Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

Pedantic internet argument...BEGIN!

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.

 Manchu wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
They foreshadowed [...] Brainiac

What were the tells you noticed?

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.

When critics complain about this being a radical reimagening of Superman they are really just saying "this isn't a Christoper Reeve" movie.

 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.

 Ahtman wrote:
Pedantic internet argument...BEGIN!

No. It's off topic. Start a new thread if you want.

 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.

Yep. This is definately a weak point in the plot.

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.

Braniac was Kryptonian tech in Smallville so it is reasonable to think it could be the same in the next Man of Steel.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 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.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 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.

 Manchu wrote:

 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.



GG

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.

 generalgrog wrote:

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
I just don't see how.

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.