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.

Agreed, gorgon.

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.

 Ahtman wrote:

 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.

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.

It is having a pretty good opening weekend though - apparently this reinvention of the Man of Steel is resonating with viewers.

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.

I heard they don't use the Williams theme at all in this movie, is this true?

Say it ain't so!

 Ahtman wrote:

 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.

.

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?

Honestly, if people acting normal after aliens/superheroes fight and almost destroy a city then you better not pick up a superhero comic, ever.

 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.

 LordofHats wrote:


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!

 Crablezworth wrote:

 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.


GG

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?

Say it ain't so!

I don't remember hearing it.

I just went back and watched the trailer. . . I liked the it better than the movie.

I'd say it resonates with about 56-57% of viewers. the studio keeps your money regardless of enjoyment of the film or lack there of.

 rubiksnoob wrote:
I just went back and watched the trailer. . . I liked the it better than the movie.

I agree completely


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Corpsesarefun wrote:

 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.

http://comicbook.com/blog/2013/06/16/man-of-steel-christopher-reeve-easter-egg-rumor/

Seems a few people noticed it.

 Medium of Death wrote:
I heard they don't use the Williams theme at all in this movie, is this true?

Say it ain't so!

It's true but it's a very good choice. This is a completely different kind of film. I love Donner's Superman and I love Snyder's, too.

One more thing this Superman has learned is to wear his underwear UNDER his tights.

 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.

 Breotan wrote:

 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?

There is your lack of overarching moral theme.

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.