back for the iPad).
Also, he doesn't run to get the dog thinking "the dog's life is more important than mine." His foot gets caught and he's injured. There's just no time -- unless Clark uses his powers in front of everyone. The point of the scene is that Jonathan really believes the people of earth are not ready to accept his son. He believes that his son's life is more important than his.
That's all on the screen, no homework required. If you didn't get it, I don't know what to say. I mean, you're not required to like it but it's all there. In fact, Clark later explains to Lois exactly what this scene is about so it's actually explicitly spelled out on screen as well.
TheCustomLime wrote: I know the dog survived. It's just that the fact they got a new one cheapens the sacrifice.
By this logic Superman saving anyone is silly, as they will all die someday; none of us make it out of here alive you know. The time between him saving Clark's childhood dog and Martha's dog when he is an adult is around 16 years. We have no idea when one dog passed and Martha replaced it with another. A family pet is just as much a member of a family as a child or a parent to most people, and the idea of just saying "feth it, it is just a dog" wouldn't occur to most people.
Kanluwen wrote: Jonathan Kent has always been described as a man who believes that the right thing is what should be done and that life is something to be treasured...and not just human life. So why would he not sacrifice himself for a dog?
That aspect of "all life is precious" was not made clear with his character.. if at all. It just seems strange that a man would run back for a dog in the middle of a tornado. It's a waste of a life. Sacrifice is noble but pointless sacrifice is stupid. What would've made more sense in line with the narrative is if he ran back for a baby or something. And what really detracted from it was the fact that they got a new dog. Really, the emotional impact came when Jon told Clark to not save him.
This version of Jonathan Kent didn't appear to be a man who "believes that the right thing is what should be done" as much as a man who is simply afraid for his boy. He was afraid of what people will think or want to do to him. He was afraid his boy would be treated like a freak or a pariaha. The narrative of this version of Jonathan Kent seemed to feed Clark's insecurities. It was always "hide" and "don't ever tell anybody" and "please don't throw people through buildings and kill them even if they deserve it". I think this is reinforced with that last scene where Ma Kent told Clark that Jonathan "knew". He knew but kept it secret. He kept it secret because he was afraid for Clark even as he saw the man he could become.
But yea, I agree that the whole "run toward the big tornado for a dog" scene wasn't thought out very well.
I definitely think that Jonathan was afraid that powerful people would do bad things to Clark if they found out about him and that people generally would have a lot of trouble accepting him for who he is. But I don't think he just thought Clark should always hide. Again, just watch the movie: he says to Clark that it will be Clark's decision one day to figure out what kind of man he is. Jonathan doesn't have all the answers. He's a humble man doing the best he can and he knows Clark has a purpose that is bigger than his own vision.
Oh, I see. I've never had a pet so I guess I really can't understand the feeling someone gets when they are really attached to their animals. When I saw the scene, all I thought about was how dumb trading a human life for a dog's was. I never saw it as a guy who took a gamble to save a beloved family member and lost. I did get the part about not wanting to expose Clark. It had an impact on me.
If you really think about it, though, a superhero's crusade is pointless. The people they save will die anyway, the cities will crumble and the universe will slowly fade to nothingness. But if everyone took that view life would be crappy.
Breotan wrote: But yea, I agree that the whole "run toward the big tornado for a dog" scene wasn't thought out very well.
It was thought out very well by the writers. I guess not everyone in the audience thought it out as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheCustomLime wrote: If you really think about it, though, a superhero's crusade is pointless. The people they save will die anyway, the cities will crumble and the universe will slowly fade to nothingness. But if everyone took that view life would be crappy.
Well, you've answered your own question there. And ultimately that's what Superman is all about. Even with all the strength you can imagine, it's still not enough: There are still hard choices. There are still losses. There are still sacrifices. So, when you find the end of your might, will you go on or will you give up? Superman as a character reminds us that power is not enough to keep going.
Breotan wrote: But yea, I agree that the whole "run toward the big tornado for a dog" scene wasn't thought out very well.
It was thought out very well by the writers. I guess not everyone in the audience thought it out as well.
Or maybe we did think it out. I thought It would have been a better scene if it were another person, even the "pregnant woman" cliche, but not a dog. I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on this.
Again, it's not that Jonathan planned on trading his life for the dog's life. He's just a baseball & apple pie American and part of that is taking care of your dog. I suppose there's also the issue of saving something that is "less than" what you are. It's a nice contrast to Zod who right from the beginning has these genocidal notions. Remember how Jor'El confronted him about which bloodlines he was going to wipe out? And then later, Zod thinks nothing of sacrificing all humans for terraforming Earth. Also, Faora has her speech about evolution. Clark is formed by a different tradition: helping those who are "less than" him. Jor'El even has a big important voice over about this. It makes sense that the man who raised Clark would have had this attitude -- you don't leave your dog behind because it's "just a dog,"
Manchu wrote: .. It makes sense that the man who raised Clark would have had this attitude -- you don't leave your dog behind because it's "just a dog,"
So John Kent and family dog becomes an allegory to Superman and humanity....interesting.
I swear, you guys must have seen a different version than the one I did. I didn't find much good in the movie, other than Perry's heroic act of willing to die with his coworker so that she wouldn't die alone (even though they both survive it), as he suspects they won't make it out alive. Holding her hand, while buildings are crashing all around and she can't escape, not many employers would do that. It's probably the best picture of Perry ever painted. I can say that part was positive, but I find little else positive. If it had only been my opinion leaving, I'd probably say I just don't "get" Zach Snyder. But when my buddy also left and said "man, that sucked" and the only positives we could get out of it were the horrible parts we could laugh at, well...I just think it was crap. I'm glad many of you enjoyed it-I just don't see how. Maybe the next one will redeem itself, but I won't hold my breath.
Manchu wrote: .. It makes sense that the man who raised Clark would have had this attitude -- you don't leave your dog behind because it's "just a dog,"
So John Kent and family dog becomes an allegory to Superman and humanity....interesting.
I suppose that depends on what you mean by that. If you mean that no one gets left behind just because there is risk, then yes. If somehow you think it mean Superman views humans as dogs, then no.
That is ok, my first reaction to your initial post was that you hadn't even seen the movie and were just having a go at us. It isn't that you didn't like it, which is fair enough as different strokes and all that, but your observations seem so far removed from anything contained in the film that it is hard to reconcile what is on the screen with how you perceived it. Yet here we are.
Regarding Jonathan, I think his mindset about Clark's powers was highly realistic. If one of my sons was special in that way, my wife and I would live in fear of him being taken from us and experimented on.
That brings up another point: Remember when the douchey blog writer outs Lois as his source on CNN? The Feds don't have a polite chat with her; suddenly she has a bunch of machine guns pointed in her face. When Clark turns himself in, it's basically a hostage negotiation. The government isn't sure what, if anything, it can do to him so they're rather brutally leveraging Lois -- who, let's remember, is a totally innocent citizen. The government isn't doing this because it's bad but rather because it's scared.
Jonathan, in trying to protect his son, has to think of not only a government -- and a people -- that's scared but also one that could be bad. When Superman finally reveals himself to the world, he is nearly immediately taken into government custody. And he says to the general: "You're afraid of me because you can't control me. And you never will." That's a heavy point and something the military does not like to hear. But Clark also tells him that they can work together in trust.
In other words, Clark is a pretty morally and emotionally mature person by the time he hands himself in. A young, confused Clark would not know how to handle that situation and may have end up hurting a ton of people and, in the process of the government trying to stop him, could have been traumatized to the point of becoming a hateful and suspicious person instead of a patient and compassionate one. That's what I think Jonathan would have been most afraid of, that Clark's strengths might eventually lead him to becoming an awful person.
So Jonathan works very hard to teach Clark about patience and compassion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: If somehow you think it mean Superman views humans as dogs, then no.
Put it like this, if Jonathan Kent was the kind of man who would leave the family dog behind to die then Clark might have grown up to be the sort of man who could view humans as nothing more than dogs.
Manchu wrote: .. It makes sense that the man who raised Clark would have had this attitude -- you don't leave your dog behind because it's "just a dog,"
So John Kent and family dog becomes an allegory to Superman and humanity....interesting.
I suppose that depends on what you mean by that. If you mean that no one gets left behind just because there is risk, then yes. If somehow you think it mean Superman views humans as dogs, then no.
That is ok, my first reaction to your initial post was that you hadn't even seen the movie and were just having a go at us. It isn't that you didn't like it, which is fair enough as different strokes and all that, but your observations seem so far removed from anything contained in the film that it is hard to reconcile what is on the screen with how you perceived it. Yet here we are.
Nope, I was dead serious-very disappointed in the movie, and that's not what I was expecting at all. I wanted to love it, went in full of excitement and felt like I threw my money away.
Where is the whole "Pa Kent sacrificed himself for a dog" thing coming from anyway? If that is what people think happened then I can understand why they are confused about anything else in this movie.
Manchu wrote: .. It makes sense that the man who raised Clark would have had this attitude -- you don't leave your dog behind because it's "just a dog,"
So John Kent and family dog becomes an allegory to Superman and humanity....interesting.
I suppose that depends on what you mean by that. If you mean that no one gets left behind just because there is risk, then yes. If somehow you think it mean Superman views humans as dogs, then no.
.
I certainly wasn't implying SM thinks humans are dogs. But like his father and the dog he is wiling to sacrifice himself for us.
GG
A lot of the reviews on this movie really are complaining about stupid stuff.
Granted, I don't think it was a great movie. Just okay, but if you're going to complain about something find a good reason to be complaining.
My main issue is that the pace was so break neck. This felt more like a series of youtube clips strung together to tell a story rather than a movie. I walked out feeling more like I'd seen a two and a half hour opening to the real movie which must be somewhere behind the credits. Not a bad experience, but I felt a like the movie was lacking in the end.
The movie had little weight to it. There was a massive death toll and the fights all just blended in together, far too much flying through buildings. What was really fethed up for me was the kiss towards the end, I mean there's nothing more arousing I'm sure than standing amongst the ruins of an entire city but it just felt really wrong, It was tantamount to making out to footage of 9/11, it was a full on zap brannigan moment from futurama.
The movie just felt dumber than I had expected, it was too much transformers level stupidity to respect it. The pacing after the first half borders on offensive; you never have a moment to let the gravity of the situation sink in and superman although being a boy scout on the morality scale is incredibly reckless. I honestly got flashes to the peter griffin vs chicken fight from family guy. Full cards on the table, I’m not a superman fan, so there it is. With that said, the movie the trailer depicted and the movie I saw didn’t seem to match at all, especially in tone. It didn’t seem intelligent, but I guess that’s because Nolan only produced. It seemed like Michael Bay level dumb.
The ending was the worst part. One of the things I was really happy about was the lack of the whole stupid "I have glasses so no one recognizes me thing" only for them to bring that back. Also, it just underlines the stupid lack of weight to the movie, I can't understand the back to business, everything is back to normal vibe. The city was in ruins and you'd think the wholesale destruction of a city and possible nuclear destruction of the south pacific or the revelation that aliens exist may have some lasting effect on the characters or society as a whole, apparently not.
The end reminded me of the ending of into darkness, let's not deal with the whole alluded to deaths of hundreds of thousands of people as a direct result of the protagonists actions, I mean that would be a real downer... who wants pie?
d-usa wrote: Honestly, if people acting normal after aliens/superheroes fight and almost destroy a city then you better not pick up a superhero comic, ever.
I forgot, anything in fandom is immune to criticism.
My main issue is that the pace was so break neck. This felt more like a series of youtube clips strung together to tell a story rather than a movie. I walked out feeling more like I'd seen a two and a half hour opening to the real movie which must be somewhere behind the credits. Not a bad experience, but I felt a like the movie was lacking in the end.
This puts into words exactly how I felt. Thanks LoH!
d-usa wrote: Honestly, if people acting normal after aliens/superheroes fight and almost destroy a city then you better not pick up a superhero comic, ever.
I forgot, anything in fandom is immune to criticism.
I think you missed his point. Not to put words in d-usa's mouth but I think he was trying to tell you you may be overreacting a bit.
People in the dark knight seemed to react fairly realistically and with the appropriatr levels of dread/depression when bad things happened. It's certainly achieveable.
Crablezworth wrote: People in the dark knight seemed to react fairly realistically and with the appropriatr levels of dread/depression when bad things happened. It's certainly achieveable.
That's because Batman can't destroy a building with a punch.
Manchu wrote: When Superman finally reveals himself to the world, he is nearly immediately taken into government custody.
Zod's the one actually making the demands. It wasn't the General saying, "zomg! Aliens!!! Get 'em, boys." It was Zod saying, "Hand him over or I'll arse-hump your planet."
Manchu wrote: The government isn't sure what, if anything, it can do to him so they're rather brutally leveraging Lois -- who, let's remember, is a totally innocent citizen.
They went after Lois because she was "outed" as the only person on the planet who knew where this "Kal-el" guy lived.
Medium of Death wrote: I heard they don't use the Williams theme at all in this movie, is this true?
Crablezworth wrote: People in the dark knight seemed to react fairly realistically and with the appropriatr levels of dread/depression when bad things happened. It's certainly achieveable.
That's because Batman can't destroy a building with a punch.
I don't really understand what you;re saying, can you clarify a bit?
Crablezworth wrote: People in the dark knight seemed to react fairly realistically and with the appropriatr levels of dread/depression when bad things happened. It's certainly achieveable.
And people were sad when people died here. They freaked out when aliens happened, they ran away when their city was being destroyed. All normal reactions. It seemed like your complaint was with the ending and people going back to work:
Also, it just underlines the stupid lack of weight to the movie, I can't understand the back to business, everything is back to normal vibe. The city was in ruins and you'd think the wholesale destruction of a city and possible nuclear destruction of the south pacific or the revelation that aliens exist may have some lasting effect on the characters or society as a whole, apparently not.
How often do you think cities are being attacked in comics? How often is the planet almost destroyed? How often does humanity face some sort of doomsday device or a villain that will destroy them all in Superman alone?
And guess what always happens in all those comics? People get back to their normal lives after the superheroes save the day. So if that makes a movie stupid to you, then I hope you don't read comics because almost all of them end that way.
Saw MoS yesterday and liked it very much....2 things I haven't seen mentioned in this thread yet however:
1: In the scene in the desert where Kal-El was going to turn himself in to Zod. When he was talking to General Swanwick, I noticed a young boy, probably no more than 10 years old, in full BDU's and body armor, standing next to the general on his right side. I'm still trying to figure out what that's all about.
2: In the scene where Kal was flying up the gravity beam of the Kryptonian World Engine, I caught a quick shot of where I swear his face had turned from Cavill's to that of Christopher Reeve's. I don't know if that was just me or they actually did that with the CGI to honor Reeve.....cool if they did that.
Zathras wrote: Saw MoS yesterday and liked it very much....2 things I haven't seen mentioned in this thread yet however...
I don't remember seeing either of those. I'll likely be going to a second showing sometime this week so I'll keep a closer eye out for stuff like that.
generalgrog wrote: I certainly wasn't implying SM thinks humans are dogs. But like his father and the dog he is wiling to sacrifice himself for us.
GG
I wasn't sure, but that is why I asked. As d-usa pointed out, Papa Kent didn't sacrifice himself for the dog. He went to get the dog with every intent on getting back to the family, but in the ensuing fracas his ankle is broken and can't get back in time to avoid the tornado. Clark could save him but Johnathan waves him off; the sacrifice isn't for the dog, it is to keep Clark's secret.
I felt that Man of Steel lacked heart. In my humble opinion there was a lack of an overarching moral theme. Sometimes it was almost surfacing with some fine performances by Russell Crowe and Kevin Costner, but the message seemed mixed or diluted by the editing, which often didn't give me time to simply appreciate what was going on.
Aside from plenty of plot holes you could drive a Zod's spaceship through, or simply lazy storytelling, (but what action blockbuster doesn't have those these days?) everything simply seemed to just fall too neatly into place. Clark/Kal-El sort of wandered into the main plot without any drive or focus, and I wasn't sold on any romance blossoming between Lois and Clark/Kal-El either.
The action was enjoyable, though it did get a little over the top. I suspect the next film will be set in Gotham, as I doubt much of Metropolis was left. The fast paced cuts certainly helped the action scenes flow nicely, and I enjoyed the Firefly/BSG style focus shaky camera. It certainly lent itself well to the aerial battles.
I enjoyed the main theme that Hans Zimmer has created, though it felt overused by the end of the film. I don't know whether that's a testament to the strength of the piece or if it did appear as much as my brain remembers.
I think it was an enjoyable action movie but as a Superman movie my expectations were greater. Solid performances by Crowe, Costner and Shannon (although the latter has some terrible lines). If you enjoy pretty action it's great. If you enjoy the more visceral nature of Superman it's great. I think, however, if the character of Superman means something a little bit more than that, you might be disappointed. I'd probably give the film a 5 or 6/10.
Zond wrote: I felt that Man of Steel lacked heart. In my humble opinion there was a lack of an overarching moral theme.
What is this I don't even
Lack of overarching moral theme? This movie was pretty much 100% overarching moral theme. How did you miss it? That's not a rhetorical question. I'm genuinely interested in how you came to the conclusion that Man of Steel has no overarching moral theme.
Manchu wrote: When Superman finally reveals himself to the world, he is nearly immediately taken into government custody.
Zod's the one actually making the demands. It wasn't the General saying, "zomg! Aliens!!! Get 'em, boys." It was Zod saying, "Hand him over or I'll arse-hump your planet."
Manchu wrote: The government isn't sure what, if anything, it can do to him so they're rather brutally leveraging Lois -- who, let's remember, is a totally innocent citizen.
They went after Lois because she was "outed" as the only person on the planet who knew where this "Kal-el" guy lived.
(1) Superman reveals himself because Zod is holding Earth hostage. As soon as Superman reveals himself, he's put in handcuffs by the army.
(2) I don't see how Lois being the only person who knows about Superman justifies one much less 5-6 machine guns sticking in her face. The point of the scene is that the government is scared gakless and that makes them violent.
You have the power and ability to save people, but you will risk your own safety and existence. Do you stay safe and secure, or risk it all by exposing yourself to save them. Your father died for your secret, because he was scared of what exposing it would mean to everybody and what it would mean for you. Your other father died giving you the ability to make that choice. Now, what will you do?
I felt it was pretty mixed. Is it the right to free choice as postulated by Jor-El? Is it the need to be patient, and not reveal yourself until you're sure of what kind of person you are and that you can live with your choices, good or ill as Papa Kent espoused? Or was the Kent angle all about just trying to be a good parent and hiding their adopted son from everyone?
Honestly I'm not sure. Superman killed a couple of bad guys, was there something there about that?
I felt that there were snippets of moral lessons being imparted to Clark during his formative years, but either they were poorly formed or not given enough screen time and the messages became mixed or contradictory.
What was the overarching theme to you if I may ask?
Zathras wrote: Saw MoS yesterday and liked it very much....2 things I haven't seen mentioned in this thread yet however:
1: In the scene in the desert where Kal-El was going to turn himself in to Zod. When he was talking to General Swanwick, I noticed a young boy, probably no more than 10 years old, in full BDU's and body armor, standing next to the general on his right side. I'm still trying to figure out what that's all about.
I noticed that too, I believe it's the female captain that's driving with the general guy at the end of the movie when the drone crashes. She's just hella short a boyish with a helmet/sunglasses. But I definitely did think it was a young child when I saw it, my buddy joked "what is this, take your kid to work day".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: You have the power and ability to save people, but you will risk your own safety and existence. Do you stay safe and secure, or risk it all by exposing yourself to save them. Your father died for your secret, because he was scared of what exposing it would mean to everybody and what it would mean for you. Your other father died giving you the ability to make that choice. Now, what will you do?
There is your lack of overarching moral theme.
And that's all rendered completely meaningless with the "if I wear glasses, facial recognition technology and basic human cognition will cease to function" ending.
Zond wrote: Honestly I'm not sure. Superman killed a couple of bad guys
Superman killed one bad guy. That's an extremely important point actually.
Zond wrote: What was the overarching theme to you if I may ask?
Simply put, the theme of this movie is that values trump might. This has been the major theme of Superman for the past 75 years.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crablezworth wrote: And that's all rendered completely meaningless with the "if I wear glasses, facial recognition technology and basic human cognition will cease to function" ending.
Do what now? Only one character who had a good, non-PTSD-clouded look at Clark's face also saw him with glasses and she obviously recognizes him. We don't see any further scenes about this so your point is not supported by the movie. Going back to Donner's film, Clark had a whole goofy act to disguise himself and the glasses were just a prop. Maybe this will pan out in the sequel as well but for now there's not enough information to criticize Man of Steel on this point.
Certainly a theme of Superman, not sure if I'd argue if it's demonstrated in this film. I'm not really sure what values Superman has in this movie. He's the good guy certainly because the plot demands it, but beyond that I'm not really sold.
As a minor aside, when Superman ripped apart the scout ship with his heat vision, were there little Kryptonian babies in the pods? Or did they need the codex to create more? I was always curious if Superman did indeed just kill a bunch of babies.
Manchu wrote: but for now there's not enough information to criticize Man of Steel on this point.
And yet somehow I still did, I must have magical powers too. Honestly I was liking that they removed the silly tight tight shorts and the even sillier secret identy crap, that was one of the few thing left I was happy about and then boom they put it back in there as a final insult.
Zond wrote: Certainly a theme of Superman, not sure if I'd argue if it's demonstrated in this film. I'm not really sure what values Superman has in this movie. He's the good guy certainly because the plot demands it, but beyond that I'm not really sold.
I dunno man. It's in the scene when Jonathan talks to Clark about the bullies. It's in the scene where Clark is talking to the priest. Jor'El gives a speech about it. It's the point of Clark's dialog with Lois regarding Jonathan's death. It's what the conflict between Superman and Zod is all about. It's everywhere in the film.
Zond wrote: As a minor aside, when Superman ripped apart the scout ship with his heat vision, were there little Kryptonian babies in the pods? Or did they need the codex to create more?
No, the worst part of this movie was the asshats in the audience who thought it would be cool to try to start a slow clap or let out a "Whoop!" or like that. I really dislike people who have poor impulse control.
I'm afraid I was obligated to let out a quiet, "That's what she said." when Lois exclaimed, "It's supposed to go all the way in!" in reference to the command key as they were about to bomb Zod's ship.
I joked about that line with one of my neighbors that was sitting right next to me. I watched the movie in a group of 6.
generalgrog wrote: I certainly wasn't implying SM thinks humans are dogs. But like his father and the dog he is wiling to sacrifice himself for us.
GG
I wasn't sure, but that is why I asked. As d-usa pointed out, Papa Kent didn't sacrifice himself for the dog. He went to get the dog with every intent on getting back to the family, but in the ensuing fracas his ankle is broken and can't get back in time to avoid the tornado. Clark could save him but Johnathan waves him off; the sacrifice isn't for the dog, it is to keep Clark's secret.
It was a sacrifice though, even if it wasn't intentional. There was a certain risk inherent in basically running into an oncoming tornado.
A risk is not the same thing as a sacrifice. Clark made a sacrifice at the end when he killed Zod rather than allowing him to kill the civillians. Jonathan made a sacrifice when he gave up his life to protect Clark's anonymity. When he went back for the dog, he was taking a risk.
Manchu wrote: A risk is not the same thing as a sacrifice. Clark made a sacrifice at the end when he killed Zod rather than allowing him to kill the civillians. Jonathan made a sacrifice when he gave up his life to protect Clark's anonymity. When he went back for the dog, he was taking a risk.
How many thousands or hundreds of thousands did clark kill while flying through building after building?
d-usa wrote: You have the power and ability to save people, but you will risk your own safety and existence. Do you stay safe and secure, or risk it all by exposing yourself to save them. Your father died for your secret, because he was scared of what exposing it would mean to everybody and what it would mean for you. Your other father died giving you the ability to make that choice. Now, what will you do?
There is your lack of overarching moral theme.
And here we have the John Kent Family dog allegory succinctly demonstrated.
John Kent could have stayed safe under the overpass, but instead risked his life to save the family dog. Much like Kal-El(SM) did to save humanity.
Manchu wrote: A risk is not the same thing as a sacrifice. Clark made a sacrifice at the end when he killed Zod rather than allowing him to kill the civillians. Jonathan made a sacrifice when he gave up his life to protect Clark's anonymity. When he went back for the dog, he was taking a risk.
How many thousands or hundreds of thousands did clark kill while flying through building after building?
When you remove all context from a thing you can make it sound just about any way you want.
Crablezworth wrote: How many thousands or hundreds of thousands did clark kill while flying through building after building?
This is a classic put down of comic books and comic book writers often put it into the mouths of comic book villains. Man of Steel 2 will have LexCorp rebuilding Metropolis while Lex begins a media campaign about all the people "Superman killed." The obvious answer, of course, is that Zod killed people as Superman was trying to stop Zod.
Manchu wrote: A risk is not the same thing as a sacrifice. Clark made a sacrifice at the end when he killed Zod rather than allowing him to kill the civillians. Jonathan made a sacrifice when he gave up his life to protect Clark's anonymity. When he went back for the dog, he was taking a risk.
How many thousands or hundreds of thousands did clark kill while flying through building after building?
When you remove all context from a thing you can make it sound just about any way you want.
And how would you describe it? What am I leaving out? Just because we're not seeing explicit deaths of individuals, when there's like a 15 minute segment of the movie where metroplis get's levelled and countless buildings are ruined, partially ruined, completely collapse as a result of two super beings making holes through them every other second on top of the f35's falling out of the sky (they're good at that) I think it's safe to assume the death toll is probably high. It's also really hard to ignore, especially when instead of evoking massive sorrow it instead makes the protagonist "frisky" for a lois lane smooch
I just didn't expect a michael bay level of disregard, it just felt really vapid.
Weird double post...
Automatically Appended Next Post: Superman didn't disregard those lives. If he disregarded them he would have let the whole planet get destroyed instead of trying to save 99.9% of the population.
Again, I think the movie has areas for criticism, but some of this stuff that people are coming up with doesn't even make sense. As a friend of mine mentioned today, Superman Returns scored better with critics, and that's fething insane. MoS had a better story, better action, and much better acting. I don't know what some of them were looking at, other than seeing Snyder's name on the thing and deciding they were going to hate it.
I liked that it didn't run away from the religious themes connected to the character. That stuff has always been there, right down to his angelic name. But the creators pretty much embraced it, even choosing the Lucifer character in the mythos as the villain. It was a good decision -- it's there and it's always going to be there, so just own it and hell, make him 33 years old.
Regarding the issues surrounding the destruction of Metropolis, if we assume that we're talking about a city the size of NYC, there would have been large sections of the city still intact. And just like with 9/11, once it'd become possible for people to get to their jobs, etc., they would. It's not only not unrealistic, it's highly realistic because human beings and life move on after tragedies. It's what human beings do.
So regarding the "wrongness" of Zod's death, what happened in Superman II after Kal took away Zod's powers and threw him into a chasm? Hmm?
Manchu wrote: There were no embryos in there. It was pretty clear.
Yes there were. They even smashed the "glass" barrier letting all the water flow out.
gorgon wrote: So regarding the "wrongness" of Zod's death, what happened in Superman II after Kal took away Zod's powers and threw him into a chasm? Hmm?
I'm sure they were just knocked out and put back into the phantom zone later. It would be in the tone of the Donner film to do that.
NecronLord3 wrote: I really dislike the Star Wars prequel inspired Planet Krypton. Worst part of the movie for me. I was deeply disappointed with the rushed backstory of Zod and Jor-el whom both seemed to be attempting to do the same thing and yet felt the need to oppose each other for it. I would have much rather seen 30 minutes of this film solely dedicated to establishing the narrative.
I think that the conflict between the two did a good job explaining what was wrong with Krypton and their way of life. Both were genetically engineered for their purpose. Zod was created to be a soldier, a military solution to any problem. He didn't decide to be General Zod, he was created to be General Zod and everything he knows about protecting his people would always require a military solution. Jor-El was created to be a scientist, to think and to experiment. That was the only way he knew how to solve this problem. Krypton has engineered both these people to such an extend that they could not compromise against their genetic engineering. That's why the whole thing about Superman being able to make choices is such a big deal, even from the very beginning of the movie.
Zod spending 33 years looking for Kal? How unrealistic, why could they not simply have used the phantom zone as Zods reason for being absent for 33 years instead of asking us to believe that he would just mindlessly be doing the same search the entire time. After like 10 years I think Zods people would have just said feth it lets build a new Krypton somewhere and sexually reproduce.
They needed the Codex, without it they could not rebuild Krypton. So they kept on looking for it. And even if they just would decide "hey guys, Jor-El was right and we should just feth" you might remember that Krypton was gone. Kaputt. And with it every piece of their technology. The movie made it clear that they didn't just hop from planet to planet going "nope, he's not here". They also gathered supplies and resources to eventually build a new Krypton which they found in the old outposts. They wouldn't have been able to attempt to terraform Earth if they wouldn't have spend 33 years gathering supplies.
Lois being in on Clark's identity from day one it pretty lame.
Lois being in on Clark's identity is a lot better than the ace reporter being to stupid to figure out that both the guys she wants to bang is the same guy with removable glasses IMO.
And Clark's willingness to kill and callously fighting Zod in metropolis was very out of character.
There were lots of implied deaths, but not because Superman "killed" them. I think it is in Supermans character to fight and risk some lives instead of not fighting and letting every single human on earth die. And I thought that having him kill Zod, after a very emotional struggle before being forced to make that decision and clearly struggling with what he did afterwards, was a great moment in his character.
They really should have held Zod for the sequels and kept a smaller more grounded narrative to reboot the franchise. I feel this movie ultimately was to large in scope and it will make Superman fighting a human like Lex in the sequels less impactful on audiences.
I thought it was a good reboot. He killed Zod because he had no other reason, he fought and fought him and realized that he could never stop him in any other way. No prison on Earth would hold him, he would never stop attacking, so he had to go. Fights against Lex will be able to show the need to balance the fighting against his ability to kill.
Still a good movie and I think All the actors were rightly cast in their roles, but I gave it a 7/10 because there were just some major missteps that hurt this film and ultimately I feel the DC brand was not helped after the failures of DKR and Green Lantern.
Agreed on good casting. I would give it a 8.5/10 and I think it was a good step for DC. I'm not too worried about the failures of DKR and Green Lantern. I don't think the Batman Triology will be a part of the Justice League and the Avengers were able to recover from a few bad Hulk movies before taking off.
Exalted... nothing to add here.
I loved this movie... it's a great starter movie for Superman.
One thing to keep in mind guys, is that the Superman comic book series is venerable, with many, many different takes on the character.
I really like the take in MoS.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: I don't get your point about the dog. Pa Kent died saving their dog, which they had for years. So when that dog dies they can never get another one?
There doesn't need to be a scene where he says all life is precious. In this movie, that's not why he saves his dog. The character is presented as a salt of the earth kind of noble guy, in the American mold. Such a man would not just abandon his dog like a Starbucks-guzzling yuppie (who probably would go back for the iPad).
Also, he doesn't run to get the dog thinking "the dog's life is more important than mine." His foot gets caught and he's injured. There's just no time -- unless Clark uses his powers in front of everyone. The point of the scene is that Jonathan really believes the people of earth are not ready to accept his son. He believes that his son's life is more important than his.
That's all on the screen, no homework required. If you didn't get it, I don't know what to say. I mean, you're not required to like it but it's all there. In fact, Clark later explains to Lois exactly what this scene is about so it's actually explicitly spelled out on screen as well.
The Pa Kent part of saving the dog was my favorite part of the film... it adds so much to Clark's upbringing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: A risk is not the same thing as a sacrifice. Clark made a sacrifice at the end when he killed Zod rather than allowing him to kill the civillians. Jonathan made a sacrifice when he gave up his life to protect Clark's anonymity. When he went back for the dog, he was taking a risk.
This... exactly this. That's how I took it. And no... I wasn't tearing up... it was... um, allergies I think.
Cause detective Stabler doesn't negotiate with terrorists or people who disrespect women and children
As for the genetic engineering thing, am I the only one who found it odd that a guy built to be a scientist could mop the floor with a bunch of guys built to be soldiers (even beating the General of the entire planet into the ground) while the guys built to be soldiers could reconfigure the star ship in a complex sounding process to move vast distances of space?
It's a minor quip but it did bug me since there's the whole eugenics undertone throughout the film (kind of wish they'd done more with that).
LordofHats wrote: As for the genetic engineering thing, am I the only one who found it odd that a guy built to be a scientist could mop the floor with a bunch of guys built to be soldiers (even beating the General of the entire planet into the ground) while the guys built to be soldiers could reconfigure the star ship in a complex sounding process to move vast distances of space?
It's a minor quip but it did bug me since there's the whole eugenics undertone throughout the film (kind of wish they'd done more with that).
Same reason Sherlock Holmes can kick ass.
I think they took Lois as leverage against Superman.
I think they took Lois because they'd been tracking Earth's communications and probably picked up that she 'knew' who Kal-El was and figured probing her might reveal the location of the codex.
EDIT: Ninja'd.
There were a few moments like that in the film that kind of slid by without much explanation. Like how the Jor-El program implied that the outposts were created because Krypton was suffering over population and then abandoned because of the resources and distances involved once they could control their population. Well, not implied. Rather that's just what could be inferred from the scene.
I liked the recent Star Trek 2 better than Man of Steel.
There were some good moments, and some fine acting, but I felt the movie was OK at best.
Spoiler:
Good: The American Robin Hood's influence on Superman. The show succeeded in making me empathetic, but not sympathetic, with General Zod. I actually liked this character.
Bad: It looked like the Krypton chapter of the script was written my George Lucas, ala Star Wars prequels. It just had that "WTF?" feel to it. Took me out of the movie, actually. 60 minutes of tearing down 1 building after another. I get it. These guys are bad asses. Do I really need to see 400 buildings get torn down, one by one?
WTF? I thought the sun's radiation gave superman his power, not the air. When he goes on the ship, they explain that the Krypton air made him weak. Also, General Zod and hot alien fighter chick didn't get x-ray vision until they took off their masks, but he had super strength from the get go? I don't get it. Big hole there some where. Also, they destroyed Zod's ship by getting another one close to it that had a warp engine or whatever they call it. 1. Wouldn't everyone in an advanced space-traveling civilization know not to get two of these ships near one another, ala Space Travel 101: gak Not to Do. 2. Wouldn't they have safe guards like, I don't know, a sensor that says "Hey feth-heads, there's a ship within 10 Krypton miles, veer left" and known there was a baby carrier ship with a warp engine approaching? 3. Why the feth would you not have 20-30 of your advanced fighters protecting your world engine? I dunno. I'm not a military guy, I guess.
Awesome: Supes punching Zod in mid air. That scene was freaking cool. Also, "I was bred to be a soldier. Where did you learn to fight? On a farm?" That was pretty funny.
60 minutes of tearing down 1 building after another. I get it. These guys are bad asses. Do I really need to see 400 buildings get torn down, one by one?
Yes. feth yes. I've been waiting for a movie to actually emulate the scale and destruction of the fights from comics for decades.
The sun gave her and the big guy some super abilities, but they never removed their masks so they didn't get the full effect. They were trained soldiers and he was Superman: Day 2, with no combat training. If it had been a more experienced Clark or if they were fully powered it would have been a different fight. It was even said when he was talking to Jor-El 2.0 that the atmosphere of Earth made the effect even greater than anticipated, not just exposure to our Sun.
The Phantom Zone engine was unique to the Fortress they were on, and to Supes little rocket ship, and they weren't really bred to make those kinds of leaps. The only person who made the connection was Jor-El 2.0, Kryptons leading scientist and creator of the Phantom Zone engine.
My question at this point was that there was a lot of soldiers bred for war, but I don't really recall them mentioning any enemies of Kryton.
WTF? I thought the sun's radiation gave superman his power, not the air. When he goes on the ship, they explain that the Krypton air made him weak. Also, General Zod and hot alien fighter chick didn't get x-ray vision until they took off their masks, but he had super strength from the get go? I don't get it. Big hole there some where.
See, now this topic is an area that probably deserves a little criticism. Jor-El specifically cites the solar radiation, but you're right that most of the talk on the Kryptonian ship is about atmosphere. I think it's fairly clear that they're supposed to be separate issues, but they could have made it clearer exactly what it was on the ship that was suppressing his abilities.
Personally, I've always preferred the version in which his abilities come mostly from stored solar radiation, which takes *years* to build up. So Kryptonians arriving on Earth would only have whatever extra strength they'd have from being on a lower gravity world, etc. Obviously that doesn't help a movie along, so I understand the instant powers. Still, there was some unevenness there, like with the vision powers as you suggest.
This leads me to...
LordofHats wrote: As for the genetic engineering thing, am I the only one who found it odd that a guy built to be a scientist could mop the floor with a bunch of guys built to be soldiers (even beating the General of the entire planet into the ground) while the guys built to be soldiers could reconfigure the star ship in a complex sounding process to move vast distances of space?
It's a minor quip but it did bug me since there's the whole eugenics undertone throughout the film (kind of wish they'd done more with that).
Well, IIRC the Byrne post-Crisis take was that Jor-El and Lara represented the best genetic lines out there in general. And figure that a eugenics program would ideally lead to healthy, fit, athletic citizens overall. Just because Jor-El is bred to be a scientist doesn't mean he has to end up like Stephen Hawking. This is quibble territory, but sure, maybe the drone should have helped him a smidge more during his escape. Though maybe the explanation is as simple as saying that the soldiers were still fairly blinded throughout that fight.
Of course, Kal also takes on a bunch of soldiers and wins. My take was that Kal was ultimately a bit stronger/faster/tougher due to his many years adapting to Earth and our sun. The Kryptonians' training and toughness -- they are soldiers after all, and familiar with fighting through pain and injury, something Kal hasn't experienced much -- compensated for their slightly weaker state. Plus at times Kal is likely holding back -- partially because of nearby civilians, etc., and partially because he's spent a lifetime suppressing his powers and may not know how to tap their full potential. I thought his destruction of the world engine was meant to show him finally not holding back and tapping his true power.
LordofHats wrote: There were a few moments like that in the film that kind of slid by without much explanation. Like how the Jor-El program implied that the outposts were created because Krypton was suffering over population and then abandoned because of the resources and distances involved once they could control their population. Well, not implied. Rather that's just what could be inferred from the scene.
As Manchu said earlier, they might be laying some groundwork there for a sequel. You're right...they spent a little time on the colony deaths and they're portrayed as being mysterious, but then nothing's done with it. So it's either a sloppy throwaway or a little seed being planted. I lean strongly toward the latter given how the skeleton they find apparently died screaming and clutching a weapon. They didn't need to show that if it was meant to show a starvation death. Even Zod seems to be a little unnerved by it. So I think it's supposed to suggest that something nasty is out there. Brainiac? Tyranids?
gorgon wrote: Jor-El specifically cites the solar radiation
Jor-El (AI) also says that the oxygen rich atmosphere enhanced the effects for more then even he expected. The only other Kryptonian that took off their breathing helmet was Zod, and it almost immediately supercharged him.
She definitely did; it threw her off though because she had trouble adjusting to the atmosphere (like Clark on their ship). Same happened to Zod at first; remember, they had to carry him back onto his shuttle.
gorgon wrote: Jor-El specifically cites the solar radiation
Jor-El (AI) also says that the oxygen rich atmosphere enhanced the effects for more then even he expected. The only other Kryptonian that took off their breathing helmet was Zod, and it almost immediately supercharged him.
Okay, so then perhaps the atmosphere doesn't directly give him powers; it supercharges his cells, making them more efficient at absorbing and processing solar radiation. There's still probably some things there that need some smoothing over, but that generally works as an explanation.
I believe the weakness aboard the ship was evidence of the concept of kryptonite. All kryptonite is is a rock from krypton and that is extremely poisonous to Superman. All of the ships were made from elements from krypton so they would be essentially ships made from kryptonite.
I also believe in the super charging aspects of supermans powers as described in the Reign of Superman storyline where the resurrected superman was nearly as weak as a human as he had exhausted all his power fighting Doomsday and was only recharged by the Eradicator sacrificing himself and transferring his stored energy to Superman.
I believe Zods people had powers like superman due to their kryptonite battlesuits. Perhaps the krypton imams found a way to augment their soldiers with suits that emulated the yellow sun exposure but the over wheeling exposure to direct radiation was overwhelming and something Kal had adapted to.
I would like to have seen Zod more reliant on technology and less instant powers like in the final fight.
Still don't understand how he survived not being sucked into the phantom zone(which was done very poorly IMO) when it appeared to even be effecting Kal?
Nah, Kryptonite is not the same thing as any matter from Krypton.
As to the battlesuits, I think that's pretty debatable. By the end of the film, Zod is clearly not relying on a battlesuit. But earlier on, it does seem likely that the battlesuit is important. It would certainly explain how a scientist like Jor'El could stand up against guys bred to be soldiers.
I don't think Faora or her unnamed buddy were flying but rather just jumping during the fight in Smallville. Zod flies in the battle over (and through) Metropolis but -- as already mentioned -- he obviously has super powers by that point.
I felt they had super strength and speed, at least, the whole time they were on earth. At least, they appeared to in the fights with Superman and the humans.
kronk wrote: The battle suits certainly didn't give them the ability to fly on Krypton, or we would have seen them flying there, no?
They could have augmented their strength and added protection, certainly. But not to the level of Superman, so I don't buy that, Necronlord3.
Of course not and you don't even see them flying on earth in the suits either. It could provide a similar effect but of course not on the level that direct exposure does. Even Superman appeared to be incapable of flight until he leapt high enough into the atmosphere to receive more direct exposure to solar radiation. Once he did that he was fully capable of flight.
I think the helmet thing was not just that the direct exposure to the atmosphere messed with them, but that the helmets also functioned to filter out input to their senses.
So once the helmets were removed, they were overwhelmed with the amount of new sensations they experienced.
Manchu wrote: Nah, Kryptonite is not the same thing as any matter from Krypton.
No,of course it isn't any matter as Kal is matter from Krypton. But it is elements from krypton. One of the more recent explanations for the lethality of kryptonite is that it is a radioactive fused form of the kryptonian planet core. Which when introduced in future sequels would explain its presence as a way to kill superman. But simple exposure to elements from krypton could weaken kryptonians to a near human level.
No he was stronger. It wasn't until he knocked out the wall and was directly exposed to the sun that he was repowered.
The solar radiation was clearly stronger than the elements of the ship, however it is also clear the writers lacked the knowledge to differentiate between atmosphere and radiation, more evidence of why this movie is more of a 7/10.
d-usa wrote: I think the helmet thing was not just that the direct exposure to the atmosphere messed with them, but that the helmets also functioned to filter out input to their senses.
So once the helmets were removed, they were overwhelmed with the amount of new sensations they experienced.
I vaguely recall them talking about the helmets allowing them to focus or something...
NecronLord3 wrote: No he was stronger. It wasn't until he knocked out the wall and was directly exposed to the sun that he was repowered.
The solar radiation was clearly stronger than the elements of the ship, however it is also clear the writers lacked the knowledge to differentiate between atmosphere and radiation, more evidence of why this movie is more of a 7/10.
The only evidence I saw was no powers => ship conditions change => powers. I also saw nothing that suggested it was the material of the ship that depowered him. I think you're on your own on this one.
I suspect that the writers were attempting to explain the age-old question why the Kryptonians didn't move to systems with yellow suns to become gods. There have been other answers, but in this case, it seems that the answer was that the atmosphere that brings them full power also tends to be toxic to most of them.
NecronLord3 wrote: No he was stronger. It wasn't until he knocked out the wall and was directly exposed to the sun that he was repowered.
I don't think the movie actually supports that. Jor'El tells him to punch the wall and he nonchalantly knocks a hole through the bulkhead. Doesn't seem underpowered to me.
Yeah, he didn't hit it too hard to put a hole in it.
I'm still not sure how they fly, though. He initially tries to jump far, ala The Hulk, but somehow he figures it out. How does that work, exactly? Does he just "will it"? When he out flies the mini-black hole's event horizon, it looks like he's straining. How does one strain while flying. How does one fly faster? Urgh!
The small shot of the little rocks starting to lift up around his fist before he starts to really fly for the first time seems to imply that he somehow manipulates the air or energy around him.
The big jumping thing is not flying at all and just a result of the lower gravity of earth, every one of the people from krypton seem to be able to do it instantly. Flying just seems to work on a different level of abilities.
gorgon wrote: Khe only evidence I saw was no powers => ship conditions change => powers. I also saw nothing that suggested it was the material of the ship that depowered him. I think you're on your own on this one.
Zod even said the atmosphere on the ship was the cause of Superman losing his powers. I believe the quote was, "makes him as weak as a human."
NecronLord3 wrote: No he was stronger. It wasn't until he knocked out the wall and was directly exposed to the sun that he was repowered.
I don't think the movie actually supports that. Jor'El tells him to punch the wall and he nonchalantly knocks a hole through the bulkhead. Doesn't seem underpowered to me.
He definitely takes a moment to "charge up" before heading out, implying that either Superman knows he is a bit weaker still, or at least feels that way.
Jor'El tells him to knock the wall out so that he can see Lois in danger, in order to save her. Instead of zooming straight out, he *falls back* out of the hole and very deliberately hangs in the sun for a few moments before zooming off. All this while Lois is in a burning pod, which is cause for urgency.
This originally came up because NecronLord3 theorized that Superman was weakened on Zod's ship because the ship was made of Kyptonian elements (a la Kryptonite).
I said this couldn't be the case because Superman is able to break out of his restraints/put a hole in a space ship as soon as Jor'El changes the ship's atmosphere to be earth-like.
I guess the problem is I said "fully powered." I don't know what the upper limit to Superman's power is. If he flew inside of the sun, how powerful would he get? So yeah, when he exits Zod's ship the cut definitely emphasizes he's soaking up solar radiation. (There's a similar cut later after he's been choking on the world engine's smog.)
But the point remains, the movie doesn't seem to support Superman being depowered by the materials the ship is made out of. Further evidence for this is that Clark suffers no depowering when exploring the scout ship in the arctic or on that same ship when Zod is flying it at the end.
Doesn't Kryptonite affect all Kryptonians the same anyway?
When the scientists on earth talk about the world engine, they mention that it is shooting particulates into the air to change the atmosphere. So who knows, it could be as simple as having an atmosphere that has a high particulate count that acts as a filter to block out the radiation from the sun.
The problem is the writers choose to say atmosphere. Which isn't supermans source of power. They should have said environment, which encompasses lighting air earth etc... I would have shown Krypton entirely in reddish tones to emphasis the red sun and also done so with the insides of the kryptonian vessels. This would have made sense to effect Supermans powers, but it should never have been a situation of on off as Kal absorbs solar energy and has always stored it like a battery. If has very rarely been in any situation which greatly decreases his level of stored energy but when he does go to other systems his powers do decrease over time.
This film was good but the plot holes were bad and very distracting.
Spoiler:
Having pa kent die from a tornado when Clark could have easily saved him was unforgivable to me.
NecronLord3 wrote: it should never have been a situation of on off as Kal absorbs solar energy and has always stored it like a battery
Yeah, I think you have a point there. The idea that he'd nearly immediately be of normal strength on Zod's ship is definitely an artifact of narrative convenience. To be fair, they did frame it well with him getting dizzy and coughing blood.
So it's either a sloppy throwaway or a little seed being planted
Honestly I think the scene was just poorly put together (in terms of actually portraying a concise brief history of Krypton). They'll probably fix it in a sequel since it had the side effect of leaving lots of wiggle room.
Speaking of Justice League do we have any word of Flash, Wonder Woman, Martian Manhunter (would really love a Martian Manhunter film!), Aquaman, or Hawkgirl movies?
LordofHats wrote: Speaking of Justice League do we have any word of Flash, Wonder Woman, Martian Manhunter (would really love a Martian Manhunter film!), Aquaman, or Hawkgirl movies?
I haven't heard. MoS 2 was greenlit before opening weekend, however.
I think that it was intended to be but the reception was so bad for the film that they decided to boot it off the DC Movie continuity. Pretty sure the Movie continuity officially starts right now with Man of Steel (this would make sense as well as Super Man is often associated with ushering in the age of the Super Hero).
LordofHats wrote: Speaking of Justice League do we have any word of Flash, Wonder Woman, Martian Manhunter (would really love a Martian Manhunter film!), Aquaman, or Hawkgirl movies?
I haven't heard. MoS 2 was greenlit before opening weekend, however.
I know there's another Batman in the works so that's films for two of the founding members. I don't know. Justice League (and I like the Justice League a lot more than the Avengers) and the DC universe in general I've always felt suffer from the characters not being as iconic outside of Batman and Super Man. Sure we all know who the Justice League starting line up is, but I've never gotten the sense they're as popular on an individual basis as Marvel characters often are.
LordofHats wrote: Pretty sure the Movie continuity officially starts right now with Man of Steel (this would make sense as well as Super Man is often associated with ushering in the age of the Super Hero).
Based on what Nolan and others have been saying regarding the JLA movie, I'm going to suggest that it "starts" with the Dark Knight franchise and then Man of Steel. Nolan is going to have to convince Warner Brothers to treat the rest of their DC properties with more respect if they want to have a successful franchise across the board.
Unless the "robin" is going to take over as Batman and have some non-Bruce Wayne Batman teaming up with Superman, it will be pretty hard to tie the Dark Knight trilogy into this series.
LordofHats wrote: I thought the Dark Knight trilogy was being treated as its own separate continuity?
While that *was* the case, the Wayne logo on the satellite is a Bat-signal that all bets are off now.
But I don't think they'll go quite the same route as Marvel with separate films for most of the characters. Heck, even in Avengers it was technically a different Hulk than either of the two films. You don't need perfect continuity, you just have to get the audience to the right general spot. Ideally Bale's behind the mask, but as long as you have a black armored suit, and some Bat-badassery does it really matter in terms of audience enjoyment? DC's characters are more iconic than most of the Avengers.
If I was writing the thing, I'd keep the initial lineup very tight -- Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Flash, and Green Lantern. I really like J'onn as a character, but he just requires too much additional material. Aquaman could actually work since casual fans know the character. He's the butt of a million jokes, but give him a couple badass scenes and great lines and he'd steal the movie a la the Hulk in Avengers. Still, he's at a lower tier to the big 5.
Figure Green Lantern gets the Hulk/Avengers treatment -- not exactly the same GL as the standalone film but it's still Hal Jordan and the same basic idea. You could also circumvent the issue by rolling with the John Stewart version to give the cast some needed diversity. Either way would be fine. The concept of GL is out there already.
That leaves Wonder Woman and Flash. WW is a majorly tricky character. Good writers have tried there and really struggled to bring that character to film. The current plan at WB for Wonder Woman is apparently an "Arrow"-style TV show. The idea there is probably more of a young Diana, allowing the movie character to be different but again getting the audience to the right place. Okay, fine, but they don't even have a pilot yet. The Flash is potentially movie material, but WB might not want to wait to develop a Flash movie.
One answer for WW and Flash is to have the JL movie introduce at least one of them. Maybe the plot involves the Amazons in an important way, or Barry gets his powers as a result of something that happens in the film. Then you spin one or both of the characters off into standalone films after the JL movie.
One answer for WW and Flash is to have the JL movie introduce at least one of them. Maybe the plot involves the Amazons in an important way, or Barry gets his powers as a result of something that happens in the film. Then you spin one or both of the characters off into standalone films after the JL movie.
That's actually a fair point. Also, as you say, if they use a new guy for Batman, does he really need ANOTHER intro movie?
I doubt Bale would return, though. The way they ended that series, it wouldn't make any sense. Robin/Nightwing, however, might work.
I bet the first JL movie is more like World's Finest + WW.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kronk wrote: Also, if the use a new guy for Batman, does he really need ANOTHER intro movie?
I think yes given that Batman Begins is not necessarily the Batman origin story. Nolan's Batman existed in a world by himself, vis-a-vis superheroes. The new Batman exists in a world where Superman is possible. That's a dramatic difference. Just off the top of my head, I don't think you need Bruce Wayne to be as fethed up as he was in Batman Begins if he lives in a world where Superman is possible.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kronk wrote: Robin/Nightwing, however, might work.
Nah, Superman and Batman are best friends. And I mean Clark and Bruce. This is one of the cornerstones of JL.
Manchu wrote: I bet the first JL movie is more like World's Finest + WW.
Also totally workable. Clark and Bruce team up and the Amazons/Diana are somehow involved too. They cooperate, say "hey this works" and it ends with them coming up with an idea. Then in JL2 a more proper JL is formed with GL and Flash joining in. That leaves plenty of room for story.
And agreed on Clark and Bruce.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Okay, so back on MoS.
Why was one pod in the scout ship not just empty but opened? Thoughts?
LordofHats wrote: I thought the Dark Knight trilogy was being treated as its own separate continuity?
While that *was* the case, the Wayne logo on the satellite is a Bat-signal that all bets are off now.
That doesn't mean anything. They announced before The Dark Knight Rises released that another Batman film was in the works. They can easily reboot the character to make him more compatible with the other films.
Wonder Woman; The comic character who never gets any justice (pun!) in film. I'd like to see a well done Wonder Woman movie. She has a great background and a lot can be done with her character. Though personally I'd like a wardrobe change. I've always found her stars and stripes outfit horribly out of date for the modern character.
Manchu wrote: I think yes given that Batman Begins is not necessarily the Batman origin story. Nolan's Batman existed in a world by himself, vis-a-vis superheroes. The new Batman exists in a world where Superman is possible. That's a dramatic difference. Just off the top of my head, I don't think you need Bruce Wayne to be as fethed up as he was in Batman Begins if he lives in a world where Superman is possible.
I don't think Batman existed in a world where there were no other heroes, or is incompatible with such a world, just that none were ever mentioned. Remember, Batman didn't really have a national presence like we see in the comic books. He was just a guy fighting crime in one city so it's nature that his movies would focus only on that.
Batman may also have either been the first superhero chronologically with the events of Superman happen after DKR. It's also possible that with the advent of more heroes in the world and public knowledge of space aliens, that Bruce comes out of retirement to help establish the JLA. This assumes that there will be no mention of the JSA as they don't really fit in with the current mythos without a lot of clumsy shoehorning.
Manchu wrote: Nah, Superman and Batman are best friends. And I mean Clark and Bruce. This is one of the cornerstones of JL.
And I can see the JLA movie as establishing the framework for this friendship. Batman keeping Superman honest and Clark reminding Bruce that he doesn't have to shoulder the burden alone.
rubiksnoob wrote: Meh. Justice League never did it for me. I wouldn't go see that.
If we're talking "Super Friends" version then I whole heartedly agree. If we're seeing something more mature like the Avengers if they were grown-ups then it could be really cool.
LordofHats wrote: Wonder Woman; The comic character who never gets any justice (pun!) in film. I'd like to see a well done Wonder Woman movie. She has a great background and a lot can be done with her character. Though personally I'd like a wardrobe change. I've always found her stars and stripes outfit horribly out of date for the modern character.
Yeah. Way better (though not a fan of the black color). I remember hearing she got a costume change awhile back but didn't know if it was still in effect. I saw a fan art once of Wonder Woman as a Greek Hoplite and thought the look was wonderful. Something along the lines of Sophita from Soul Calibur but with a lot less emphasis on the cleavage and red and blue colors:
Her old costume was just so her WWII origins never going away.
Breotan wrote: I don't think Batman existed in a world where there were no other heroes, or is incompatible with such a world, just that none were ever mentioned.
This isn't really a provable point but just in terms of style the world of Nolan's Batman doesn't seem to do well with stuff like, as Kronk pointed out earlier, Superman accelerating in flight.
To me, a Justice League version of Batman really *needs* to be Bruce Wayne. Luckily, with the Nolan version it's still highly believable that he just *would not* be able to put the cowl down for long. Maybe something threatens the planet and he feels he must come back, maybe something happens to no-really-he's-not-gonna-be-Robin-ok-he-totally-is Blake, or maybe even to Selina... who knows.
Nolan's Bruce Wayne could easily put the cowl back on. The Batman Inc. explanation would be all that is necessary with even some small dialogue suggest reports of several Batmen appearing in major cities around the word, Bruce is simply setting up franchises. But if something was threatening humanity on the right scale he would come back and still be able to maintain anonymity as he could be any one of a dozen individuals.
Nah, Superman and Batman are best friends. And I mean Clark and Bruce. This is one of the cornerstones of JL.
Did you miss the part where batman snuck his way into Lois's panties during the Batman/Superman movie? they respect each other, they understand each other, but I can't see a guy snagging my gf for a quickie then tossing her aside as "best-friend" material. I realize that's not canon, but in most of the media portrayals, they aren't buddy/buddy.
Manchu wrote: I bet the first JL movie is more like World's Finest + WW.
Also totally workable. Clark and Bruce team up and the Amazons/Diana are somehow involved too. They cooperate, say "hey this works" and it ends with them coming up with an idea. Then in JL2 a more proper JL is formed with GL and Flash joining in. That leaves plenty of room for story.
And agreed on Clark and Bruce.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Okay, so back on MoS.
Why was one pod in the scout ship not just empty but opened? Thoughts?
There's a prequel comic that explains it...
Spoiler:
It was Kara...maybe! Either her or some psycho Kryptonian.
In most portrays Batman/Superman have a difficult relationship due to their differing views and ideals (Superman is optimistic and trusting, Batman is cynical and paranoid). That shouldn't be confused with them not being close friends. The relationship between Batman and Superman is one of the most iconic friendships in comics because it is always strained. Always at this teetering point where these two titans of justice could suddenly go from being close allies to being bitter enemies all while attempting to achieve the same goals with similar means.
Okay, the first movie basically established Clark as taking up the mantle of Superman. Next movie will have to involve Lex Luthor and some sort of PR campaign against Superman after what he and Zod did to Metropolis. But who will be the big super villain? Will they go to Braniac immediately or will they just drop a few hints and save him for the third film? And if not Braniac, who?
He's silly but I think he can be reimagined as a more serious villain and would fit in well with a Lex Luthor looking to either beat Super Man or control him.
Just looking back Metallo was always one of Super Man's more threatening antagonists and in the Super Man Animated Series he was created by Lex Luthor. Pretty sure it'll be Brianiac though. He's by far Sup's most famous antagonist after Lex and the one everyone will be waiting for.
Manchu wrote: I bet the first JL movie is more like World's Finest + WW.
Also totally workable. Clark and Bruce team up and the Amazons/Diana are somehow involved too. They cooperate, say "hey this works" and it ends with them coming up with an idea. Then in JL2 a more proper JL is formed with GL and Flash joining in. That leaves plenty of room for story.
I think an appearance be Doomsday, even a brief one, would be great.
Though maybe it would be cooler to save Doomsday and the 'Death of Superman' for a film where it can have a real emotional impact, maybe after a second one firmly establishes Super Man's role as a beacon of hope.
timetowaste85 wrote: I realize that's not canon, but in most of the media portrayals, they aren't buddy/buddy.
No, that's not true at all. In most portrayals, they are quite good friends.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: In most portrays Batman/Superman have a difficult relationship due to their differing views and ideals (Superman is optimistic and trusting, Batman is cynical and paranoid). That shouldn't be confused with them not being close friends. The relationship between Batman and Superman is one of the most iconic friendships in comics because it is always strained. Always at this teetering point where these two titans of justice could suddenly go from being close allies to being bitter enemies all while attempting to achieve the same goals with similar means.
Yeah, this is pretty much what I've taken away from decades of reading DC comics.
Manchu wrote: I bet the first JL movie is more like World's Finest + WW.
Also totally workable. Clark and Bruce team up and the Amazons/Diana are somehow involved too. They cooperate, say "hey this works" and it ends with them coming up with an idea. Then in JL2 a more proper JL is formed with GL and Flash joining in. That leaves plenty of room for story.
And agreed on Clark and Bruce.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Okay, so back on MoS.
Why was one pod in the scout ship not just empty but opened? Thoughts?
There's a prequel comic that explains it...
Spoiler:
It was Kara...maybe! Either her or some psycho Kryptonian.
LordofHats wrote: Yeah. Way better (though not a fan of the black color). I remember hearing she got a costume change awhile back but didn't know if it was still in effect. I saw a fan art once of Wonder Woman as a Greek Hoplite and thought the look was wonderful. Something along the lines of Sophita from Soul Calibur but with a lot less emphasis on the cleavage and red and blue colors:
Her old costume was just so her WWII origins never going away.
I don't think that's quite the right look, but the hoplite approach would be a winner methinks. Remember that her clothing was originally fetish wear because her creator had certain...interests and ideas. It's still amazing that more people don't realize the character's kinky roots. So turn that corset into more of a cuirass, give her a Roman legionary style leather skirt, greaves instead of boots, full forearm guards in place of bracelets, etc. Not only would it work better onscreen, it'd make her the warrior she's supposed to be instead of a dominatrix.
Back on topic, I just researched that prequel comic, and Great Rao, it looks like Kara and Dev-Em were in that ship. Dev-Em!
timetowaste85 wrote: I realize that's not canon, but in most of the media portrayals, they aren't buddy/buddy.
No, that's not true at all. In most portrayals, they are quite good friends.
Do you typically go around carrying something in your pocket that would kill your best friend if he let power go to his head? I'm actually serious-they have a common goal, they get along, but Batman has no issue with destroying Superman if he has to. And in the media, they do have issues. I can't say for comics. Superman animated series: Bruce nails Lois (implied), Supes gets pissed. Lego Batman 2: he finds Superman a pain in the ass and annoying, there's been a bunch of antaganism in JL, and more that I'm too tired to remember. I've got every DC animated movie though, plus all animated series as well, and while they are as good of friends as Batman can be with someone...that's kind of like saying deer road kill is better than frog road kill. That is the analogy you guys get when I've been up since 5am. Accept it.
Batman has made a point throughout his career as a crime fighter to plan for everything. It is entirely feasible that Superman could go dark side (heck Batman has on many occasions seen him come close). That doesn't mean they're not good friends or even that they don't trust each other. It is simply a recognition by one of them that they are powerful beings and it is foolish to think that they are infallible. You can even interpret it as the ultimate bond of trust. Batman will kill Superman if he ceases to be who he is and becomes one of the monsters he fights because unlike everyone else Batman has to deal with, killing Superman is really the only way to stop him.
Also, are you sure you've seen every animated feature? Justice League Doom made this aspect of Batman's character rather clear (Crisis on Two Earths also exemplified this extreme nature of Batman's character and how he associates with his fellows).
Oh yes, I have Doom: bought it the day it came out. I realize it was a contingency plan for each of them. That said, Batman does always carry around a chunk of kryptonite. And I think the justice lords episode of justice league shows better how the heroes switch due to events, rather than the crisis movie, as that involves caricatures of the heroes, with people who are similarly gifted, but not the same people.
Also, also, I hope Aquaman isn't as lame as Robot Chicken portrays him to be.
The Young Justice version (And Justice League version as well to a smaller extent) really portray him in a positive light.
He is also one of the single most obnoxious characters to fight against in "InJustice: Gods Among Us"...
In regards to the "Wonder Woman Hoplite Costume", I think it's from "Flashpoint". I know I have a "Flashpoint" skin for Diana on InJustice that makes her look very much like a warrior queen rather than a supermodel.
Long flowy cloak, hoplite styled helmet with a spiked plate on the helmet, etc.
It's a really nice skin I think.
Post-Crisis, Clark gave Bruce Luthor's kryptonite ring as insurance against him being mind-controlled, etc. In the New 52, they're still friends and Bruce openly shared with Clark that he has contingency plans/weapons for every JL member (save one) in the event that they go rogue.
Manchu is absolutely correct in saying that they've been friends in almost every incarnation for decades.
gorgon wrote: Post-Crisis, Clark gave Bruce Luthor's kryptonite ring as insurance against him being mind-controlled, etc. In the New 52, they're still friends and Bruce openly shared with Clark that he has contingency plans/weapons for every JL member (save one) in the event that they go rogue.
Manchu is absolutely correct in saying that they've been friends in almost every incarnation for decades.
Even The Dark Knight Returns showed it as more of a strained relationship then two guys who actually hated each other. Clark didn't have to go hang out at Wayne Manner and warn him, nor did Clark say anything when he realized that Bruce faked his death
One would suggest that's amongst the reasons Clark didn't kill Bruce straight away. You'll note Miller showed how he could have.
I don't think the Nolan version of Batman will have anything to do with the supes/any JLA continuity.
What I think will happen is that the destruction caused by the kryptonian invasion and Superman's public debut will inspire/force other people with powers to step out of the shadows or become active.
Thus Superman will inspire or usher in the new age of heroes/what you want to call it, which mirrors nicely what happened ( more or less) in comic book history and in the current Dc continuity.
Batman can -- like in the current comics -- have been active for a while before, but just have been viewed as an urban myth.
Obviously the Guardians of the Universe will, presumably, have had their attention directed to earth by events.
Hell throw in freaky alien technology and side effects thereof and you could have quite a few revised/rejigged origins straight away.
One would suggest that's amongst the reasons Clark didn't kill Bruce straight away. You'll note Miller showed how he could have.
I don't think the Nolan version of Batman will have anything to do with the supes/any JLA continuity.
What I think will happen is that the destruction caused by the kryptonian invasion and Superman's public debut will inspire/force other people with powers to step out of the shadows or become active.
Thus Superman will inspire or usher in the new age of heroes/what you want to call it, which mirrors nicely what happened ( more or less) in comic book history and in the current Dc continuity.
Batman can -- like in the current comics -- have been active for a while before, but just have been viewed as an urban myth.
Obviously the Guardians of the Universe will, presumably, have had their attention directed to earth by events.
Hell throw in freaky alien technology and side effects thereof and you could have quite a few revised/rejigged origins straight away.
I suspect LuthorCorp may also receive a significant boost from captured remnants of Kryptontech.
While we're throwing ideas out there, the Amazons could be repositioned Thor-style as something more alien/otherworldy than mythological/godlike. Heck, isn't Themyscera basically extradimensional as is? Then that can drive the narrative over to a certain other undesirable place populated by alien-gods with particularly bad attitudes and one Mr. Stoneface. Diana is sent as an emissary to warn the world about the threat, etc.
Not sure if they'd want to use the big guy as the baddie the first time out, but the writers can definitely make WW and JL work. Again, I think it'll be important to keep the team extra-tight to allow room for story. The Avengers, like most of the Marvel films, was a fun and lighthearted if formulaic romp, but this new wave of DC films seems to be shooting for something more than that.
I suspect LuthorCorp may also receive a significant boost from captured remnants of Kryptontech.
While we're throwing ideas out there, the Amazons could be repositioned Thor-style as something more alien/otherworldy than mythological/godlike. Heck, isn't Themyscera basically extradimensional as is? Then that can drive the narrative over to a certain other undesirable place populated by alien-gods with particularly bad attitudes and one Mr. Stoneface. Diana is sent as an emissary to warn the world about the threat, etc.
Not sure if they'd want to use the big guy as the baddie the first time out, but the writers can definitely make WW and JL work. Again, I think it'll be important to keep the team extra-tight to allow room for story. The Avengers, like most of the Marvel films, was a fun and lighthearted if formulaic romp, but this new wave of DC films seems to be shooting for something more than that.
I'd have Luthor "field testing" gadgets and the like both to use against Supes/any similar alien invaders -- maybe even Solaris ! -- which means he can unleash all manner of mutants and beasties on Metropolis, or even have him be the source of the tech for people like the Rogues gallery who could then be fighting the Flash who got his powers after the Mcguffin ray from the invaders showered him in chemicals and etc etc yadda yadda.
Then I'd look at putting Cyborg in the film -- he's in the league now/a founding member -- just swap out 4th world/Darkseid influence for Brainiac probes/similar.
.. helps avoid it being the league of extraordinary white and essentially middle class guys with 1 woman too.
Maybe indeed have Themyscera been an outpost hidden away on Earth, the rest of the Amazonia xenos civilisation destroyed by Brainiac in the past.. they detect his approach, so Diana goes off to help them out.. and wackiness ensues !
.. maybe position J'onn Jon'zz as a Silver Surfer/ herald type of guy for Brainiac -- sticks the tongue out at marvel for the Thanos/darkseid rip off and means we can have some wodnerful moment where he changes sides after being moved by beauty of human spirit / unquenchable thirst for freedom/love/ a cat etc etc yadda yadda kind of thing.
reds8n wrote: Then I'd look at putting Cyborg in the film -- he's in the league now/a founding member -- just swap out 4th world/Darkseid influence for Brainiac probes/similar.
MoS2 could introduce Cyborg. Here's how I'd frame it:
While the rest of the world is in shock over the events of MoS, Lex Luthor is the one man who wasn't surprised. He's known about aliens (if not specifically Kyrptonians) and he's been planning for their arrival. Rather than a mad realtor, this Lex is a billionaire genius xenophobe who is as fascinated by xenotech as he is repulsed by it. He offers to spearhead the rebuilding of Metropolis to (1) engineer a smear campaign against Supes and (2) recover Kryptech in hopes of creating his own anti-xenos supermen.
Still, I don't know how I'd feel about a slug fest between Lex and Supes after seeing Supes fight Zod. Could make for a good line about how Superman has learned to fight smarter and hold himself back. Superman can defeat pretty much anybody without much question. As Lex knows, the trick is Superman wants to limit collateral damage. For this reason, he'd make a good movie 2 villain. Move 3, maybe post JLA, would then be Doomsday where a more mature Superman would really get hurt.
Superman's greatest weakness is not Kryptonite; his greatest weakness is actually his greatest strength -- his conscience. Lex's suit is indeed a ordinance-delivery mechanism but the payload isn't Kryptonite, it's Lex's manipulative way of making moral truths (which Superman relies on) unclear. There's a great line from Red Son where Brainiac calculates that Lex could talk Superman into committing suicide in less than 14 minutes.
Manchu wrote: Still, I don't know how I'd feel about a slug fest between Lex and Supes after seeing Supes fight Zod. Could make for a good line about how Superman has learned to fight smarter and hold himself back. Superman can defeat pretty much anybody without much question. As Lex knows, the trick is Superman wants to limit collateral damage. For this reason, he'd make a good movie 2 villain. Move 3, maybe post JLA, would then be Doomsday where a more mature Superman would really get hurt.
Lex and Metallo vs. Superman allows for cerebral and physical combat.
Manchu wrote: Still, I don't know how I'd feel about a slug fest between Lex and Supes after seeing Supes fight Zod. Could make for a good line about how Superman has learned to fight smarter and hold himself back. Superman can defeat pretty much anybody without much question. As Lex knows, the trick is Superman wants to limit collateral damage. For this reason, he'd make a good movie 2 villain. Move 3, maybe post JLA, would then be Doomsday where a more mature Superman would really get hurt.
I agree. Luthor represents asymmetric warfare against Clark -- not tackling him toe-to-toe, but instead using others, influencing public opinion, and using both extremely illegal methods and the law as weapons. It's a similar concept to Batman and the Joker, although the details are obviously quite different.
Manchu wrote: Now that I've seen a good Superman film for this generation, I can't wait to see a good Wonder Woman film.
From what I understand, the only plan is "Amazon" which is the CW tv series being done by the guys behind "Arrow".
And note that there's no pilot in the works yet, which means the earliest it'd arrive is 2014. I imagine WB would be happy to shelve it if someone knocked their socks off with a WW feature film proposal.
I've been listening to the Man of Steel soundtrack for the past few days and I like it a lot. I love the John Williams theme (those three notes fairly cry out "SU-per-MAN") but it would not have worked in this kind of film. Zimmer's MoS score is still pretty percusion heavy but it's slightly more melodic than the Nolan Batman scores.
I particularly liked the part when Superman killed Zod, I think they handled that scene perfectly, however, it was ruined by a small child saying "what did he do?"
And they did seem to rebuild the city pretty quickly, but I don't have a problem with the "everything going back to normal at the end" Simpsons style ending.
I guess I just differentiate between a musical score/soundtrack from actual "music". Nolan's films are known for their lack of music, which I have always felt was a mistake as music really sets the tone and Nolan has always used it sparingly.
Manchu wrote: I've been listening to the Man of Steel soundtrack for the past few days and I like it a lot. I love the John Williams theme (those three notes fairly cry out "SU-per-MAN") but it would not have worked in this kind of film. Zimmer's MoS score is still pretty percusion heavy but it's slightly more melodic than the Nolan Batman scores.
I'm listening to it right now. I think it shows a gentler, more melodic Zimmer.
Like with just about everything from the 1978 film, the Williams score was a classic in its day, but it's time to move on. It's been 35 years. R.I.P.
Saw this tonight. It got mixed reviews but I liked it just fine, certainly more than World War Z. Coming from someone who doesn't especially like the Superman character, I'd recommend it nonetheless - it actually made me sort of like him more.
I agree killing Zod was the only way the film could end. I remember thinking about 20 minutes beforehand that this can only end with Supes killing him. I was fine with it.
I think allot of the negativity has come from people who are only really familiar with the Christopher Reeve movies which as great as they were, really were products of their time. It's broadly the equivalent of watching the Christopher Nolan Batman movies if your only previous knowledge of Batman came from the Adam West TV series. Needless to say the character will be almost unrecognizable and you probably won’t enjoy it.
Not a perfect movie and there where things that bugged me. Lois figuring out who Clark Kent is so easily disappointed me, especially as if she can do it then what exactly is to stop the US military from tracing his steps the same way? They after all already know that he comes from Kansas which gives them a head start. If they have any satellite footage of Zod’s ship landing at the Kent’s farm then the games up for Clark.
But overall I really enjoyed it and will probably go back for a 2nd viewing some point soon.
I'm going to go back for a second viewing soon also. I suspect I'll like it even more.
I never would have suspected that this film would get such different, strong reactions, but in retrospect any serious, thorough reboot was probably going to do that. It's also worth keeping in mind that Batman Begins scored something like a 70 on Metacritic...good but not great and some of the complaints were about it being too dark, etc. It'd be interesting to see how the same critics would rate it now knowing where the series went (although obviously their role is to review movies as self-contained things). As we've discussed, some of the stuff that people are complaining about -- consequences, etc. -- may be a primary subject of the sequel.
Here's an interesting podcast about the film. One critic hates it, the other likes it, and they get into it pretty good.
I really liked the movie. There were only a few things that were a bit off.
I disliked how Lois figured out Clark was Supes in about a minute of screentime.
They also kind of fell into the Dragonball Z problem. When you have beings of such immense power fighting each other you can quickly lose all dramatic tension as nothing does enough damage to be a true threat.
I think it might have worked better if the fight in Smallville had ended up having some civilian collateral damage. Especially as Clark would most likely have known some of them.
This would have been an opportunity to have him realize the consequences of using his power recklessly.
It also would have allowed them to add some depth to the final showdown with Zod. There could have been sequences where Superman saved civialians mid fight allowing Zod a chance to land unanswered blows, this would have helped build to the final resolution of the fight.
Eldarain wrote: I disliked how Lois figured out Clark was Supes in about a minute of screentime.
My guess is that they don't want the films to be about their romance or the whole rigamorole of him going to lengths to hide his secret from her. They are just getting rid of all that in one fell swoop.
Eldarain wrote: There could have been sequences where Superman saved civialians mid fight allowing Zod a chance to land unanswered blows, this would have helped build to the final resolution of the fight.
Zod didn't seem to want to fight like that. Superman saves one person to turn around and see Zod has killed 40 others. He wasn't some ineffectual villain there to steal Hostess Fruit Pies , he came to play.
Yeah but the new Star Trek Films still make old Star Trek look so much better.
Man of Steel in my opinion is suffering from what the Raimey Spider-Man, Abrams Trek, and the X-men films suffered from. The need to appeal to non-fans of the source material. When after films like, Watchmen, Sin City, 300, Batman Begins, Amazing Spider-Man etc.have proven that you can produce a film that holds very true to the source material that will still appeal to the wider audience.
Zod didn't seem to want to fight like that. Superman saves one person to turn around and see Zod has killed 40 others. He wasn't some ineffectual villain there to steal Hostess Fruit Pies , he came to play.
NecronLord3 wrote: Man of Steel in my opinion is suffering from [...] [t]he need to appeal to non-fans of the source material. When after films like ... Batman Begins ... have proven that you can produce a film that holds very true to the source material that will still appeal to the wider audience.
That's a very strange view of things.
For my part, as a big fan of both characters and someone picking up all their monthly titles, Man of Steel is very true to the source material whereas Batman Begins was much more the product of what was current in film. Indeed, I would say a big part of Man of Steel is getting past the event horizon of Nolan's take on Batman. Man of Steel is incalcuably more comfortable with its comic book roots than Batman Begins. (Just ask R'as al'Ghul!)
Eldarain wrote: This would have been an opportunity to have him realize the consequences of using his power recklessly.
The movie deals with that elsewhere and much better than as an incident to a fight scene.
Eldarain wrote: There could have been sequences where Superman saved civialians mid fight allowing Zod a chance to land unanswered blows, this would have helped build to the final resolution of the fight.
Zod didn't seem to want to fight like that. Superman saves one person to turn around and see Zod has killed 40 others. He wasn't some ineffectual villain there to steal Hostess Fruit Pies , he came to play.
I see the 'civilian casualty' complaint brought up a lot. I guess this line of thinking somehow applies to MoS and not to 100 other action films because in some incarnations/appearances, Superman's been able to fight bad guys while preventing loss of property or life, etc. And to be fair, the character has often "super-powered" away problems and situations throughout his history. A Silver Age Superman or a Christopher Reeve Superman might have used his super-breath to create a reflective ice wall to bounce Zod's heat vision harmlessly away from the endangered family at the climax of the film. Or perhaps turned the world back in time as in the 1978 film. People are used to it. But that doesn't mean it's not terrible writing.
This just isn't that kind of Superman or kind of Superman story. Two super-powered beings running amok in Metropolis has consequences, and realistically in any brawl between two people, there aren't time outs to help old ladies across the street. I think perhaps the film needed 30 seconds after Zod's death to address the aftermath/loss of life/etc. as Avengers did. But that's in nitpick territory and not a fatal flaw.
More and more I feel like Zod's death was a kind of exclamation point on the "new Superman" thing. Not because he's some kind of dark avenger in this version, but because this Superman is realistically going to have to deal with tough decisions and situations that he can't super-power away. And I still think a lot of this stuff is setting up the sequel.
As multiple people have said here, how well does this film pave the way for Lex Luthor to become the savior of Metropolis in the months afterward and the prosecutor for humanity's case against Superman? While the government and military may have warmed up to him somewhat, the public is liable to be even less enthusiastic about what happened in Metropolis and who led the alien invasion to Earth in the first place.
On a side note, I was glad for the absence of super-breath. IMO it's his cheesiest power. Super-breath belongs in the trash can with super-ventriloquism. IMO.
Alpharius wrote: And while I really like Superman and Superman II, they're also a bit dated and somewhat silly too - though certainly still enjoyable!
"Bad vibrations?"
I saw Superman in a theater with my dad in the summer of 1978. Thirty-five years later, it's a good memory, but I'm over the movie.
NecronLord3 wrote: Man of Steel in my opinion is suffering from [...] [t]he need to appeal to non-fans of the source material. When after films like ... Batman Begins ... have proven that you can produce a film that holds very true to the source material that will still appeal to the wider audience.
That's a very strange view of things.
For my part, as a big fan of both characters and someone picking up all their monthly titles, Man of Steel is very true to the source material whereas Batman Begins was much more the product of what was current in film. Indeed, I would say a big part of Man of Steel is getting past the event horizon of Nolan's take on Batman. Man of Steel is incalcuably more comfortable with its comic book roots than Batman Begins. (Just ask R'as al'Ghul!)
It's amazing how many little references and Easter eggs are in the movie. MoS may or may not launch a unified DC movie universe, but they definitely started laying some groundwork.
I thought the movie was just ok. I didn't know what bothered me about it at first, but I rewatched Superman Returns a few days ago and I figured it out.
I don't need another brooding, dark, emo superhereo. Batman gave us that and now they tried to do the same thing with Superman. Superman should be pure, boyscout pure. Idealistic and clean. He should represent the idealistic view of life in 1950's America. IMO this would make him the perfect foil for Batman and in a Justice League setting they would be at ends of the emotional spectrum.
As it is now with MOS, Batman and Superman are the same emotional characters. I suspect Lex will have Lois tied up in a warehouse with barrels of gasoline in the sequel. It seems they remade Batman Begins as Man of Steel and just changed the names and powers of the characters. Somebody needs to be the optimistic do-gooder in the group. It had been Superman in the past, just not anymore.
@DarthDiggler: It's hard to believe you actually watched the movie. Or even the trailers.
In Man of Steel, Superman is a herald of moral clarity who arises in a morally ambigious world. He is shown to trust in the basic decency of people. He is shown to love humanity despite a childhood of being bullied, feeling alone, having folks suspect him and accuse him of being strange. As per Jor-El's voiceover, he is depicted as giving the people an ideal to strive for.
*shrug* If he doesn't like the film, he doesn't like the film. There are plenty of others who don't.
However, I think a problem word in the post -- and I see/hear this same word from some critics -- is "should." ("Would" is also in the same category.) The character has been around for more than 70 years and he's been somewhat different things at different times. And meant different things to different people. If I like the early Superman who jumped not flew, fought Nazis, and threw people out high-rise windows without conscience, does that mean that this film "should" deliver that?
As they discussed in that podcast, you can't say that the Clark Kent in Man of Steel has a "code against killing." Jonathan never instructs him on that in the film. The character in the film never proclaims to have one. The character has had something like that in the past in some mediums and incarnations, but then the character has also killed in some incarnations when necessary.
It's probably fairer and more accurate to say that "Superman means X to me and this film didn't deliver that." Which again is a valid personal opinion.
I didn't criticize anybody ITT for not liking the movie. To quote myself from earlier:
Manchu wrote: That's all on the screen, no homework required. If you didn't get it, I don't know what to say. I mean, you're not required to like it but it's all there.
I've seen it a further two times now with work, so admittedly I was switched off, but it still feels a bit meh to me. Hope the next one is more up my street.
Zond wrote: Nothing like a lack of context to justify a witty quip.
Any excuse works, really.
Having worked at a theater before you don't have to watch anything shown there, so seeing it at work doesn't really change that you still watched it three times while saying how you didn't care for it. Of course you could also be saying you just caught bits and pieces as you were working and have turned that into the same thing as sitting through the entire movie while giving your full attention, which it really isn't.
Zond wrote: I don't work at a cinema. Interesting nonetheless as I always assumed the attendant sat through the entire showing.
After I wrote I realized you didn't say that, so then the question is what were you doing that forced you to watch the movie two more times?
I'm a support worker for adults in the local community that have learning disabilities or suffer from ongoing medical conditions that require constant monitoring.
As I said due to work and seeing it before for myself I probably wasn't giving it my full attention.
I'm keen on certain parts of it and some sequences. Just the complete package disappoints. I still say Zack Snyder needs a second director for any scene involving dialogue.
Thought the movie was going to fall into the usual super hero "Humans are weak and useless" trope and while to some extent it did that Colonel guy made me proud to be a human.
Overall very good,actually got me interested in a superhero I usually avoid like the plague.
I just saw the film tonight, due to assorted busy-ness.
I never really did grow up with comics that weren't Oor Wullie or The Beano, so I've not really got that background.
I don't think I've ever seen any of the Christopher Reave Superman films all the way through. Though I did grow up during the 90's Batman / Batman Animated series era.
My main experience of Superman has been from tvtropes, wikipedia, DCUO, some vague memories of Lois&Clark and most notably the recent (overall EXCELLENT) DC Animated movies.
Overall, I'm feeling fairly conflicted about Man of Steel.
On the one hand, I'm really really glad they got rid of the whole 'will-they, won't-they rubbish' - There was a whole TV show dedicated to that! I've had enough! So that change was welcome. Then again, I also liked the DCAM method of just going, "you know all that stuff already, they're together, lets get on with the plot."
Then again, the fact that every single person in Smallville either had a good guess at, or unless they were idiots figured out the big deal about Clark just seemed rather daft. Some attempts to cover his tracks a little could have been worthwhile. But then, maybe people were fed up of that after Smallville - I dunno, I've only watched an episode of it!
I was kind of disappointed that, if they were rebuilding the Daily Planet, they didn't put the globe up on the roof like in the classic silhouette. - I get the feeling that they'll blow up the building again in film 2 and the globe will finally get up there by film 3.
And finally, I'm really not too pleased with the Zod solution. It feels to me that Superman has lost the moral high ground before he ever gained it. I can't help but think if a third option should have been taken there. - Perhaps, in another callback to earlier, the father sacrificing himself in the beam or maybe someone else finishing Zod, technically taking it out of Supes hands.
I suppose General Sedgwick knowing a lot about Supes identity probably helps things going forward. - He'll probably help run interference in the future and tidy up that whole Smallville incident during the film.
Finally, is John Kent really supposed to constantly die? I thought that was meant to be one of the main differences of Superman to other heroes. He's not supposed to be having the 'refusal of the call' moment, he's not got an 'Uncle Ben' hanging over his head. He's a hero because his ma and pa taught him that he should be and even in his darkest times and deepest doubt, there's his family he can turn to.
I think I'm giving the film 7/10 at the end of the day, with a lot of the DC Animated Movies being significantly better.
I'm remembering a scene in the Superman / Batman Apocalypse film.
Darkseid is being his usual evil self, up to a load of no good. Superman threatens him with blowing up his fortress, dooming a bunch of slaves and all that other stuff. Darkseid laughs him off, knowing he'd never sacrifice them. He's too good.
Supes then replies, "that's why he's holding the trigger."
Cut to shot of Batman.
Darkseid surrenders (and possible need to change his underwear).
Compel wrote: And finally, I'm really not too pleased with the Zod solution. It feels to me that Superman has lost the moral high ground before he ever gained it. I can't help but think if a third option should have been taken there. - Perhaps, in another callback to earlier, the father sacrificing himself in the beam or maybe someone else finishing Zod, technically taking it out of Supes hands.
I liked making him choose between taking the moral high ground or save those people's lives. It really humanized him that they didn't take the easy way out.
Compel wrote: Finally, is John Kent really supposed to constantly die? I thought that was meant to be one of the main differences of Superman to other heroes. He's not supposed to be having the 'refusal of the call' moment, he's not got an 'Uncle Ben' hanging over his head. He's a hero because his ma and pa taught him that he should be and even in his darkest times and deepest doubt, there's his family he can turn to.
IIRC Jonathan originally died in the comics, the 1980 Superman movie. It was the Byrne revision (post Crisis) that let Jonathan live. Lois & Clark also had him still alive. Smallville had him die. It all depends on which variation the producers want to go with.
I know it's off topic but I thought the Green Arrow was a big deal in the Justice League. Or am I just mixing things up?
The movie was fine. I didn't enjoy it as much as I did the first Batman, Iron Man, or Captain America but I did like it more than Thor (just barely) and the second Hulk. So take from that what you will.
I'd be down for a JL movie if it was well done but I'm a super hero movie fan anyway so it's just another excuse to go to the movies.
Hulksmash wrote: I know it's off topic but I thought the Green Arrow was a big deal in the Justice League. Or am I just mixing things up?
Green Arrow was a major character in the Justice League Unlimited animated series (EDIT: His role in this series was to him what the Iron Man films have been to Iron Man, kind of raising the character out of his niche roll to mainstream popularity). Traditionally though I don't think he's commonly associated as being a major leaguer.
Regardless of how she go there so fast after they fell to Earth, I think the moral high point of the movie (for me) was when Clark is nearly crying into Lois' arms after being forced to kill Zod.
Nothing about this movie stops me from seeing this new Superman as the "Boy Scout". Just that a lot of the cornball stuff from other media versions of Superman was removed.
Breotan wrote: I liked making him choose between taking the moral high ground or save those people's lives. It really humanized him that they didn't take the easy way out.
I can say the same thing. I saw angst. I saw emo. I saw a dark take on the character. Note the darker colored spandex et. al.
I didn't see him help everyday people as superman. I didn't see him have blind faith (he was told to have it). I didn't see the Boy Scout say the simple, but true cliche phrases. I didn't see the child like wonder and simplistic straight and narrow path.
Different strokes for different folks. But I know what I saw.
Warner Bros. created sermon outlines and other support materials, and invited pastors to early screenings, as one very targeted way of promoting Man of Steel. Among the Superman-themed sermon outlines was a "Father’s Day Conversation Guide," by the American Bible Society, which starts out with the following:
"Round up the kids and take them to see Man of Steel (PG-13). Then use this Conversation Guide to take another look at the movie’s major themes. In the conversation, you will discover new connections to your own life and God’s Word."
Another offering,"Jesus: More than our ‘Super Man’," offers as the "Goals of Meeting," "Kids will better appreciate Jesus and his sacrifice through looking at scripture and the parallels in the Man of Steel movie." And, of course, as "Fellowship," it suggests, "You may consider seeing the film together, or start by watching a trailer."
Outreach to religious audiences is not new. Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ was promoted to churches and Christian retailers, with group ticket sales to churches, sermon outlines, marketing materials, and other support all designed to drive interest in the film and ticket sales. The film grossed $370 million domestically, the highest gross ever for an R-rated film.
But promoting a secular movie based on a comic character to a religious audience was a new twist in movie marketing.
Man of Steel passed $210 million in domestic box office last weekend 1(see "Pixar Pic Tops 'Monster' Weekend").
My favourite part of the Bible is when Jesus throws the money lenders out of the temple. Using his super speed.
I din't think it was a bad film - just not a great one- its a better DC comic film tha I expected - even with Chistopher Nolens involvement..........(which did put me off seeing it)
Some nice moments and lines, but way way too long, dodgy plot and oh wow plot effects overdoes at the detrement of the story.
Problem is I compared it to Iron Man, Avengers and Thor - and its jsut not in their League. (IMO)
Mr Morden wrote: I din't think it was a bad film - just not a great one- its a better DC comic film tha I expected - even with Chistopher Nolens involvement..........(which did put me off seeing it)
Some nice moments and lines, but way way too long, dodgy plot and oh wow plot effects overdoes at the detrement of the story.
Problem is I compared it to Iron Man, Avengers and Thor - and its jsut not in their League. (IMO)
I don't know that the movie defines greatness either, but you and I are never going to agree on the details. IMO, Thor was the very definition of paper-thin, and Iron Man an enjoyable but by-the-numbers Hollywood formula film saved by Downey Jr's charm. Avengers was a fun romp, but it certainly wasn't *art* and for whatever reason wasn't help up to the same standards as Man of Steel regarding big issues, morality, etc.
Which makes me think that maybe the Malick-style early trailers were a bit of a mistake. Perhaps it should have been marketed around the action from the beginning. Then again, Batman Begins only scored something like a 70 on Metacritic and there were critics who thought it too dark and joyless. So with MoS recouping its costs on the first weekend, the studio probably isn't sweating the reviews too much and knows that the second film can be even bigger if they get it right, as with The Dark Knight.
Mr Morden wrote: I din't think it was a bad film - just not a great one- its a better DC comic film tha I expected - even with Chistopher Nolens involvement..........(which did put me off seeing it)
Some nice moments and lines, but way way too long, dodgy plot and oh wow plot effects overdoes at the detrement of the story.
Problem is I compared it to Iron Man, Avengers and Thor - and its jsut not in their League. (IMO)
I don't know that the movie defines greatness either, but you and I are never going to agree on the details. IMO, Thor was the very definition of paper-thin, and Iron Man an enjoyable but by-the-numbers Hollywood formula film saved by Downey Jr's charm. Avengers was a fun romp, but it certainly wasn't *art* and for whatever reason wasn't help up to the same standards as Man of Steel regarding big issues, morality, etc.
Which makes me think that maybe the Malick-style early trailers were a bit of a mistake. Perhaps it should have been marketed around the action from the beginning. Then again, Batman Begins only scored something like a 70 on Metacritic and there were critics who thought it too dark and joyless. So with MoS recouping its costs on the first weekend, the studio probably isn't sweating the reviews too much and knows that the second film can be even bigger if they get it right, as with The Dark Knight.
I think you are right - we are never going to agree
I found the recent Batman films, turgid, overlong, heartess and effects rather than story driven - fillwed with plot holes and "pretending" to be art to avoid any real critiscism - compared to the first Michael Keaton incarnation - very disapointing. But then I absolutely hated Inception - for much the same reasons.............
I just did not see the moral isues in the Superman film - and was again dispaointed by several missed opportunities - for instance - when asked if he was going to defend the USA - it should have been - NO I am here to defend ALL humanity IMO. The Zod plot was weak - if well executed and amusing that the "selection" system had made Supermans father a super scientist, rich eccentric nobleman and rock hard ninja fighter who defeats all comers................rather than just one of these.
I thought the heart was still in the Avengers and other Marvel films that is / was lacking in the DC films
but as you say - we are not gonig to agree - and thats all good
kronk wrote: I liked the recent Star Trek 2 better than Man of Steel.
There were some good moments, and some fine acting, but I felt the movie was OK at best.
Spoiler:
Good: The American Robin Hood's influence on Superman. The show succeeded in making me empathetic, but not sympathetic, with General Zod. I actually liked this character.
Bad: It looked like the Krypton chapter of the script was written my George Lucas, ala Star Wars prequels. It just had that "WTF?" feel to it. Took me out of the movie, actually. 60 minutes of tearing down 1 building after another. I get it. These guys are bad asses. Do I really need to see 400 buildings get torn down, one by one?
WTF? I thought the sun's radiation gave superman his power, not the air. When he goes on the ship, they explain that the Krypton air made him weak. Also, General Zod and hot alien fighter chick didn't get x-ray vision until they took off their masks, but he had super strength from the get go? I don't get it. Big hole there some where. Also, they destroyed Zod's ship by getting another one close to it that had a warp engine or whatever they call it. 1. Wouldn't everyone in an advanced space-traveling civilization know not to get two of these ships near one another, ala Space Travel 101: gak Not to Do. 2. Wouldn't they have safe guards like, I don't know, a sensor that says "Hey feth-heads, there's a ship within 10 Krypton miles, veer left" and known there was a baby carrier ship with a warp engine approaching? 3. Why the feth would you not have 20-30 of your advanced fighters protecting your world engine? I dunno. I'm not a military guy, I guess.
Awesome: Supes punching Zod in mid air. That scene was freaking cool. Also, "I was bred to be a soldier. Where did you learn to fight? On a farm?" That was pretty funny.
In contrast I thought ST was warmed over ass and loved Superman #24 or whatever this is. Its the first movie I've seen in a theater this year that I really liked. *Loved Zod, but love that actor. He's epic in Boardwalk Empire. I liked the Zod background. He's not a bad guy. He's trying to save his race in Mongol style. *Loved the female second in command. Good writing for her. *Liked the backstory flashbacks. It kept the film pacing excellent. *Lois Lane - excellent. *I liked the backstory of an old Kryptonian empire. Now that would be a nice prequel. *I joked with the wife that this wasn't Superman. This was "flying, punchy Jesus"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
They didn't need to show that if it was meant to show a starvation death. Even Zod seems to be a little unnerved by it. So I think it's supposed to suggest that something nasty is out there. Brainiac? Tyranids?
Well, as J.R. "Bob" Dobbs teaches us, there are many Jesii. One of them is indeed the Two-Fisted Fightin' Jesus...not to be confused with the Headless Golfer Jesus.
gorgon wrote: Well, as J.R. "Bob" Dobbs teaches us, there are many Jesii. One of them is indeed the Two-Fisted Fightin' Jesus...not to be confused with the Headless Golfer Jesus.
Um.. God sent Jesus to Earth to suffer and die for the sins of humanity. Jor-El sent Kal-El for the opposite reason, to live here in virtual godlike state if immortality to inspire man kind.
Brando played Joe-El as if he was God, and was far more successful in his portrayal than Crow was.
Biblically MoS has more in common with Noah's Ark, as the blood lines are all stored in Kal for the purposes of preserving all of Kryptons people with a fresh start at a new civilization, with a chance to learn from the mistakes the kryptonians made.
The plot hole comes from Supermans inability to procreate with humans unless the movie is going to ignore the comics in that respect.
Armageddon 2001 was a dumb event that spanned about a dozen annuals.
It was some futuristic dude that went back in time to figure out who was going to become "Monarch", a super villain that takes over the world and kills the other super heros.
The futuristic dude's power was to be able to touch someone and see a potential future. Every time he touched superman, he saw a different future (i.e., they wanted to sell 3 superman annuals).
Monarch ended up being Hawk, from Hawk and Dove. A totally lame super hero that they just fething offed at the end.
Anyway, one of the "Superman Futures" showed him getting Lois knocked up and she died with the super baby super kicked her and destroyed her innards.
What if super baby takes a super dump? Would Jr. blast himself into orbit? Or would he blow a hole in the earth's crust, causing a volcano and killing tens of thousands of people? Lois don't breast feed that baby!!!
Also there were the Super-Sons stories (Superman Jr. and Batman Jr.). Those were an alternate reality/dream thing, but then he and Lois weren't married in the current continuity of the time anyway and so it wasn't established that he *couldn't* have children with humans.
It's amazing how easily story/plot holes develop in Man of Steel when you take an incomplete understanding of the character and its full history in comics and other mediums, and then apply them to a reboot film that's really only striving for its own internal consistencies, etc.
FWIW, I believe Siegel and Shuster said the Moses story was more of an inspiration to them than the Christ story. After all, they were Jewish. Of course, Clark is a Moses in reverse -- more-or-less a prince on Krypton but raised by humble farmers on Earth. That aspect is obviously more Christlike.
like that. I really dislike people who have poor impulse control.
I'm actually serious-they have a common goal, they get along, but Batman has no issue with destroying Superman if he has to. And in the media, they do have issues. I can't say for comics. Superman animated series: Bruce nails Lois (implied), Supes gets pissed. Lego Batman 2: he finds Superman a pain in the ass and annoying, there's been a bunch of antaganism in JL, and more that I'm too tired to remember. I've got every 
.
