Came from the Midnight 2D showing.
Warner Brothers should immediately create a DC movie division and pay SynCopy whatever they want to be a production consultant. The movie is excellent. Don't care what the fanboys may think. I love how they dealt with the Lois situation. The fights were excellent but still gritty. The revamped origin works.
Sure, people will compare it to the 2nd Reeves film because of Zod. He is a product of what he is and unfortunately that makes him evil in our morality.
And I can see the 2nd movie now. And yes, I'm betting Luthor as the antagonist but as the industrialist, someone who honestly considers Superman as a threat to mankind. He'll be the major force behind rebuilding Metropolis (which gets significantly crushed with massive losses of life, 10s of thousands if not more).
Like I said, the back story works. It jumps back and forth between Clark "finding" himself, doing the whole David Banner/Hulk wandering thing, and episodes about him growing up.
Russell Crow was great as Jor-El. Keven Costner was a great Pa Kent. Amy Adams was a great Lois Lane and lastly Henry Cavill is the best Superman ever, including Christopher Reeves. Now maybe that's because his Superman/Clark is NOT corny at all and he doesn't strike me as someone who would skip off planet and find a son when he gets back.
Go see. Must see. This IS the Superman fans have always wanted to see. Yes they strayed from decades of dogma but they made it work.
Previews included RIPD, 2nd Hobbit film and Catching Fire.
The Superman I want to see has red trunks. That solid blue costume sucks in the comics, and desaturating and over-texturing it for Extra Gritty Realism (TM) doesn't help. But I'm hoping the rest of the movie will be good enough that I'll be able to say "If only they'd got the costume right, it would've been great!" afterwards.
This is the Superman I've been waiting to see!
*Spoilers*
It did take it's share of liberties with the tale but altogether a well-built story from beginning to end. The only thing I'm not clear on is how many people know who he is. It looked like the secret was pretty easy to unravel.
I've never liked how Pa Kent keeps getting killed in the interest of giving Clark a source for angst but the death scene was so powerful. It was concise and ostensibly pivotal.
The costume didn't detract like I thought it would. I hope at some point they decide to brighten the hue in a sequel. I thought Henry Cavill's slightly unkempt hair would bother me but he was definitely Supes.
I was worried Snyder would make the same mistake other directors make. With the bar being raised so high by the likes of Iron Man and The Incredibles, every director aspiring to make a superhero movie needs to ask themselves, "Can I make a movie that even approaches this level of storytelling?" (This goes out to you Misters Bay, Shyamalan, Johnston, and Singer.) Zack Snyder does this with flying colors. Pun intended!
I saw one review that commented "if you think organic webshooters started a massive forum outcry, you ain't seen nothing yet", which has really got me curious and concerned.
Anyhow, will see it tomorrow and be back with my thoughts.
Just got back from seeing it.
Yeah - they tweaked his origin some. And the costume. But they kept the essence true. And they REALLY emphasized how difficult is was for him to come to terms with his powers. Especially his enhanced senses. This becomes very important when he's fighting Zod and the other Kryptonians later in the film. (What? Not like that's a huge spoiler - it's been in all the trailers.)
And about that conflict -
Remember the "World Made of Cardboard" scene from the last episode of Justice League Unlimited? Remember earlier in the same series the fight between Superman and Captain Marvel?
The entire second half of the movie is that.
And. IT. IS. AWESOME.
For the very first time in any Superman movie, I think you REALLY get the visceral sense of what beings like that could do. The impacts, the collateral damage, the sheer SPEED at which they can react and move!
Just... damn.
Go see it. Highly recommended.
Quote from: Magus Prime on June 14, 2013, 11:29:45 AM
It did take it's share of liberties with the tale but altogether a well-built story from beginning to end. The only thing I'm not clear on is how many people know who he is. It looked like the secret was pretty easy to unravel.
Well Pete Ross, IHOP manager both knows him, remembers what he did with the bus AND has seen him in the suit. In canon (at least one of them, not talking Smallville) Lana figured it out. I'm also not sure if the Priest/Minister Clark confided in knows who he is. He could have stopped in any church in a 100 mile radius.
The military would of course wonder why the Kryptonians went to Smallville. On the other hand they know they have nothing to defeat him, that they are willing to try, so it's best NOT to do anything to tick him off. Now whether they share that info with politicians is another thing. Most of those who may have been able to guess went down with the plane.
Lois figured it out by using her investigating journalist skills and charm to backtrack Clark's travels. And now that he's saved the world, I would say most people who put 2 and 2 together, that the stranger who blew through town is Superman, will zip it around other journalists, military and FBI types.
Of course Batman would know.
I really like the fact that Lois knows before he starts work at the Daily Planet. She can help him maintain his cover. Cover for him.
I'm going to guess that Clark was able to salvage any remaining functioning tech from the downed scout ship and the world builder so humans wouldn't find anything that could become dangerous in the wrong hands and that they are now located "where he hangs his cape".
Saw the midnight screening in 3-D. (Don't bother paying for 3-D, it didn't add much to the experience. See it in 2-D.)
Did not like it. I don't think it's meant to be liked nor enjoyed. It seems to be intended to make a point like an intellectual exercise.
I'm tired of seeing movies about American superheroes made by British filmmakers who seem to want to adapt superhero mythos for social commentary on present concerns including post 9/11 terrorism. One reviewer commented, they gave Superman the Dark Knight treatment. Indeed. (Currently 58% negative reviews among critics on rottentomatoes.com (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/superman_man_of_steel/).)
Problem is, Superman is very different from Batman. Jules Feiffer, in The Great Comic Book Superheroes, essayed about how kids reading comic books fell into two camps: those who saw the world as a big, scary place gravitated toward Batman, while those who were happier and more secure liked Superman. That's because Batman's imagery is dark, scary, and vengeful, while Superman's world is bright, sunlit, altruistic, and optimistic.
I was hoping Christopher Nolan and his crew would go in this traditional direction; but, no. Instead, they continued along their Dark Knight path. And why not? It's made a lot of money.
Great visual spectacle. We knew Zack Snyder would deliver.
Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Michael Shannon, and the rest of the cast were appealing. (Personally, I could have done with less Jor-El as action hero and without Perry White wearing an earring. Give me Richard Donner's Superman.) Still, as one reviewer commented, not much fun, humor, romance, nor charm.
Were we supposed to know who the Daily Planet staffers were that accompanied Perry White? One was a middle-aged, bald white guy who hit on Lois Lane and the other was a brunette young woman. From reading posts on comicbookmovie.com (http://www.comicbookmovie.com/), I gathered she was (possibly) a revisionist, female version of Jimmy Olsen. But, as a negative review pointed out, the characters in the movie are so underdeveloped, why should we care about any of them?
Most comic book fans lauded the Nolan Batman movies. I fell asleep during each of them. (The Joker was the best part.) I feel they are very much over-rated.
Sorry to see Superman get painted with the same brooding, angsty colors. However, I expect this version will be very successful.
But that's Nolanverse, trying to but a realistic spin on DC superheroes.
How would mankind, the US react to a being from another planet, who looks like us, who is invulnerable to our weapons, who is faster, stronger and can fly including out of our atmosphere? Pa Kent was right, people would fear him. And fear makes the masses do stupid things. Fear makes governments do stupid things. The way the usual trope goes when facing a superior "human" is to control them or kill them.
There are a lot of people who will blame him for the deaths due to the world engine and the fights with Zod and his 2nd in command. Way to many people died. Those who weren't near the fighting may accept him for now but he's going to have to build up a lot of street cred to make that acceptance permanent.
As for Perry and the Daily Planet, yes, they are seriously underused but were necessary to provide the initial background for Lois and at the end Clark's new place of employment. Personally I thought Perry was an idiot to not evacuate the building as soon as the first pulse brought down buildings instead of waiting until the destruction was a block or two away. I guess they decided they needed known figures in peril to add suspense to the Superman/World Engine fight. But since Perry White figures prominently in the mythos of course you knew he wouldn't die.
Didn't even notice the earring.
Jenny/Jimmy, never thought of it that way, I just thought she was there as a work friend. I can't think of a Lois Lane who had female friends, heck any friends.
As for Lois falling head over heals with Clark, I like the slow pace. Always annoyed me that Lois falls so quickly for him.
As for Rotten Tomatoes/Metacritic, critics be damned, user ratings are through the roof. I think it's going to do very well this weekend. Of the top 12 super hero films opening weekends, only Iron Man and Spider-man weren't sequels and when compared to just them, Man of Steel will do very well. Certainly a LOT better than Superman Returns.
Yay, Man of Steel Thread!
I have four problems with the movie. Having said that, right off, I want to reiterate what Father said right off: THIS is the Superman movie we've been looking for since '78. Loved it, raised my hands and clapped when the credits rolled and shouted "BEAUTIFUL!" in a room full of patrons.
Awesome stuff. They did a great job, overall.
However, as I said, four issues, and I just have to get them out. Sorry. :)
1) The tornado scene. Pretty dumb. You DO NOT tell Clark to 'get your mother to the overpass.' You protest and say "us or the dog, Clark!" and Clark goes to save the dog anyway in defiance... gets back, dog saved... not having done anything spectacular or revealing... and everyone survives the experience... until Jonathon keels over anyway due to the stress. Heart attack, burst blood vessel in the brain... or maybe they're walking out and an unseen piece of something catches him from above... whatever. And whatever it is keeps him alive long enough for him, and Martha, to ensure Clark doesn't do something 'dumb' like superspeed him to a hospital, whereupon the same point is made... You can't save us all, and you can't yet reveal yourself.
2) Atmospheric effects upon Kal-El cause him to be nonsuperman? Uh... ok, sure. Means that he can be suffocated. And therefore, likely, deprived of food too. This is a vulnerability that I'm not sure has been previously dealt with. Oh, and the yellow sun issue, sure, but he has no reserves to speak of or something. Very odd that. Also, just put him in a lead lined vault in the middle of a mountain... he's gonna die pretty quick, I'd imagine. Suffocation, and also non-super due to yellow sun depravation. And forget all those "going to other planets" things, that just ain't gonna happen. He's just meat at that point, ready to be slaughtered.
3 and 4 are in the same scene...
3) "On your right side, you see the ever inching closer to you heat vision from General Zod. My it's hot, isn't it? And noisy too! Goodness me, it DOES seem rather dangerous, yes? Better not let it touch you! Now, if you'll notice, to your left side, plenty of empty space with which us four 'victims' can escape. And we're walking... and we're walking..." Seriously, there was THAT MUCH TIME, as well as space. So either they were just absolutely the dumbest people on the Earth and deserved to be baconized, or Zod was just playing around with Kal, making a gigantic point of "I will NEVER stop toying with them, torturing them, and you, until you KILL ME." Meaning that a twitch of his eyes, or his head, and they're toast. I have to believe that was the case. Still, seriously. Just... GO TO YOUR LEFT, people!
3a) So they can only be FIRIN' MAH LAZORS! straight out of their eyes, direct linear aim, regardless of where they're looking? No, wait, Clark did a cauterizing heat thing on Lois, so that's not true. So... how exactly did Clark keep Zod from offin' those people? Zod's eyes were NOT aimed out his right corners of his eyelids. He *MUST* have been toying then. Forcing the point.
4) Which leads me to: Zod... dies?! Really? So... that's all there is to it? Twist of the head and off switch?! No less than 5 people saw this directly. Superman just made himself vulnerable to brute force. I have severe difficulty in believing that Lex or whomever can't exploit that. Certainly Doomsday and Darkseid could. You can shoot them with missiles, big ass bullets, but all that you really need to do is get him to crane his head in just the right way, then have a gigantic shove on top of that... no more Supes.
---
Not that I'm a critic or anything... :)
Now, what I *don't* have a problem with is why Kal had to make the choice, and do it right then. It obviously affected him... he just offed the LAST OF HIS KIND, having already decided that his kind were not worth more than the current population of Earth... he is now truly singular. PLUS he just did something he had been trained, in effect, by both of his fathers... be better than the rest. Having said that, the situation where the echo of Jor-El makes the decision that these last few dozen Kryptonians must be stopped at all cost, including their being undone... well, he goes along with that. A black hole is ok. Eternal suffering, in effect, that's fine. He'd already decided that killing is ok, with that decision to go along with Dad's idea.
But the taking of Zod with his own bare hands... that's different. Sort of the difference between a general ordering a bomb drop and a cop having to right then decide that he/she must shoot someone dead. The second is much more traumatic to the person making that decision. You see that in his after-reaction. But he MUST come to grips with it... and that right then. And Lois was there for him. And later, his Earth Mom. And all his life experiences. Also, he's NOT us. But we like to think he is. Silly humans. He will learn, and likely NOT do it again, because once is enough, thanks.
---
Whew. All that is now outta my system. Heh.
I want to yet one more time say: FANTASTIC movie. Liked it a lot. There are flaws, but that's true of every movie. Find me one that doesn't have them.
Overall though? This:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrxjlNnAlBQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrxjlNnAlBQ)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrxjlNnAlBQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrxjlNnAlBQ)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrxjlNnAlBQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrxjlNnAlBQ)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrxjlNnAlBQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrxjlNnAlBQ)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrxjlNnAlBQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrxjlNnAlBQ)
http://www.yout (http://www.yout/)... well, ok, you get the idea, I'm sure. ;D
/Note: Don't click that last... I don't *think* it goes anywhere... but hey, internet's a weird place.
Saw it today.
I liked it. My impression of the Phantom Zone plan was that the Kryptonians would wind up in the Phantom Zone not dead.
The ending with Zod was different, but I thought it worked well given the scenario that Kal-El was presented with.
I think for a lot of folks that didn't like the movie, their biggest complaint was it wasn't the campy Superman that's been the dominant caricature for decades. I can agree that it could have benefited if Goyer and Snyder seized a couple more comedic opportunities but all in all, this tale needed to be more accessible by modern audiences. I found it more feasible that an alien would be conflicted about going public. Donner's Superman just jumped on the scene and everyone seemed to be on board.
Thanks to writers like Alan Moore, John Byrne, Dan Jurgens, and Mark Waid, we got to know a Superman whose world wasn't always happily ever after and I needed to see this version of Supes outside of print and fully realized on screen. This movie was the proper treatment and I'm relieved someone finally got it right.
IMO, Superman should be a character of largely-unconflicted Good. No worrying about whether people will think he's a freak because of his powers. He's not Super-X-Man, The Last Emo of Krypton, he's Superman the <expletive> Man of Steel - he's got powers, he saves people, he wears primary colours, and the world can deal with it because Invulnerability.
And I have trouble imagining a non-alternate-reality scenario where Superman directly kills someone outright that I'd not be disgruntled about.
Quote from: Magus Prime on June 16, 2013, 09:08:08 AM
I think for a lot of folks that didn't like the movie, their biggest complaint was it wasn't the campy Superman that's been the dominant caricature for decades. I can agree that it could have benefited if Goyer and Snyder seized a couple more comedic opportunities but all in all, this tale needed to be more accessible by modern audiences. I found it more feasible that an alien would be conflicted about going public. Donner's Superman just jumped on the scene and everyone seemed to be on board.
Thanks to writers like Alan Moore, John Byrne, Dan Jurgens, and Mark Waid, we got to know a Superman whose world wasn't always happily ever after and I needed to see this version of Supes outside of print and fully realized on screen. This movie was the proper treatment and I'm relieved someone finally got it right.
In the Silver Age Superboy stories there were a number of stories that showed that Clark didn't have an easy time of it growing up. Because he had to worry about protecting his secret identity, Clark didn't have any really close friends and let himself be a target for all manner of bullies ... even kids much younger than he was.
In fact, Pete Ross was introduced in a story that played off Clark's loneliness. Pete was a popular, talented, athletiic, good looking kid-- and he was NICE and went out of his way to befriend Clark. In fact, he was so popular that he was brought back after what was going to be a one-off appearance and even learned Superboy's secret-- and didn't tell him he knew until he and Clark were adults.
(Bit of a Silver Age Pete Ross fan here since every subsequent appearance has made him into a loser.) :D
Just wanted to point that out to show that Wad et al didn't invent "Clark Kent had an unhappy childhood" trope. :D
That being said, I do think that Clark himself didn't come across as being excessiively dark ... especially at the end. Granted, I was surprised that he did kill Zod, but at least it was shown as something he found personally horrifying to do.
Quote from: Tenzhi on June 16, 2013, 09:58:56 AM
IMO, Superman should be a character of largely-unconflicted Good. No worrying about whether people will think he's a freak because of his powers. He's not Super-X-Man, The Last Emo of Krypton, he's Superman the <expletive> Man of Steel - he's got powers, he saves people, he wears primary colours, and the world can deal with it because Invulnerability.
And I have trouble imagining a non-alternate-reality scenario where Superman directly kills someone outright that I'd not be disgruntled about.
Not so much that he has powers but that he's an alien. That was the point they were trying to drive home. Were the people ready for the answer to "Are we alone in the universe?" This is a much more profound revelation than finding out my next door neighbor has wings or giant feet, super agility, and unparalleled intelligence. And despite being able to overpower anyone who questioned his right to be here, his humility doesn't let him. In fact, he realizes he's the visitor and he chooses to try to earn their trust.
As for killing Zod, part of me agrees that it seemed out of character since I'm accustomed to a Superman who would never resort to ending the life of another. On the other hand, in the comics he brought himself to execute Zod and Co. so the idea isn't all too foreign. I'm willing to let them run with it and see where it goes.
I liked it. I like the update into more realism... as much as *Superman* can be 'real.'
E.g., the suit. The original comic suit was a child of Victorian men's beach ware and work out gear that had to show modesty from ankle to wrist to neck. It then became the standard suit of strong men and wrestlers. So, the whole idea that a superhero would wear such an antiquated costume is absurd. We would think it absurd if they dressed in Roman togas for no good reason. And so, Man of Steel's 'costume' is the base of an armored suit. Makes sense. Armored suits don't wear trunks on the outside. Makes sense. Perfectly fine with me. The fact we accept trunks and spandex for battle in the superhero genre is a rather odd and absurd convention... but we live with it to look at the hot bodies. We got bare chested Clark as fan service, thank you very much. Now put on a real armored suit and not crazy spandex.
The same with killing Zod in the end. The very original Superman would do that. The golden age standards-and-decency age Superman aimed at children wouldn't. Makes sense. But the modern updated one was faced with a genocidal, genetics-bred killer who claimed he had nothing to live for and was going to take everyone with him. Just like 'suicide by police' when someone who want to die pulls a gun on a bunch of police officers, Zod was begging to be killed, and made sure it happened.
It's kind of Dr. Whovian in a way: A complete rejection of your own people when you realize they are genocidal maniacs and the only way to stop them is destroying them.
As a superhero movie, it was pretty good - as a Superman movie, it wasn't so good.
Yeah. Same was said about Batman Begins by a lot of people/critics. And they're beating up on this movie just the same... "It sucks! Here's how!"
Don't know if it's a valid argument anymore. It's a franchisable movie now... or again, whichever. That's the main point... will people buy the sequel or not now? I am betting yes on that.
Also, I disagree. As a Superman movie, it was good, just different. Don't really know why you'd say it wasn't a good one. It had the same elements, differently done, that makes him Superman by the end of the movie, by and large.
However, there was a LOT of effort to NOT call Kal-El 'Superman'. Lois almost said it, and then he was classified as such by the military. Mostly he was 'Kal' or 'Clark', but 'Superman' the word was only mentioned twice, iirc, in the movie at all. It'll be interesting to see if they keep trying to not make that a word or not in the next movie.
Which I think is the point... they *weren't* trying to make a Superman movie in the first place. They were making a Kal-El/Clark Kent movie. Spin is everything. :)
Armour generally has a separate section covering the groin and butt. It need not necessarily be trunks, but it needs to be red.
Quote from: houtex on June 16, 2013, 09:57:15 PM
As a Superman movie, it was good, just different. Don't really know why you'd say it wasn't a good one.
Because it lacked soul - there wasn't really a spark there - it was pretty entertaining and pretty well made, but lacked any real magic.
OK, I haven't seen it yet, but I want to comment on a few things regardless.
What some people call "antiquated" I call "classic". I can live with the new costume, but would have preferred the original. I don't need change for change's sake. I remember many of us bitching about the costume in Superman Returns, but I would take that over this one. If they really had to remove the briefs, they should have made the belt more visible. The costume benefits from having a visual break at that level. And explaining it as a Krytonian outfit is fine, but how are they going to explain it changing for every movie? You know they need to alter it to sell toys.
As for killing Zod... I predicted that even before they started filming. The modern view of superheroes is that they have to kill the bad guys to be realistic. This is why I LOVED Captain America saying "I don't want to kill anybody" when asked if he wanted to go kill Nazis. I have often said things like "I would kill anyone who hurts my family" and I mean that. But I am not Superman. I am not a superhero. Once upon a time, heroes could be looked up to as personifications of ideals to emulate. Now, they are made to reflect the lowest common denominator. Many will say "it's more realistic", but when did we decide it was better to celebrate our weaknesses than create ideals to strive for? Even Spiderman-- who is about as decent and moral as anyone in any comic universe-- became a murderer in Raimi's first film. He LET Uncle Ben's killer fall to his death, making no move to save him and showing no remorse afterwards. The Peter Parker I grew up with would never do that.
And really, do we need to make it super realistic? I usually hear people coming out of movies saying "wow that was cool" or "exciting" or maybe "fun". I don't thin I ever heard anyone rave "oh my god, that's sooooo realistic!" Are we going to see people in a religious frenzy over him? Are we going to see other countries panicking over America's new "weapon" and launching some sort of preemptive strike? Are we going to see thousands of civilians pooling their efforts to sue Superman for the deaths of their loved ones and loss of property? No? Then I guess they're not REALLY going for realism.
I have to say that I generally prefer the Marvel Movie Universe. At least they don't seem ashamed of the source material.
Quote from: Golden Girl on June 17, 2013, 02:30:43 AM
Because it lacked soul - there wasn't really a spark there - it was pretty entertaining and pretty well made, but lacked any real magic.
o.0
I really don't get this comment, but I think it's because I'm a rather easily entertained, dumb animal who doesn't mind people reinventing something and tossing out some canon to do it. Heck, I enjoyed Speed Racer way too much. Now that I mention it, I wanna watch it again. I just... I guess it's so bad it's good. And it's pretty and flashy. :)
Anyway, in all seriousness, I would *love* to have you cite multiple examples of a superhero... well, no, any type of movie... that has this spark and soul quality you seek. I'm not being flippant. I really would like to know.
As Spock said once... "I am understandably curious."
I'm no good for that list, as I see the spark and soul in all kinds of movies. Man of Steel included. Which is why I'm really 'fused now...
I've yet to see Man of Steel, but for me the first Christopher Reeves film still has 'magic'. I still "believe that a man can fly" every time I watch it, but the part that really cinches it for me is when he's not wearing the costume and takes the glasses off and becomes Superman for a moment in Lois' apartment. With that small moment I'm immersed in this alternate reality where things don't have to make sense the way they do in our own. The rules are different there and that's okay - if we get in trouble, Superman will save us.
Also: I thought Speed Racer was a pretty awesome movie. They didn't go out of their way to make the source material into something grim, gritty, and "realistic", but rather kept the stylized fantasy of it. The main issue with the movie, IMO, was pacing. It drags in some spots and rushes a bit too much in others. Not 'magical', mind you, but a good movie.
What makes a movie 'magical' is not something I can quantify, though. All I can say is sometimes a movie does something that literally sends a shivery shock through my nervous system, and that rare shiver is what I'd call 'magic'. Sometimes a movie can only do it the first time, and sometimes it's so powerful (like that aforementioned Christopher Reeves moment) that it will happen every time.
(Apologies if I'm getting it wrong and it's "Reeve" rather than "Reeves".)
Saw it twice this weekend, once at the midnight premier with my wife, then again yesterday with my 4 year old son.
I loved it, wife loved it, son loved it.
I recognize its not perfect, definitely had its flaws with pacing but overall I really, really enjoyed it.
I loved the new suit. It's not change for change's sake, it's an update. As CoH aged and grew and new costume pieces were released I was constantly tweaking Lightslinger's looks. His extra costume slots were constantly in transition and only once was his "main" costume revamped. This is the same for Superman, the costume is still basically the same, just darker and no red trunks. I'm definitely in the "time for the trunks to go" crowd, so there is that bias :p
The movie had pacing issues, some of the dialogue was stilted, especially on Krypton, and Cavill's performance was a little wooden, though I liken that to the script more than anything. These are problems that especially haunt origin stories, so they can definitely be ironed out in the future.
Overall myself and everyone else I've talked to loved Man of Steel and for the first time ever I'm really looking forward to the cinematic future of the DCU.
Regarding Zod's defeat:
What people are forgetting is that even as long ago as John Byrne's Man of Steel mini series in 1986 that introduced the modern era Superman, Supes had to kill and did, kill.
Superman ended up on an alternate Earth where three Kryptonian criminals had run rampant and slaughtered most of the world's population. Then they became bored and made it quite clear they intended to travel to other worlds and do the same thing. Superman, seeing no other choice, killed them with Kryptonite. This event horrified and scarred him so much, that is when he made his 'no killing' vow and also helped set up his 'world of cardboard' pathology of holding back since he saw what could happen with his kind of power and no restraint.
I believe this is what the movie was trying to parallel with Zod's death and the massive destruction battling him and the other Kyrptonians caused. This is still an origin movie and these are harsh lessons and consequences Clark needs to learn to become the Superman we all know and love. A good writer will use this to develop Superman's character further for the next movie.
Quote from: ParagonKid on June 17, 2013, 03:51:16 PM
Regarding Zod's defeat:
What people are forgetting is that even as long ago as John Byrne's Man of Steel mini series in 1986 that introduced the modern era Superman, Supes had to kill and did, kill.
Superman ended up on an alternate Earth where three Kryptonian criminals had run rampant and slaughtered most of the world's population. Then they became bored and made it quite clear they intended to travel to other worlds and do the same thing. Superman, seeing no other choice, killed them with Kryptonite. This event horrified and scarred him so much, that is when he made his 'no killing' vow and also helped set up his 'world of cardboard' pathology of holding back since he saw what could happen with his kind of power and no restraint.
I believe this is what the movie was trying to parallel with Zod's death and the massive destruction battling him and the other Kyrptonians caused. This is still an origin movie and these are harsh lessons and consequences Clark needs to learn to become the Superman we all know and love. A good writer will use this to develop Superman's character further for the next movie.
Yeah, I think the rampant destruction in Metropolis and his having to kill Zod will be a HUGE factor in forming this Superman's moral compass. Man of Steel was very much an origin movie, this was one untested farmboy versus multiple warrior-bred Kryptonians, he did the best he could. Future sequels can now play off this origin as to WHY he is the no-killing, super protective Superman we all know.
Also, did anyone else catch all the H.R. Geiger inspired stuff in this movie? The Kryptonian design felt right at home with Alien/Prometheus world. The prequel comic has a REALLY strong Alien-esque vibe, except its from the point of view of the aliens, ha.
Really hope they explore that whole Kara Zor-El, Dev-Em (possible Doomsday) in future sequels, very good set up.
Quote from: houtex on June 15, 2013, 03:05:38 PM
1) The tornado scene. Pretty dumb. You DO NOT tell Clark to 'get your mother to the overpass.' You protest and say "us or the dog, Clark!" and Clark goes to save the dog anyway in defiance... gets back, dog saved... not having done anything spectacular or revealing... and everyone survives the experience... until Jonathon keels over anyway due to the stress. Heart attack, burst blood vessel in the brain... or maybe they're walking out and an unseen piece of something catches him from above... whatever. And whatever it is keeps him alive long enough for him, and Martha, to ensure Clark doesn't do something 'dumb' like superspeed him to a hospital, whereupon the same point is made... You can't save us all, and you can't yet reveal yourself.
Agreed, the tornado scene could have definitely been done better. I think the point that his Dad, even to his death, believed he had to keep his identity a secret is a great one, I just think he should have died better than saving the dog.
Quote3) "On your right side, you see the ever inching closer to you heat vision from General Zod. My it's hot, isn't it? And noisy too! Goodness me, it DOES seem rather dangerous, yes? Better not let it touch you! Now, if you'll notice, to your left side, plenty of empty space with which us four 'victims' can escape. And we're walking... and we're walking..." Seriously, there was THAT MUCH TIME, as well as space. So either they were just absolutely the dumbest people on the Earth and deserved to be baconized, or Zod was just playing around with Kal, making a gigantic point of "I will NEVER stop toying with them, torturing them, and you, until you KILL ME." Meaning that a twitch of his eyes, or his head, and they're toast. I have to believe that was the case. Still, seriously. Just... GO TO YOUR LEFT, people!
Saw MoS twice this weekend, there is most definitely a giant pile of rubble that the people get trapped next to.
Quote3a) So they can only be FIRIN' MAH LAZORS! straight out of their eyes, direct linear aim, regardless of where they're looking? No, wait, Clark did a cauterizing heat thing on Lois, so that's not true. So... how exactly did Clark keep Zod from offin' those people? Zod's eyes were NOT aimed out his right corners of his eyelids. He *MUST* have been toying then. Forcing the point.
Definitely getting into Big Bang Theory fanboy dissection here...but Zod had just learned how to fire the eye lasers about 5 minutes prior. And even then it showed he didn't have great control of it.
Quote4) Which leads me to: Zod... dies?! Really? So... that's all there is to it? Twist of the head and off switch?! No less than 5 people saw this directly. Superman just made himself vulnerable to brute force. I have severe difficulty in believing that Lex or whomever can't exploit that. Certainly Doomsday and Darkseid could. You can shoot them with missiles, big ass bullets, but all that you really need to do is get him to crane his head in just the right way, then have a gigantic shove on top of that... no more Supes.
I've always thought this, Superman's physiology is exactly like our's, just insanely tough. So an injury that can kill us can kill Supes with enough force. It just takes the force of another Kryptonian or a DC cosmic level villain to do it.
Yeah, Superman can die by having his neck broken just like anyone else... if you have the strength to do it.
I just got back from seeing it, and I really liked Henry Cavill's Superman, though he needs to trim his chest hair so it's not showing in costume. And that costume sucks, but I'd let it slide as a version of the new 52 costume if the S didn't have that mesh texture robbing it of colour. The red, at least, needs to be as bright and bold as the cape.
The action scenes would have been awesome if they weren't so shaky and out of focus.
And there seems to have been a little joke towards the Batman movie. At one point Zod screams "WHERE IS THE CODEX!" and I swear they used the same filtering they used for "WHERE IS THE JOKER!" because it sounded almost identical.
I'm wondering if the guy on the bridge was Lex, which would make that whole bus scene a bit reminiscent of Smallville.
While it was funny, I don't think Superman should have made a modern sculpture out of that guy's truck and logs.
The kiss with Lois seemed awkward with no build up.
And there's a war going on in my head about Perry White. I really liked Larry Fishburne in the role (I mean, he does pack a bit of awesomeness), but he doesn't look the part. And that earring... I actually think I could get over it if he just didn't have that earring.
All-in-all, though, I think I liked the movie better than Nolan's Batman 1 & 3 at least.
Quote from: Tenzhi on June 17, 2013, 09:03:01 PM
While it was funny, I don't think Superman should have made a modern sculpture out of that guy's truck and logs.
He did almost the exact same thing in a similar situation on Smallville to the pickup trucks belonging to some high school jerks.
It worked a little better then because he was a high-schooler himself and less mature.
Quote
And there's a war going on in my head about Perry White. I really liked Larry Fishburne in the role (I mean, he does pack a bit of awesomeness), but he doesn't look the part. And that earring... I actually think I could get over it if he just didn't have that earring.
I was OK with him, but less about Steve Lombard (who is admittedly a way more obscure character). Visually, he should be a mulleted meat-head. Character-wise, he was a little off. In the comic, he's basically a straw chauvinist pig who puts down Clark because he's not 'manly' enough, but he's also a guy who'll run into a burning building to help someone and carry out an injured co-worker while the Daily Planet building collapses around them. Near the end of the movie, he wouldn't need Perry's prompting to stay and help a trapped woman instead of running. But, like in the movie, he totally would hit on Lois, get rejected and then hit on "2nd Place Girl" without missing a step (and rightly get rejected again).
Another nitpick: When Clark is using his heat vision to tunnel to the ship trapped in the ice, shouldn't here have been steam? Like, LOTS of boiling hot steam? Not a problem for him mind you, but it would be for Lois who was following behind.
Maybe it's just because I saw the movie on Father's Day, but...
In the movie "Man of Steel", the thing I liked most, and the thing I liked least, were both related to the father characters.
I really liked the Jor-El of this movie. He's a bit of scientist-action-hero. And what we see of both him and Lady Lara, they fit as worthy parents to Superman. Not suggesting a genetic destiny thing, mind you. More of the fact that their efforts and striving are courageous and determined. And it seems fitting that they are repaid with a heroic legacy, as their posthumous reward.
And Jor-El joins Babylon 5's Michael Garibaldi on the list of people who are dangerously competent even as an uploaded shadow of their consciousness in a computer system.
The thing I liked least about the movie was Jonathan Kent. Now, Kevin Costner was a good casting choice, and acts the part well. No blame on him. It's more the writing of the character.
When Clark asks "Should I have let them die?", Jonathan Kent says "Maybe".
No, this just doesn't work for me. Jonathan and Martha Kent are Superman's moral compass. He's not supposed to be perfect, but he is supposed to be helping Clark develop in a way that leads to Superman.
Yeah, Jonathan Kent advocating the death of a bunch of kids is a bit odd.
He wasn't advocating the death of kids. He was advocating the importance of Not Being Seen. He was *afraid* that Clark would be taken away from him and Martha... and people who are afraid make bad speeches.
His desire to keep Clark 'safe from them' is the driving force there... he irrationally says "Maybe", but only because he's a little anguished that it may be too late to save Clark from being taken... and he should have said more truthfully.... "I don't know." Which is still a 'maybe' answer, but less definite, less harsh.
I took the "Maybe" line to be the epitome of a father trying to save his kid, to the exclusion of anyone else. Couldn't say "yes", obviously, but dammit, Clark, you are gonna get TAKEN if you don't knock that crap off.
Further, this leads into Clark's disappearing act every time he saves people. He'll save them, but at the expense of a normal life: "Great. Starting over, yet again. But I'm saving people, so it's worth it." And this, I think, is why the line is what it is... odd, but in context, important.
Just finished reading Mark Waid's review which can be found here:
http://thrillbent.com/blog/man-of-steel-since-you-asked/ (http://thrillbent.com/blog/man-of-steel-since-you-asked/)
Waid is easily one of the best Superman writers, IMO. I can go on but I'll just leave it at that because the point I'm trying to make is that I disagree, or, rather, don't wholly agree with his thoughts on the film which are similar to a lot of the thoughts expressed in this thread.
I think the problem is largely due to the fact that we are indoctrinated. We were all weaned on a Superman who doesn't kill. This is commandment number one, the golden rule, ingrained in the very fabric of our being. (It's the reason why I scoop bugs up and put them outside.) Which is why a large part of me was alarmed at the finality of Zod's end. It was just a gut reaction. Part of me said, "That shouldn't have happened." Concurrently, another part of me was already saying, "Superman just killed someone. Extrapolate." As I was walking out of the theater I got to wondering what I would have done if faced with the same circumstances. Yeah, I probably would have snapped his neck.
First, we must ask why things are the way they are. Why is Superman opposed to killing? Because he so easily can? Because it's morally reprehensible? All right answers but the one I was looking for was because he is the shining example. Our idealized version of the perfect man and thus he must be written that way. The writers in the early days knew they had an impressionable young audience and they had to portray the world's greatest hero in a responsible way. It's the same reason Batman no longer carries a gun. The protagonists have to be better than the villains and can never take the easy way or it's all for naught. We've all heard that trope in one form or another.
But imagine for a second, the real world. Goyer did this. A real family in real Kansas raising an alien child isn't thinking about how Clark can save the world day to day without using lethal force. They're preoccupied with keeping him and his secret safe. This is the objective. This is mission critical. Later on, in a subsequent flashback, Pa Kent gives the other reason why Clark shouldn't use his power basically saying, yeah you'd be outed as an alien but also you have to consider the actions you take now determine the kind of man you intend to be. Yeah. That whole speech. But make no mistake, while his parents extoll the virtues of being a better person, their main focus is to keep Clark's origin a secret. No matter what.
This jibed with me. It makes more sense.
In the comics, the no killing thing can work. It's the comics. In the movie, where we're trying to envision something believable, a Clark that can kill if he absolutely had to and a Jonathan Kent that can consider letting someone die to keep a secret that would fundamentally change how we view the universe. It's an easier pill to swallow. Not by much mind you since we're all accustomed to a different status quo. But in the end, it couldn't have been written any other way.
The real world sucks, and in large part because people don't live up to the ideals Superman is supposed to represent. If even Superman stops living up to those ideals, the world sucks just a little bit more.
Quote from: Tenzhi on June 19, 2013, 12:46:54 PM
The real world sucks, and in large part because people don't live up to the ideals Superman is supposed to represent. If even Superman stops living up to those ideals, the world sucks just a little bit more.
I'm going to have to disagree here. What was Supes supposed to do? Let Zod rampage across the globe, killing everyone? The movie wasn't set in a four-color golden age universe, where morality is Good vs. Evil.
I do understand where you are coming from, however. It was a bit jarring to see Superman kill an opponent, even one as dangerous as Zod. I do appreciate that killing Zod was not something Superman took lightly, even after Zod promised to exterminate the human race. It was obvious that Supes did not want to kill, but was forced to do so to prevent a greater tragedy when nothing less would suffice.
Snyder's even said recently that Superman killing Zod is going to be such a powerful moment in his life it will lead him to the values of Superman we're familiar with. He just wanted to show a reason, a how and a why he got there.
For me, Costner's acting in that scene with Clark is what sold me on the "Maybe." line. He's not advocating for a bus full of dead kids, he's just a farmer who has a freaking alien, god-like son and he doesn't really know what to say. In that moment it felt like I feel at least a dozen times a day as a Dad, you don't always know exactly what to do. And I'm just raising a couple of (relatively) normal humans.
Jonathan and Martha have lived their modest lives doing the best they can for their son, constantly struggling with things they don't understand and scared someone will take him away. They did provide Clark with his moral compass, but they are also mainly keep him grounded, it was Jor-El that taught him to fly. Both of those qualities are equally important for Superman, otherwise he'd just be another Kryptonian villain most likely.
Costner didn't sell me on that scene, but (even though what led to it was, as mentioned by others here, pretty well bunk) I liked him as Pa Kent in the one moment where he got out of the truck injured and with a simple look and gesture stopped Clark from saving him.
OK, really, I am getting tired of the whole should-he-or-shouldn't-he kill thing. Superman shouldn't kill. Period. You might say it's more realistic, but I call it lazy. They couldn't think of a better way to stop Zod, so have Superman become a killer. Lazy and stupid.
But fine, if you want to say it's realistic, then let's do this; next movie, let's have Lex be the smart, you-can't-catch-me guy, who always gets away because of some legal manipulation, or whatever. When Superman sees that Lex is going to get a way with his crimes again, Superman can wait outside Lex's home and when he sees Lex alone, turn him to ash with his heat vision. That would be realistic, too, because it is the only way to stop him. It's also nice and dark/ gritty.
If Superman doesn't kill Lex, then it's not realistic and they're copping out.
Here's a link to the first part of Kevin Smith Reviews "Man of Steel" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9mGy-KDisA). Looks like there are 13 parts.
WARNING: The language in this video review includes pervasive profanity and dirty guy-talk humor.
Quote from: Arnabas on June 19, 2013, 07:23:57 PM
OK, really, I am getting tired of the whole should-he-or-shouldn't-he kill thing. Superman shouldn't kill. Period. You might say it's more realistic, but I call it lazy. They couldn't think of a better way to stop Zod, so have Superman become a killer. Lazy and stupid.
If Superman doesn't kill Lex, then it's not realistic and they're copping out.
Unfortunately, he has killed. Superman killed Zod in the comics. Superman killed Doomsday. He realizes how wrong it is. Maybe more so than anyone. But he has done it. Out of necessity. If the villain can be reined in, brought to stand trial, and is physically capable of being contained and incarcerated, there's no way Clark would end someone's life. But you can liken this situation to when a sniper has a clear shot at someone who's about to kill some innocent people. When there is absolutely no other option and lives are at stake, what would you do? I'm sorry the rule that Superman must not kill is so absolute that it ruined the movie for some of you. If they chose to tell that story I'd be fine with it. But they went a different route and that's okay with me too.
Quote from: Magus Prime on June 19, 2013, 09:16:30 PM
When there is absolutely no other option and lives are at stake, what would you do?
Get better writers. Ones that don't write me into a corner that they can't write me out of withou turning me into something I'm not.
I just got back from the cinema and have to say:
Best. Superman movie. Ever.
Quote from: Tenzhi on June 19, 2013, 09:43:52 PM
Get better writers. Ones that don't write me into a corner that they can't write me out of withou turning me into something I'm not.
Something you don't think he is. Superman has killed in the comics, in the past movies and now in Man of Steel. It was not a case of bad writing that made him do it. Whether you like the decision or not, the writers specifically wanted it to happen. This movie was pretty much Superman Begins, here we see the horrible situation that made Superman take his no killing stance. For me personally, that's a lot more powerful than "He's just like that".
Quote from: Lightslinger on June 19, 2013, 09:50:58 PM
Something you don't think he is. Superman has killed in the comics, in the past movies and now in Man of Steel. It was not a case of bad writing that made him do it. Whether you like the decision or not, the writers specifically wanted it to happen. This movie was pretty much Superman Begins, here we see the horrible situation that made Superman take his no killing stance. For me personally, that's a lot more powerful than "He's just like that".
When he first appeared, Superman killed fairly often. Gradually, like Batman, he developed a code against killing.
There was a couple of lines I wanted to shout out during the movie.
First was when Superman surrenders himself and everyone was training their weapons on him. All I could think of was the line from the Doctor Who episode "A Good Man Goes to War" where he says "Please, point a gun at me if it helps you relax. You're only human. "
Second was in the Zod fight when Zod took hold of Superman's cape and swung him around, all I could think of was the "NO CAPES!" line from The Incredibles.
As for "the Superman we know wouldn't have killed Zod and would have prevented any collateral loss of life during the fight with him", remember he's new at this. Never faced anyone or anything that taxed his abilities and never fought in a crowded area before. This is rookie Superman, new to the whole saving the world thing. And more people would be killed if he lost again Zod so he couldn't give Zod an opening such as stopping that gas tanker from exploding into that parking structure where moments earlier we see people watching the fight. Superman loses, everyone loses. The only thing going through his mind was stopping Zod. Period, end of story. It's the trolley problem just on a much bigger scale.
And Zod wouldn't be willing to move the fight to a safer local because threatening humans lives gave Zod an edge. If he one he would spend the rest of his days gladly killing off each and every human personally just to pass the time.
Sore points
Clark, when the bad guy is suffering sensory overload like you intended him to get, DON'T tell him how you learned to overcome it! Sure Zod might have been able to figure it out on his own but it would have bought you more time.
Jor-El taught Lois that the big secret was turn on the phantom drive on the baby carrage and chuck it at the Zod's ship. Hope she took notes on such a complex and nuanced plan.
Jor-El designed Zod's ship/former prison yet the best he could do once uploaded was to change the atmospherics and open and close doors. Couldn't say jump the ship deep into Jupiter's atmosphere or say into the Sun. Nope just parlor tricks and pranks.
How many times reporters and the Weather Channel have to tell people don't take shelter from a tornado under an overpass before people listen?
And if you see a giant space ship descending over your city, you leave, NOW! Not when it starts the thumper beam and not after you realize the radius of the thumper beam is increasing. And you certainly don't ever run toward the giant space ship! What, nobody remembers ID4? At least one of the Daily Planet trio knew to run laterally from the falling building.
Other Points
According to the tombstone and assuming the movie is set in 2013, Clark was 17 when Jonathan was killed.
Only let the alien kiss you after the third time he saves your life, it's a rule. She's going to have to get into some more peril if she wants him to get to 2nd base.
So we have a Lexcorp building and a Wayne Corp satellite. Well it's something at least.
Edit: Edited for Houtex
Loved this movie! Always been a big superman fan and this movie really tried to capture what I think is so great about superman. They showed him finding self and making him into the man that could change the world. Superman could walk in the white house and rip the president in half, he could be judge, jury, and executioner and no one could stop him. Yet he doesn't. He uses his untold powers for good, even though the world wouldn't do the same for him. He choices not to kill unless he has too, he choices to try and use reason over brawn, he choices to protect humanity instead of try and rule them. That is why I love superman. His costume and origin aren't what make me a superman fan. It is that he is the world's greatest hero
Here is a link to Red Letter Media's review of "Man of Steel". (http://redlettermedia.com/half-in-the-bag-man-of-steel/) Ooh, they really did not like it.
WARNING: This video review includes pervasive profanity and dirty guy-talk humor.
"According to the tombstone and assuming the movie is set in 2013, Clark was 17 when Jonathan was killed."
I'm... not real sure why this is a sore point. Sounds like it's a good number? Was he supposed to be older or younger?
Quote from: Lightslinger on June 19, 2013, 09:50:58 PM
Something you don't think he is.
Which is what matters vis-a-vis my enjoyment of the film. This is a beloved and iconic character, and thus many people are going to have their own preconceived notions of who he is, what he stands for, and what he should look like (along with similar ideas about his key supporting cast). Challenging such ingrained preconceptions is risky business.
You say this particular preconception has been sacrificed on the altar of character development, apparently based on the assumption that Superman should/will be spurred to become the character of my preconception by this moment, but this isn't something that actually happened in the movie. If there is a sequel, what you're assuming may be shown to be the case, but it's not currently there and without that development the moment is far from "powerful" it's just tearing down a preconception for the sake of it.
Bear in mind that despite various issues I have with the film, I thought it was decent. Sometimes that gets lost in my vociferous negativity on aspects I'm unhappy with. I loved the Lord of the Rings movies, but I've gone off on some rather tooth-gnashing rants about the elves at Helm's Deep and the inappropriate weakness of Faramir.
Quote from: houtex on June 21, 2013, 04:12:14 AM
"According to the tombstone and assuming the movie is set in 2013, Clark was 17 when Jonathan was killed."
I'm... not real sure why this is a sore point. Sounds like it's a good number? Was he supposed to be older or younger?
Sorry, shifted gears there. Fixed previous post.
Quote from: Todogut on June 21, 2013, 03:34:53 AM
Here is a link to Red Letter Media's review of "Man of Steel". (http://redlettermedia.com/half-in-the-bag-man-of-steel/) Ooh, they really did not like it.
WARNING: This video review includes pervasive profanity and dirty guy-talk humor.
Just watched that review. First time ever seeing these guys. The review itself was so disjointed and awkward. The main guy was mildly funny on occasion and the guy in the middle laughed at ALL his jokes. Either middle guy laughs at everything that was ever intended to be funny or those two share a special bond and were destined since the dawn of time to meet and review movies.
As the review went on it just seemed like they didn't even try to enjoy the film. It became this blob of negativity that just fed and collapsed on itself. And when construction guy started complaining about why the origin story can't just be a regular origin I knew everything kind of came full circle and not in a revelatory way but more like a "we're not really getting anywhere" kind of way. I was like really? This was cause for rampant gesticulation? You were peeved because the origin story was filled with action scenes and wasn't just your plain run-of-the-mill origin? What is a plain origin anyway?
Sigh. To sum up, this is what happens when you take three guys with no social skills who love to harp on stuff and give them one beer each.
Quote from: Magus Prime on June 21, 2013, 09:16:03 AM
To sum up, this is what happens when you take three guys with no social skills who love to harp on stuff and give them one beer each.
The review or the movie? :P
I think that's a little hypercritical of the movie, GG. It wasn't The Last Airbender bad.
/Curse you M. Night for screwing that up so royally. How dare you, sir. How dare you.
I think a lot of the blame for how badly Man of Steel failed as a Superman movie can be laid at the feet of Superman Returns - it seems that they decided that because Superman Returns was a bad movie, they had to ditch everything linked to traditional Superman movies, rather than realizing that the main reason that Superman Returns failed was that it had a bad story concept - so while Man of Steel is a better movie than Superman Returns, Superman Returns is a much better Superman movie than Man of Steel.
Quote from: Golden Girl on June 16, 2013, 07:36:56 PM
As a superhero movie, it was pretty good - as a Superman movie, it wasn't so good.
THIS.
*SPOILERS* :P
As a long time fan of Superman I am really conflicted when it comes to this movie. There was a lot to like about it but in the end it really missed the mark on the heart of the character in fundamental ways. In fact, I enjoyed the first 2 hours (minus one tornado) a lot. It wasn't until the fighting started that I noticed that things were "off".
It started gradually with brawls in the streets of Smallville and escalated into unbridled destruction in Metropolis. I couldn't put my finger on it until I realized that They were brawling in the streets.
As I watched them punch each other through buildings I kept waiting for the point when Superman would take them away from the inevitable collateral damage.
Because, you know, that's what he does.
I have read a TON of Superman comics ranging from the Golden-Age all the way up until the late 90's and there isn't a whole lot that is comparable other than the "Death Of" with Doomsday. Even then, Superman's first priority was to protect the innocent. In Man of Steel he could have at least minimized the damage by moving the fight somewhere else. Once Zod decides that it's time to kick in Supe's head, he could have forced him down somewhere less populated after, I don't know, they careened off of a satellite?
Zod knew that humans meant a lot to Kal-El, why would he want to give up that advantage to fight in the middle of nowhere? As for Kal-El the whole saving the world thing is brand new. He has never had a challenge like this before. He's never had to fight someone before. He never had anyone who could move him if he didn't want to be moved before much less actually hurt him. Collateral damage is something he never had to consider before.
The best he could do in Smallville was to tell the frightened citizens to get off the streets. In Metropolis there was already a mile wide area turned to dust by the thumper beam and hopefully those who weren't pounded into a fine powder had the common sense to try and get out of the city.
So cut him some slack, he's a newb at this.
Quote from: Golden Girl on June 23, 2013, 05:47:14 AM
I think a lot of the blame for how badly Man of Steel failed as a Superman movie can be laid at the feet of Superman Returns - it seems that they decided that because Superman Returns was a bad movie, they had to ditch everything linked to traditional Superman movies, rather than realizing that the main reason that Superman Returns failed was that it had a bad story concept - so while Man of Steel is a better movie than Superman Returns, Superman Returns is a much better Superman movie than Man of Steel.
I will have to disagree. It's an old canard that doesn't ring true all the time but it does in this case, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Honestly, if they made another goofy, campy Superman, no matter how well written the story, I would have shot MY first born into space.
I have to say that I partially agree with GG. There was something 'magical' missing from Man of Steel. As much as I loved finally seeing Superman punch someone and get punched through a building. The movie was missing Superman being... well Superman.
Superman Returns I did not like. Mopey stalker dead beat dad Superman is not something I like in my superheroes. But it did have that great scene with rescuing the plane. Even from the first Superman, when the plane loses its engine, Supes takes its place and when the pilot looks out he just gives him a waves and a smile. Saving Lois and catching the helicopter. Man of Steel was missing those moments that just make you want to cheer. The closest Man of Steel had was Clark catching that tower on the oil rig. Beating up the bad guys with superpowers is great, but there's just a different type of elation from seeing him perform these acts of heroics when saving people. Because unlike Batman, Superman is about trust and hope. He needs those feel good shout out loud moments, as well as those visceral punch the baddie moments
But with all the death and destruction by Zoe and crew, it does leave the door open for Lex to step in as evil genius industrialist that thinks Superman is a threat to humanity. Evil real estate agent Lex Luthor has gotten too silly. I want to see a Luthor who's out to defeat Superman, not because he stands in his way of cheap ocean side property, but because Lex feels like he's a threat to humanity and his own ego. Like in the comics he would feel what Superman can do belittles human accomplishments, and therefore his own. That combined with his need for power makes a better villain. Then have Luthor create someone like Parasite or Metallo to give Superman someone to hit and you get a fun movie.
Quote from: FatherXmas on June 20, 2013, 05:51:46 AM
There was a couple of lines I wanted to shout out during the movie.
First was when Superman surfrenders himself and everyone was training their weapons on him. All I could think of was the line from the Doctor Who episode "A Good Man Goes to War" where he says "Please, point a gun at me if it helps you relax. You're only human. "
Second was in the Zod fight when Zod took hold of Superman's cape and swung him around, all I could think of was the "NO CAPES!" line from The Increibles
Glad to know I'm not the only one who had the Doctor saying that in their head at that point. :-)
But the cape thing just reminded me of Booster Gold.
'I used to have a cape you know, back when I first started. But superman took it away from me, he said I wasn't ready for a cape
Quote from: Magus Prime on June 23, 2013, 10:37:49 AM
I will have to disagree. It's an old canard that doesn't ring true all the time but it does in this case, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Honestly, if they made another goofy, campy Superman, no matter how well written the story, I would have shot MY first born into space.
Here are 2 scenes from Superman Returns, featuring Superman looking and acting like Superman, but removed from the context of the stalker/deadbeat dad storyline:
The airplane rescue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xiwISrp1H4
And saving Metropolis:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIMbqMmkZCI
Which parts of these traditionally presented Superman scenes are goofy and campy compared to what we saw in Man of Steel??
Quote from: Battlechimp
I have to say that I partially agree with GG. There was something 'magical' missing from Man of Steel. As much as I loved finally seeing Superman punch someone and get punched through a building. The movie was missing Superman being... well Superman.
Superman Returns I did not like. Mopey stalker dead beat dad Superman is not something I like in my superheroes. But it did have that great scene with rescuing the plane. Even from the first Superman, when the plane loses its engine, Supes takes its place and when the pilot looks out he just gives him a waves and a smile. Saving Lois and catching the helicopter. Man of Steel was missing those moments that just make you want to cheer. The closest Man of Steel had was Clark catching that tower on the oil rig. Beating up the bad guys with superpowers is great, but there's just a different type of elation from seeing him perform these acts of heroics when saving people. Because unlike Batman, Superman is about trust and hope. He needs those feel good shout out loud moments, as well as those visceral punch the baddie moments
Man of Steel lacks the magic, warmth and humanity required for a Superman story - it's a pretty well made and well acted sci-fi movie with enough disaster porn to fill more then one summer blockbuster - but it has no heart and soul, and fails to do any justice at all to one of the most iconic fictional characters in human history - the makers simply don't "get" Superman.
Quote from: Olde Glory on June 23, 2013, 07:30:57 AM
*SPOILERS* :P
As a long time fan of Superman I am really conflicted when it comes to this movie. There was a lot to like about it but in the end it really missed the mark on the heart of the character in fundamental ways. In fact, I enjoyed the first 2 hours (minus one tornado) a lot. It wasn't until the fighting started that I noticed that things were "off".
It started gradually with brawls in the streets of Smallville and escalated into unbridled destruction in Metropolis. I couldn't put my finger on it until I realized that They were brawling in the streets.
As I watched them punch each other through buildings I kept waiting for the point when Superman would take them away from the inevitable collateral damage.
Because, you know, that's what he does.
I have read a TON of Superman comics ranging from the Golden-Age all the way up until the late 90's and there isn't a whole lot that is comparable other than the "Death Of" with Doomsday. Even then, Superman's first priority was to protect the innocent. In Man of Steel he could have at least minimized the damage by moving the fight somewhere else. Once Zod decides that it's time to kick in Supe's head, he could have forced him down somewhere less populated after, I don't know, they careened off of a satellite?
So... in all the comics and Justice League and Superman animated... hell, Superman II why don't we... Exactly how much was destroyed before Superman left the scene? Pretty much buildings come down, and the bad guy doesn't WANT to leave, because if Superman leaves... hell yeah, more rampant terrorizing destruction! C'mere puny humans... I mean, really, if he left? And Zod is in his state? Free rampage. All you can eat.
Also, if you didn't notice, ol' Zod decided to set up his half of the world engine right in the heart of Metropolis, so... yeah, it was already pretty much taken out, so what's a couple of other buildings? And in the span this went down... sure, people were still stuck there. That's one of the problems of getting out in an attack... you simply don't have time unless you weren't already in the city.
Quote from: Golden Girl on June 23, 2013, 07:42:19 PM
Here are 2 scenes from Superman Returns, featuring Superman looking and acting like Superman, but removed from the context of the stalker/deadbeat dad storyline:
The airplane rescue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xiwISrp1H4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xiwISrp1H4)
And saving Metropolis:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIMbqMmkZCI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIMbqMmkZCI)
Which parts of these traditionally presented Superman scenes are goofy and campy compared to what we saw in Man of Steel??
Oh, which AREN'T? You did ask. I have nothing better to do at the moment, so be warned... I'm gonna SO beat everyone over the head with how horrible, hokey, goofy and campy these two are.
First, the entire airplane scene is completely whack, and I thought so, and all of these things, the very first time I saw it. BAD WRITING. Horrible, and hokey as all get out:
1) Lois must be part Kryptonian, because she should be DEAD by then end of that scene. Period.
2) When the shuttle's main engines go on? That airplane is TOAST. The forces being acted upon it would simply rip that plane to shreds, much less allow it to climb along with the much overpowered shuttle. Shuttle *MIGHT* survive the experience, but nobody on that plane is making it.
3) The *MOMENT* one of those bolts is heated off by Supe's heat vision? Yeah, that shuttle is attempting to fly off, now that the one bolt is gone. Perhaps the second one will do it. But that third wouldn't even get a chance to be melted away, because the different aerodynamic forces on the shuttle, now with an ability to lift off on the left side, and have it's nose come up because it's unencumberd... the third mount for sure is ripping that plane apart, because ol' Supes isn't holding on to it, just steadying it.
4) Yeah yeah, some sort of magic forcefield or whatever, extending to both airplanes causes them to be 'stable'. Right. Nope. We'll get back to that, hang on.
5) The airplane, now unencumbered by the shuttle, is now on the *outer reaches of space?!* People are floating in it. Yeah... well, perhaps it's on the vomit comit trajectory, but let me tell you... it's not. Thankfully, the tube was already compromised as evidenced by the dropped oxygen masks... oh wait, Lois should be dead YET AGAIN, or at least unconcious due to lack of O2, 'cause she STILL DOESN'T HAVE A MASK ON.
6) Further extension... *everyone* should be dead of embolisms because guess what? Near-to-space. Blood boils. Too bad, so sad. Not to mention there's not enough pressure to even let you breathe with those masks... and forget your hearing, 'cause exploded eardrums, even if you survive.
7) Ok, so EVEN IF you forget all that, the moment Supes quits pushing the shuttle, the airplane is now falling back to Earth and is in a flat spin. But he is a honey badger, 'cause shuttle launch. Shiny. Good job, Supes. "Oh wait, yeah, houtex, I totally was mesmerized by that whole shuttle thing! My bad!" *Vroom* The problem is this: ONCE he detaches the shuttle, he should PUSH it off the airplane and LET IT GO. And then save the damn plane. He had SO MUCH time to do that.
8) Ok, now the plane is in a flat spin. That is a Boeing 777. It is designed to go one way: Forwards. It is not designed to go into a flat spin. Ever. They do not even test that. It is an event that the Engineers understand that if the aircraft in that size gets into that shape, it is a doomed aircraft. Fighters, small planes, they can escape this condition, potentially, but it requires two things: Altitude and a conscious pilot who knows how to recover. Large aircraft of the type of a 777, 767, A300, A380, 747, 787... those are doomed. It is not *impossible*, I'll grant, but it's so unlikely to even survive the spin, much less get recovered from it. Anyway, by the time Superman gets to the airplane it is spinning VERY rapidly, sideways (yaw). It should not last very long with that much yaw. I point you to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauda_Air_Flight_004 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauda_Air_Flight_004)
That aircraft had the exact same thing, in effect, happen to it when one engine's reverse thrust system was engaged in flight. The entire ship was lost, as were all occupants. The ship went into an immediate left diving turn as it lost lift on that wing, and broke up fairly soon after that, as the aerodynamic forces were just too much for the ship to sustain it's integrity.
Point is, that 777 should not be surviving at this point. But hey, magic force field, Supes has made it, I guess, but...
9) He's on the right WINGTIP!! And look how boss he looks holding it back and all. He's freakin' Superman! He's gonna stop that plane from spinning and... Oh look, there it goes, wing came right off. Brilliant plan there. The correct placement is at the *wing root*, or worse case, at the engine pylon. Not the wingtip. It's not nearly strong enough, and Superman *should know this*. He's not stupid. He's *never* been stupid. Here', he's stupid.
10) Also: During all this, BOTH sets of spoilers are up. Not the right idea. But that's a technical error of the people not knowing how an airplane works, as evidenced by how far we've gotten in this scene anyway.
11) At this point, when the wing rips off, the entire ship is lost, and people should be being flung out of it by their seats being not attached to the rest of the plane, fuselage pieces scattering... Not even Superman's magic field can help. This is a job for the Green Lantern and his ring making a big bubble around the people. And then looking askance at Superman, asking "So... that was real awesome with the grabbing of the wingtip, Clark." Also, explosion from fuel being flung around and fire and hot things in the vicinity, so there's that.
12) But anyway, plane stays together otherwise, doesn't explode, just starts a roll to the right, towards the missing wing. And now is nose down and not flat spinning. Huh. How'd that happen... but whatever. Now it's slowly rolling as it is aimed Earthwards, and then the other wing, FINALLY, rips itself off the plane, where Superman bashes right through it without a care. Ho. Key.
13) And during that, all of a sudden... everyone's flung... FORWARD?! By what?! The plane is GOING DOWN. And accelerating now. You are never going to bash your face on the next seat in front of you until you smack the ground. But hey, again, whatever...
14) And now, finally, we get to THE moment of pure goofy and campy crap that is this scene, as if the rest of it weren't enough... Superman takes *forever* to fly to the front of the ship (we know he can reverse the planet's spin, so why so slow?) He gets to the front... and starts pushing on the radome. Let me explain how stupid this is. The radome of an aircraft is a fiberglass or hard plastic piece that is invisible to the radar behind it. The weather radar is behind it, and behind that, the pressure bulkhead, and then the cockpit and avionics in this case. The plane is somehow still together, which is unbelievable, but that superman can magically put his hands on the radome and it simply *collapse* and not break apart... that's one goofy thing. That he can continue to do this and the radar doesn't break (which apparently it doesn't) is two, and that three, this entire ship of a Boeing 777 fuselage is NOT GOING TO RIP APART LIKE TINFOIL is absolutely the cream of the crap in this scene. And yes, I said 'crap, 'not 'crop'.
The forces involved are literally childs play. Do not make it so fanatical, so dumb, as to try to pass this off. We aren't that dumb.
15) NOW you can be flung forward in your seats, and die.
16) And the entire tube does a rippling collaps like a slinky? Riiiighhtt...
17) And then... the thing rather gently is put down!? That's... amazing structural integrity. Beyond that, though, you just liquified everyone in the back with the G forces... the chairs should be in the cargo hold, because there is no way it doesn't slam with a gigantic force into the ground back there.
18) And the scene continues (not with this clip), that whole "Statistically speaking, it's still the safest way to travel" line was yet again used. As were SO many other items from previous Superman movies, particularly the '78 one.
19) And finally, capping that scene? As if Lois is the first and only one to go out the door, fainting yet again, to slide down the slide. Goofy. Hokey. Unless of course she's *FINALLY* succumbing to her grievous injuries, to which, Superman should have Xrayed her (and all of them) and seen she's hurt, badly, and got her to the hospital... instead, just wafts away.
20) And there were two face slamming events on that plane... Someone was dead from it, as their nose got buried into their brain... but I can forgive that, can't be all morbid and things.
And that's just the airliners scene. You gotta be kidding me if you or anyone else don't see some of that and go... "OMG, seriously guys? You wrote AND shot this?!"
---
As far as the saving Metropolis scene...
1) Shaking buildings in Metropolis (nee Manhattan/New York City) A city not built to withstand earthquakes with their old style, brick and mortar buildings. Some of those are coming down immediately.
2) Awesome job for JUST those people who needed to not have debris falling on them by using your heat vision to vaporize the stuff. Lil' odd you chose THOSE people, but whatever.
3) Magic cigar to light a fire. Just *happens* to get dropped with the old' OMG I can't believe I saw that! thing.
4) Again with the shaking of things... Yet no buildings down yet.
5) So Superman goes into the underground access tunnels to put out the fire. Fire caused by a leaking gas main. He blows it out from a larger gas supply and sends it backwards to... where?
6) And did anyone fix the gas leak, because I bet there was more where that came from. Gas lines do not magically have "just enough to let Supes save the day". But hey, creative writing, onwards.
7) OF COURSE, Jimmy is gonna be standing around in danger taking his pictures.
8) OF COURSE the Planet's big globe is gonna come off it's mounts, but nothing else in Metropolis is going to collapse except one hotel sign.
9) OF COURSE Superman is going to hear a rumbling and know exactly what it is (or so the cut implies.)
10) OF COURSE a semi-modern skyscraper is going to have an outdoor wooden water tank on the top of it, making it look even more regal and stuff with it's spires and giant planet, only to amazingly right under the now broken planet so it can get crushed and send... only water down. No wood chunks... odd.
11) "Great. Ceasar's. Ghost." Seriously. Of course, that particluar clip cuts out a little before Supes catches the planet (OF COURSE he catches the planet), but still. Really guys?
12) "Hm... where can I put this? Well... Surely I can't throw or move it somewhere that makes sense like a park or maybe send it back up onto the building and weld it back on... I know! I'll set it on these here cars and cause their insurance to fail to pay them because it doesn't cover Acts of God... and I'm akin to a God, so there ya go. Yeah. I like it." Plonk.
Less problems with that scene, but still.
---
Now I'll admit, all mine are technical details, but I reiterate... First time, all this. All of this went off in my head. I can suspend disbelief only so far, then it becomes ludicrous, campy... almost a comedy at that point.
Oh, I could go ON about how Superman Returns is campy, just dramatically so. The entire Green Kryptonite infused island scenes is my favorite.
/And still... STILL... I liked it because, hey, suspension of reality and just go with it.
//But it was campy and goofy. And hokey. And bad. They really didn't need to do it, and shouldn't've.
Hehe... told ya I had nuthin' better to do. :D
Well I think the big reason Ol supes here didn't do anything like that in this movie was because he didn't really decide to become the Iconic supes we all know and love until right before the fight with Zod. He did things like save the bus which I agree wasn't cheer worthy but he was being told by his parents to hide his power's until the time was right so all the acts of heroism had to be kept secret, like the oil rig. He was too busy defending his home planet by the time he was superman to be saving planes. Now that Zod is defeated he is saving planes left and right I imagine.
Quote from: houtex on June 24, 2013, 12:38:26 AM
Now I'll admit, all mine are technical details, but I reiterate... First time, all this. All of this went off in my head.
Your head is a horrifying place. ;)
Those sorts of technicalities are largely things that I understand but which I would probably never begin to consider in the context of either a comic book or a movie - much less a movie based on a comic book character.
But flying the small continent of kryptonite into space... that one was pretty unforgivable for me.
Despite the whole, "I'm going to kill everybody" stuff that Zod spouts, he was 100% focused on killing Superman. If at some point he was dragged away from a population center I doubt that HE would have fled the fight. This isn't a guy who was going to retreat and come back again later wreaking havoc. So, Superman knowingly lets an untold amount of people die before deciding that one more family is too much and snaps his neck. The set-up and execution is pretty weak with the end goal being Zod's death.
In any case, DC has made their money and this is the new direction for the character. The entire plot was based around fear. Fear of humanity, fear of rejection and fear that the hero will eventually turn against us. From this point on (for better or worse) Superman is a darker individual who is a symbol of power instead of hope. Sorry, "quasi-realistic" or not, it isn't a Superman story. I think that I'll stick to their well thought out animated movies and leave the live action offerings alone.
Quote from: Tenzhi on June 24, 2013, 04:37:27 AM
Your head is a horrifying place. ;)
You don't know the half of it. Eidetic memory is a helluva thing, and couple that with inquisitiveness?
I'm a mess. :)
Point was, there were so many things wrong with those two scenes that belivability has to be suspended. Hence, dramatically campy, and definitely goofy, to me, anyway. Not 60s Batman campy, granted, but campy is by definition "An affectation or appreciation of manners and tastes commonly thought to be artificial, vulgar, or banal." Or one of them anyway. And goofy is "Silly, ridiculous". Definitely that applied to a ton of stuff in that movie.
And really, as much as I like Spacey's Lex, that whole "WROOOOONGGGG"... awesome, over the top... camp. Scenery chewing at it's very best.
Quote from: Olde Glory on June 24, 2013, 05:12:48 AM
Despite the whole, "I'm going to kill everybody" stuff that Zod spouts, he was 100% focused on killing Superman. If at some point he was dragged away from a population center I doubt that HE would have fled the fight. This isn't a guy who was going to retreat and come back again later wreaking havoc. So, Superman knowingly lets an untold amount of people die before deciding that one more family is too much and snaps his neck. The set-up and execution is pretty weak with the end goal being Zod's death.
In any case, DC has made their money and this is the new direction for the character. The entire plot was based around fear. Fear of humanity, fear of rejection and fear that the hero will eventually turn against us. From this point on (for better or worse) Superman is a darker individual who is a symbol of power instead of hope. Sorry, "quasi-realistic" or not, it isn't a Superman story. I think that I'll stick to their well thought out animated movies and leave the live action offerings alone.
Zod pretty clearly stated that Humanity's fate was to be ended if he has any say so. Zod knows that it will come down to him or Kal, and that one of them has to die, and that was said right out by Zod too. But the fact is that they are both in the thought process of "we're invulnerable", and so their sparring is simply a matter of them keeping each other occupied. Remove Kal from that equation, and Zod is just a vengeance machine, and is GOING to go take out all of humanity because, simply he can, and has no other purpose. Genetic engineering at it's very best.
There is NO real expectation that Kal could actually snap Zod's neck, with the sole exception that Zod was still not qute as awesomely endowed with invulnerability as Kal, but I kind of doubt that. So I agree, the actual kill, while shocking (and I actually jumped a little in my seat in horror that Kal did that) was a pretty lame thing, and opened doors that had never been opened before.
And to that end, once again, I reiterate... THIS WAS NO SUPERMAN MOVIE. It is a Clark Kent movie, with a Kal-El aspect of it. They went so far out of their way to not use the word 'superman', I would have hoped by now that the difference in this is clear. He *could* be Superman at some point, but he is simply not that in this movie. He has aspects, similar storyline, but really, he's clearly not Superman. And won't be until, maybe, the third in this trilogy. (As I expect it to go to.)
Which is the point. This is not some rehashing of the tale... this is a reimagination being shown to us. And that will differ from the expected lore. I think this is what rubs a bunch of the older readers.. the change is not cool with them.
But think about this... Superman didn't fly at first. He leaped about. Never flew. That came later when they reimagined his powers. And again and again until we get the Superman most of us understand him to be. To have that mucked about in any way? Yeah. How dare they. :p
Look at Ledger's Joker and tell me that this sort of change is a bad thing. He was not much of anything like the Joker as we'd all seen him before... And that new take was *glorious*.
/Overall, I think this rebooting of Kal-El is a good thing. Batman, Star Trek, Kal-El... Kinda wish they'd done Green Lantern like this. Nothin' like a little chaos... Now where have I heard that sentiment before...
//By the way, I'm the older reader too. And I'm a Star Trek TOS baby, and don't have any problems with the new crew. But my mother does, and doesn't like any of the other Trek besides TOS. Go figure. I think she'd be one of the people disliking the new direction for Kal-El.
Ah, but a good villain should chew the scenery at least a little. This is why guys like Jeremy Irons and Christopher Walken are awesome villains.
Quote from: Golden Girl on June 23, 2013, 07:42:19 PM
And saving Metropolis:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIMbqMmkZCI
.
I loved the "Saving Metropolis" scene, perhaps even more than the plane scene
Quote from: Olde Glory on June 24, 2013, 05:12:48 AM
Despite the whole, "I'm going to kill everybody" stuff that Zod spouts, he was 100% focused on killing Superman. If at some point he was dragged away from a population center I doubt that HE would have fled the fight. This isn't a guy who was going to retreat and come back again later wreaking havoc. So, Superman knowingly lets an untold amount of people die before deciding that one more family is too much and snaps his neck. The set-up and execution is pretty weak with the end goal being Zod's death.
In any case, DC has made their money and this is the new direction for the character. The entire plot was based around fear. Fear of humanity, fear of rejection and fear that the hero will eventually turn against us. From this point on (for better or worse) Superman is a darker individual who is a symbol of power instead of hope. Sorry, "quasi-realistic" or not, it isn't a Superman story. I think that I'll stick to their well thought out animated movies and leave the live action offerings alone.
Hardly, he even makes a point to tell Lois his family symbol means hope, Jor-El talks extensively about the hope he can bring humanity, how he can inspire them to do good.
What you're complaining about is a problem, but the problem was the fact this was an origin movie. We are watching Superman Begins, as he stumbles, figures out who he is, and in the middle to last act embraces it fully though he is still very, very inexperienced.
That's my main problem with this movie, and its a problem with most origin movies, we don't get to see all of the character we're looking for. It's why in so many cases for superheroes, the sequel exceeds the first movie. X-Men 2, Spiderman 2, The Dark Knight, Blade II, Superman II, etc etc. It's a very unique genre in that sequels are often just as good as the original or even better.
I believe Man of Steel gave Superman an amazing backstory so that in the future when he is a stubborn idiot for refusing to kill a character, we know exactly why. When Superman spends time being the charming, inspiring character we know, we have seen the carnage and turmoil that forged him into that.
Snyder and Goyer have both said a lot of what I said here. I fully believe that they've set the stage for a Superman in Man of Steel 2 that spends time saving/inspiring just as he does fighting.
Quote from: Lightslinger on June 24, 2013, 01:34:05 PM
Hardly, he even makes a point to tell Lois his family symbol means hope
And like Lois replies, here it's just an S. They may have wanted been going for hope, but the story they told didn't get much hope across.
Quote from: Tenzhi on June 24, 2013, 03:54:36 PM
And like Lois replies, here it's just an S. They may have wanted been going for hope, but the story they told didn't get much hope across.
Counterpoint: Superman chose Earth. He had a chance to side with the Kryptonians at the expense of Earth and he chose us. Then he went on to save humanity...all of it. That's pretty hopeful.
All of it except the thousands who had to have been killed in all that destruction, you mean.
Quote from: Tenzhi on June 24, 2013, 04:32:02 PM
All of it except the thousands who had to have been killed in all that destruction, you mean.
Yeah, but in my mind tens of thousands dead is still WAYYY better than extinction, that's just me though :)
Zod might not have been stronger than Superman, but he was definitely the superior fighter. On at least once occasion Superman tried to take the fight away (into space) and Zod threw him back in Metropolis. Zod was responsible for those killed by the terraforming and those dead in Metropolis.
However, I do think blaming Superman for the destruction would be an excellent angle for Luthor to take in the sequel.
Standard superhero problem that tends to be glossed over far too often. A problem all first responders have.
You can't save everyone. You can't be everywhere. You can only do the best you can.
Here's a review from Zod. (http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/thatguywiththeglasses/bum-reviews/39593-zod-reviews-man-of-steel)
The best way to approach this movie is probably to treat it as an elseworlds/what if kind of deal, rather than as a real Superman movie.
Quote from: Golden Girl on June 25, 2013, 04:33:39 AM
The best way to approach this movie is probably to treat it as an elseworlds/what if kind of deal, rather than as a real Superman movie.
I'm constantly reminded that as much as I love comics and the movies that have been spun off from them, that Alan Moore said it best in "Whatever Happened To the Man of Tomorrow?" "This is an Imaginary Story... aren't they all?" (For those who weren't reading the 60s Superman books the way they described their 'Elseworlds' type of stories was as 'Imaginary Stories' that weren't considered in-continuity (such as it was back then.)
With all the reboots I've gone thru since I started reading comics back in the 50s, I've always treated movie adaptations as alternate reality versions of the stories I've enjoyed in comic format.
And I don't mind admitting that I was highly ticked off when Zod's neck got broken, and just before it happened, I told my son... "Oh, crap, he's going to kill him..." I just hope the payoff further down the story line is worth what they put me thru in that moment.
As a final ( I think ) post on this thread, I'll leave a link to an article on Comics Alliance that really sums up my over all problem with this movie. I only read it today but it is far more eloquent than I could muster right now. Again, NOT a knock on anyone who enjoyed it. I personally think that it lost what makes Superman stand out as "The First among Equals". I encourage you to read it.
http://www.comicsalliance.com/2013/06/21/man-of-steel-moral-superman-review-zack-snyder-david-goyer/
Quote from: Golden Girl on June 25, 2013, 04:33:39 AM
The best way to approach this movie is probably to treat it as an elseworlds/what if kind of deal, rather than as a real Superman movie.
And that is what I've been tryin' to say all along. Much like Nolanverse Batman, it's NOT the same as the comics. And won't be. Just certain details such as names, places, but circumstances, driving forces, and yes, even morality difficulties that in the comics are never, ever compromised.
It's called drama. Must have conflict. Most comics are about how the hell is Hero going to stop Villain. Not how is Hero going to continue after killing or maiming or having to make a "this one or that one" choice or such like that there. So it was with Zod in this movie.
I'm very interested to see where it goes from here. I have my ideas, but I doubt it'll happen... mainly because the set up requires less of Kal-El/Lois and more about Lex Luthor and others... But maybe that'd be ok.
Quote from: houtex on June 25, 2013, 03:36:39 PM
And that is what I've been tryin' to say all along. Much like Nolanverse Batman, it's NOT the same as the comics. And won't be. Just certain details such as names, places, but circumstances, driving forces, and yes, even morality difficulties that in the comics are never, ever compromised.
It's called drama. Must have conflict. Most comics are about how the hell is Hero going to stop Villain. Not how is Hero going to continue after killing or maiming or having to make a "this one or that one" choice or such like that there. So it was with Zod in this movie.
I'm very interested to see where it goes from here. I have my ideas, but I doubt it'll happen... mainly because the set up requires less of Kal-El/Lois and more about Lex Luthor and others... But maybe that'd be ok.
Snyder and Nolan have dropped a LOT of hints regarding the future with Luthor and it sounds exactly like I'd want him to be portrayed. They said all those Lexcorp logos are placed around so we can infer that Lex Luthor is an extremely powerful, wealthy industrialist. Even better, they want Mark Strong to play him, WIN.
Other problems with killing Zod:
1 - It proves the villain is right - Zod says the fight won't end until one of them dies - a genuine Superman movie would have shown Superman prove Zod wrong, and not lower himself to the villain's level.
2 - Don't play the Superman = Christ card unless you actually intend to stick with it throughout the movie.
3 - Don't try and emphasize that Superman stands for hope and inspiring humanity to be better and then have him solve the problem of a murderous villain by murdering the villain.
4 - It puts Superman on a lower moral level than Batman.
I haven't seen the movie yet, and accidentally clicked into this thread (and now I know Zod dies and I hate spoilers but I don't really care in this case).
For an interesting comparison, Superman is a much bigger dick than Statesman and far less endearing. I've often found that people who actually read the City of Heroes/Villains novels and are familiar with Statesman's origins have more respect for the character. He wasn't ever perfect, but he started out as a far worse person than he ended up. By comparison, if you go back and read the earlier Superman comic books, you'll find that Superman's always been a big arrogant dick, and he can't teach us anything about ourselves because he's a friggin alien. There's no point in aspiring to be more like Superman. He's just better than you. Nothing about his origin story is human, he's just easily anthropomorphised because he's more convincing than Alf (at first glance, anyway).
Quote from: Lightslinger on June 25, 2013, 04:51:43 PM
Snyder and Nolan have dropped a LOT of hints regarding the future with Luthor and it sounds exactly like I'd want him to be portrayed. They said all those Lexcorp logos are placed around so we can infer that Lex Luthor is an extremely powerful, wealthy industrialist. Even better, they want Mark Strong to play him, WIN.
Who do you think will get all the contracts to rebuild Metropolis into the futuristic art-deco skyline we're used to?
Who do you think will 'consult' with the government on all the alien tech that will inventively be recovered from the wreckage now that Emil Hamilton is gone?
Ted Kord?
8)
It didn't used to be a big deal that Superman was an alien. It was more of an explanation for his powers and vulnerabilities than a character-defining trait. Dehumanizing Superman by over-emphasizing his Kryptonian nature does the character a disservice, I'd say.
Captain Electric reminded me of this. Scroll through at your leisure.
http://superdickery.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=28&Itemid=45
A comic from Shortpacked (http://www.shortpacked.com/2013/comic/book-15/01-about-face/theliewetellourselves/) that I feel is relevant to the discussion.
Im glad you posted that Father X-Mas. Superman use to be a hugemongus asshole. The superman in this movie is a saint compared to the original superman including the murder of Zod. Also superman or not some mofo's just gotta go and Zod was one of them. He didn't want to do it but he had to, Zod didn't give him another choice. Part of being a hero is doing things you don't want to do or even wouldn't normally do for humanity. I didn't see another way for him to stop Zod, of course the writing made it that way. But the first prison didn't hold Zod why would a second one?
To be fair, a lot of "superdickery" is based on covers taken completely out of context. That context is "Superman is so pure and good that what we're showing here on the cover is meant to shock you into buying this comic to see why it happens and whether Superman goes back to being good and pure again! Also, buy this comic! Did we mention that you should buy this comic?"
Those explanations don't always hold up (for example, in that one, Superman tried to prevent the song from becoming a hit because he wrote it, and subconsciously had the first letters of each line spell out "Clark Kent" (http://www.agonybooth.com/agonizer/Lois_Lane_9_Supermans_Mystery_Song.aspx), so Superman is afraid someone will connect the dots - that one DOES have a lot of dickery in it, but mostly because it's terribly written), but in most cases, the covers are just flat-out lies to get you to buy the comic, and Superman has not gone evil.
If you want real Superdickery, you have to go back to the Golden Age of comics. Back in his earliest days, Superman was an undeputized two-fisted vigilante, with a style more similar to a super-powered Batman or Punisher than to the Incorruptible Pure Pureness he became in the Silver Age. Though he wasn't an outright killer, he wouldn't go out of his way to save a villain, either. And his definition of "villain" was a lot looser back then:
http://luchins.com/what-were-they-thinking/i-usually-dont-post-this-much-of-a-story/
http://luchins.com/what-were-they-thinking/superman-vs-cars-part-two/
And, unlike the Silver Age covers, all that is in context.
As for the actual MoS movie (my, I do digress, don't I?), it was a good movie about a raw inexperienced hero trying to become the Superman we all know and love, but it doesn't quite get him there.
Quote from: Golden Girl on June 23, 2013, 07:46:51 PM
Man of Steel lacks the magic, warmth and humanity required for a Superman story - it's a pretty well made and well acted sci-fi movie with enough disaster porn to fill more then one summer blockbuster - but it has no heart and soul, and fails to do any justice at all to one of the most iconic fictional characters in human history - the makers simply don't "get" Superman.
I don't know about that.
I think this was a fairly straight-laced look at how Superman would ACTUALLY be received in modern society.
As for "Superman would act THUS", remember that Clark's been "Superman" for all of about a minute before the invasion begins.
With possibly dozens of people who're every bit as powerful as he is (about infinitely more ruthless).
Brawls right in the street are because that's where these guys are, and having Clark simply taunt them away isn't going to work.
They're not egomaniacally stupid supervillains. THE ARE SOLDIERS.
So you pretty much have to fight them on their own ground.
As for killing Zod.
Clark is a good guy. Hell, maybe even a paragon.
But, socially, he's still a human.
When put in the kind of corner that Zod did, at the end, a human will kill without a second thought.
And yeah, people with some form of conscience are going to be torn up about it...AFTERWARD.
I don't think this is a failure as a Superman movie. I think this is a look at Superman in a slightly more realistic context.
Will it jive with the comic book representation of a big Boy Scout? At some points. Yeah. At others? No. Because the comic book version simply COULD NOT operate in the real world without going nuts.
Quote from: houtex on June 24, 2013, 12:38:26 AM2) When the shuttle's main engines go on? That airplane is TOAST. The forces being acted upon it would simply rip that plane to shreds, much less allow it to climb along with the much overpowered shuttle. Shuttle *MIGHT* survive the experience, but nobody on that plane is making it.
3) The *MOMENT* one of those bolts is heated off by Supe's heat vision? Yeah, that shuttle is attempting to fly off, now that the one bolt is gone. Perhaps the second one will do it. But that third wouldn't even get a chance to be melted away, because the different aerodynamic forces on the shuttle, now with an ability to lift off on the left side, and have it's nose come up because it's unencumberd... the third mount for sure is ripping that plane apart, because ol' Supes isn't holding on to it, just steadying it.
4) Yeah yeah, some sort of magic forcefield or whatever, extending to both airplanes causes them to be 'stable'. Right. Nope. We'll get back to that, hang on.
5) The airplane, now unencumbered by the shuttle, is now on the *outer reaches of space?!* People are floating in it. Yeah... well, perhaps it's on the vomit comit trajectory, but let me tell you... it's not. Thankfully, the tube was already compromised as evidenced by the dropped oxygen masks... oh wait, Lois should be dead YET AGAIN, or at least unconcious due to lack of O2, 'cause she STILL DOESN'T HAVE A MASK ON.
6) Further extension... *everyone* should be dead of embolisms because guess what? Near-to-space. Blood boils. Too bad, so sad. Not to mention there's not enough pressure to even let you breathe with those masks... and forget your hearing, 'cause exploded eardrums, even if you survive.
7) Ok, so EVEN IF you forget all that, the moment Supes quits pushing the shuttle, the airplane is now falling back to Earth and is in a flat spin. But he is a honey badger, 'cause shuttle launch. Shiny. Good job, Supes. "Oh wait, yeah, houtex, I totally was mesmerized by that whole shuttle thing! My bad!" *Vroom* The problem is this: ONCE he detaches the shuttle, he should PUSH it off the airplane and LET IT GO. And then save the damn plane. He had SO MUCH time to do that.
8) Ok, now the plane is in a flat spin. That is a Boeing 777. It is designed to go one way: Forwards. It is not designed to go into a flat spin. Ever. They do not even test that. It is an event that the Engineers understand that if the aircraft in that size gets into that shape, it is a doomed aircraft. Fighters, small planes, they can escape this condition, potentially, but it requires two things: Altitude and a conscious pilot who knows how to recover. Large aircraft of the type of a 777, 767, A300, A380, 747, 787... those are doomed. It is not *impossible*, I'll grant, but it's so unlikely to even survive the spin, much less get recovered from it. Anyway, by the time Superman gets to the airplane it is spinning VERY rapidly, sideways (yaw). It should not last very long with that much yaw. I point you to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauda_Air_Flight_004 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauda_Air_Flight_004)
That aircraft had the exact same thing, in effect, happen to it when one engine's reverse thrust system was engaged in flight. The entire ship was lost, as were all occupants. The ship went into an immediate left diving turn as it lost lift on that wing, and broke up fairly soon after that, as the aerodynamic forces were just too much for the ship to sustain it's integrity.
Point is, that 777 should not be surviving at this point. But hey, magic force field, Supes has made it, I guess, but...
9) He's on the right WINGTIP!! And look how boss he looks holding it back and all. He's freakin' Superman! He's gonna stop that plane from spinning and... Oh look, there it goes, wing came right off. Brilliant plan there. The correct placement is at the *wing root*, or worse case, at the engine pylon. Not the wingtip. It's not nearly strong enough, and Superman *should know this*. He's not stupid. He's *never* been stupid. Here', he's stupid.
10) Also: During all this, BOTH sets of spoilers are up. Not the right idea. But that's a technical error of the people not knowing how an airplane works, as evidenced by how far we've gotten in this scene anyway.
11) At this point, when the wing rips off, the entire ship is lost, and people should be being flung out of it by their seats being not attached to the rest of the plane, fuselage pieces scattering... Not even Superman's magic field can help. This is a job for the Green Lantern and his ring making a big bubble around the people. And then looking askance at Superman, asking "So... that was real awesome with the grabbing of the wingtip, Clark." Also, explosion from fuel being flung around and fire and hot things in the vicinity, so there's that.
12) But anyway, plane stays together otherwise, doesn't explode, just starts a roll to the right, towards the missing wing. And now is nose down and not flat spinning. Huh. How'd that happen... but whatever. Now it's slowly rolling as it is aimed Earthwards, and then the other wing, FINALLY, rips itself off the plane, where Superman bashes right through it without a care. Ho. Key.
13) And during that, all of a sudden... everyone's flung... FORWARD?! By what?! The plane is GOING DOWN. And accelerating now. You are never going to bash your face on the next seat in front of you until you smack the ground. But hey, again, whatever...
14) And now, finally, we get to THE moment of pure goofy and campy crap that is this scene, as if the rest of it weren't enough... Superman takes *forever* to fly to the front of the ship (we know he can reverse the planet's spin, so why so slow?) He gets to the front... and starts pushing on the radome. Let me explain how stupid this is. The radome of an aircraft is a fiberglass or hard plastic piece that is invisible to the radar behind it. The weather radar is behind it, and behind that, the pressure bulkhead, and then the cockpit and avionics in this case. The plane is somehow still together, which is unbelievable, but that superman can magically put his hands on the radome and it simply *collapse* and not break apart... that's one goofy thing. That he can continue to do this and the radar doesn't break (which apparently it doesn't) is two, and that three, this entire ship of a Boeing 777 fuselage is NOT GOING TO RIP APART LIKE TINFOIL is absolutely the cream of the crap in this scene. And yes, I said 'crap, 'not 'crop'.
The forces involved are literally childs play. Do not make it so fanatical, so dumb, as to try to pass this off. We aren't that dumb.
15) NOW you can be flung forward in your seats, and die.
16) And the entire tube does a rippling collaps like a slinky? Riiiighhtt...
17) And then... the thing rather gently is put down!? That's... amazing structural integrity. Beyond that, though, you just liquified everyone in the back with the G forces... the chairs should be in the cargo hold, because there is no way it doesn't slam with a gigantic force into the ground back there.
18) And the scene continues (not with this clip), that whole "Statistically speaking, it's still the safest way to travel" line was yet again used. As were SO many other items from previous Superman movies, particularly the '78 one.
19) And finally, capping that scene? As if Lois is the first and only one to go out the door, fainting yet again, to slide down the slide. Goofy. Hokey. Unless of course she's *FINALLY* succumbing to her grievous injuries, to which, Superman should have Xrayed her (and all of them) and seen she's hurt, badly, and got her to the hospital... instead, just wafts away.
20) And there were two face slamming events on that plane... Someone was dead from it, as their nose got buried into their brain... but I can forgive that, can't be all morbid and things.
And that's just the airliners scene. You gotta be kidding me if you or anyone else don't see some of that and go... "OMG, seriously guys? You wrote AND shot this?!"
Technically everyone in that plane was doomed from the get-go.
You do NOT launch a shuttle from a plane that way. You mount a shuttle on a plane like that for aerodynamic testing.
That the bolts fired properly, the craft wouldn't have disengaged from the jet because it wasn't under it's own power yet and a shuttle is considerably less aerodynamic than a jetliner. It would have begun sliding back along the fuselage and into the tail.
Had they fired up the engines, it would have been the exact same thing that happened. The tail of the plane would have been cooked.
Basically the entire film was "You failed physics forever". But it was a comic book brought to life.
Relevant - especially from the 5:00 mark - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkcLRL9cBtk
Superman 1 Deaths:
Krypton
Johnathan Kent
Police detective following Otis.
Unspecified deaths in the earthquake
Superman 2 Deaths:
Astronaut
Unspecified deaths at the hands of Zod & Company
Superman 3:
The Webster siblings
Ms. Ambrosia
Unspecified deaths in the weather anomalies Pryor generated
Evil Superman (By Clark)
Superman 4:
Nuclear Man
Quote from: Hyperstrike on June 26, 2013, 06:44:39 PM
Technically everyone in that plane was doomed from the get-go.
You do NOT launch a shuttle from a plane that way. You mount a shuttle on a plane like that for aerodynamic testing.
That the bolts fired properly, the craft wouldn't have disengaged from the jet because it wasn't under it's own power yet and a shuttle is considerably less aerodynamic than a jetliner. It would have begun sliding back along the fuselage and into the tail.
Had they fired up the engines, it would have been the exact same thing that happened. The tail of the plane would have been cooked.
Basically the entire film was "You failed physics forever". But it was a comic book brought to life.
No, you can launch something in this manner:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkEUBBlIjUA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkEUBBlIjUA)
The Enterprise and the Shuttle Carrier 747 was used in this exact manner, the reason this 777/shuttle could work. You detach, the shuttle is a flying brick for a few moments, but it *is* flying, and the carrier makes an immediate dive and then turn out of the way... 15 seconds later, you could light off the engines and off you go.
This similar concept is being done by Virgin Galactic with White Knight 2, the carrier, and Spaceship 2, the 'shuttle', for their little day trips to 'space'. And has been proven in various missile launches and White Knight 1 and Spaceship 1, the X1, X2, X15... Flying bricks were rather routinely flung from their carriers.
So yeah. WAY possible.
Quote from: Hyperstrike on June 26, 2013, 10:49:05 PM
Superman 1 Deaths:
Krypton
Johnathan Kent
Police detective following Otis.
Unspecified deaths in the earthquake
Superman 2 Deaths:
Astronauts There were three of them.
Unspecified deaths at the hands of Zod & Company
Superman 3:
The Webster siblings
Ms. Ambrosia
Unspecified deaths in the weather anomalies Pryor generated
Evil Superman (By Clark)
Superman 4:
Nuclear Man
Indeed. In Superman 1, the rule of "you cannot interfere with Human history" is not only shattered by older Clark, but WAS NOT KNOWN by younger Clark. Of course, the problem might have been he didn't yet know how to fly? So you do the Flash thing and run. Spin the world backwards. Save your pops. But noooOOOooo... And where was Superman when the cop died? That's right. Biding his time until his big reveal, when *Lois* is the person in danger. Oh, and nobody but Lois dies in the earthquake. Superman was literally everywhere in the state making sure of that.
Superman 2... you didn't list Zod, Non and Ursa, in order, are killed by being dropped into sub arctic waters after Supes robs them of their powers. Not to mention the sadistic hand crushing, then childish lifting, of Zod, and tossing him across the room. Nice. And while we're at the whole "4 - Lower Moral Level than Batman" thing, how about the jerk truck driver in the diner scene part two, where Clark thrashes him. Of course, he pays for the damages to the diner, but what about that guy's messed up mental capabilities? Hospital bills? Yeah, he's a jerk, but Whatever happened to Turn the Other Cheek, eh?
Superman 3... That movie killed Superman being a good franchise.
Superman 4... That movie poured dirt over the franchise's open grave to seal it off.
And while I'm here being an imp and riposting...
Superman Returns... How about the guys that Lex had on the island with him that SUPERMAN KILLS because he causes the ground to shake and the columns to CRUSH THEM. OH, but let's say (can't recall if there was a survivor or not...) one of them made it. Except now he's LAUNCHED INTO SPACE. That's a for sure "Dead sucka!" Because we all know that only Lex and Ladyfriend wound up out of gas on a teeny island in the middle of nowhere contemplating eating the dog, and likely to be dead from exposure or lack of fresh water. And hey, Superman is recuperating in the hospital, so he's out for a while... Wonder if ol' Lex and Ladyfriend made it... probably not... but for sure, that poor dog is toast :(
Yeah, Superman/Kal-El/Clark can't save 'em all, and really, even without intending to do it, he kills people all the time. It's just a matter of fact of his being one person, and not able to bend time and space to his will without flying really really fast.
/Oh, hey.. that brings up another thing... I'll post it elsewhere.
There's some debate whether the Kryptonian villains were killed in Superman II. There as an extra scene filmed, and used in both the TV version and the extended Donner Cut, that shows the three of them still alive, and taken by the Arctic Patrol (who also nab Luthor - he gets most of the dialogue in this scene). On the other hand, Donner himself said that it was his intention that the villains be killed (despite filming the scene in which they were still alive).
On the other other hand, the scene that shows them not being dead is also the same scene that shows how Luthor got back to civilization, so it's "canon" in a sense, because Luthor is obviously still around in Superman IV. (In the theater version, you never see him leave the Fortress)
Finally, it really fits Superman's character better to have him be so nonchalant about them falling into the pit because he knew that there was nothing down there that could hurt them, it was just too deep for the depowered villains to climb out of, as opposed to him being nonchalant because he wanted them to die. That doesn't fit Reeve's take on the character at all.
Reading and re-reading this thread, it got to reminding me of other characters in the past who took a grittier turn. I remember a lot of the reactions when Miller gave Batman the dark brooding treatment. A lot of writers accused him of ruining the character forever. They may still feel that way but for the most part, audiences accepted this change on a wide scale. Then I got to thinking maybe this was okay because this was the nature of the beast. Batman was born from tragedy and he wears a dark and foreboding costume to complement this. Maybe a jaded, abrasive hero is exactly what the doctor ordered and it just took a while for us to make that leap. But then the same thing happened to Spider-Man.
When Todd McFarlane took over, Spider-Man became a no-nonsense character who was sick of the scum that roamed the streets. I remember a reader voicing their opinon in a letter to Marvel about how this isn't the Spidey he grew up with and not even on his worst day would he string a bad guy up by the fingers and toes and climb up and sit on the guy's back in an effort to interrogate him. Ostensibly, Spider-Man was using his own weight to torture this guy, pulling him apart at his joints. This version of Peter is still very prevalent in the comics today. He's still the quipping every-man in some of his titles but now he's also a vigilante with realistic views on how the world can be an inequitable place. In contrast to Batman, Spider-Man is a more optimistic hero clad in bright colors. He's like Superman Lite. But having a Spidey deal directly more with tragedy and darker themes didn't break the character for the majority of the fans. It actually gave him more dimension. I have faith this will also happen for our favorite Kryptonian... who just happens to also be the only Kryptonian so... way to win that popularity contest, Kal. :P
One thing I would like to bring up actually is that comic books lack a very real part of life. And that is human bodies are fragile. Batman and Superman may have vows not to kill. But they have no trouble beating the crap out of people. And sometimes people just get an unlucky punch to the head and die for no reason. Batman and Superman would of killed tons of people just on accident through the comic books and other movies. And getting the crap beaten out of you sucks, it isn't just an icepack and limp the next day. You could spend weeks in the hospital for broken bones, sprains, concussions and brain hemorrhage. Then not to mention the criminal cases against most of these people would have them locked up for life and personally I would take being beaten to death by superman over a lifetime in prison. But they took this aspect out of the comic books and movies. People just walk away with bruises after batman body slams them when that could actually paralyze a person. So I think that this magic power they have to not accidently severly injure or kill anyone makes it a lot easier to stay true to this never killing vow which make it a lot harder to make a realistic version of these movies.
Quote from: Magus Prime on June 28, 2013, 06:46:32 AM
When Todd McFarlane took over, Spider-Man became a no-nonsense character who was sick of the scum that roamed the streets. I remember a reader voicing their opinon in a letter to Marvel about how this isn't the Spidey he grew up with and not even on his worst day would he string a bad guy up by the fingers and toes and climb up and sit on the guy's back in an effort to interrogate him. Ostensibly, Spider-Man was using his own weight to torture this guy, pulling him apart at his joints. This version of Peter is still very prevalent in the comics today. He's still the quipping every-man in some of his titles but now he's also a vigilante with realistic views on how the world can be an inequitable place. In contrast to Batman, Spider-Man is a more optimistic hero clad in bright colors. He's like Superman Lite. But having a Spidey deal directly more with tragedy and darker themes didn't break the character for the majority of the fans.
I always saw the introduction of Ben Reilly as an attempt to get Peter back to his lighthearted self. They tried to pass him off as the real Peter, but that didn't go over well, probably because people generally didn't want to believe that everything the had read over the past several years didn't "count", but I think there was a desire to get him back to a lighter place.
My impression of the movie:
Positives:
1. Great special effects and combat sequences. ( but overdone )
2. Decent, but not great casting.
Negatives:
1. The characters seem for most of the movie to be rather distant. I had a hard time feeling any attachment to any of the characters.
2. Jonathon Kent seemed to be a rather cold character - not at all what I would expect. They didnt take full advantage of Costner's acting
abilities.
3. The casting for Lois Lane was just ... off. That was not Lois.
4. Like most movies these days, the emphasis was on special effects and violence. More time could have spent
on character development. The constant switching back and forth in the time line didnt help in that regard.
Overall, an "ok" movie. Maybe 3 out of 5 stars - nothing I'd care to repeat watching.
I for one enjoyed this new take on Superman. The cast and acting were fantastic. I loved the costumes and environments. The music provided by Hans Zimmer was amazing.
The approach to storytelling they took was interesting, but not unsatisfactory.
Call me strange, but my favorite character was the villainous female sidekick Faora. ;D Completely badass, and enjoying it. Also, her armor silhouette certainly had a fun Arachnos vibe to it.
Yes, I liked the original Superman movies, but I enjoyed this reboot greatly. All in all a great movie that I enjoyed watching.
This movie really made me want to play City of Heroes dammit!
Quote from: silvers1 on June 30, 2013, 01:45:44 AM
My impression of the movie:
Positives:
1. Great special effects and combat sequences. ( but overdone )
2. Decent, but not great casting.
Negatives:
1. The characters seem for most of the movie to be rather distant. I had a hard time feeling any attachment to any of the characters.
2. Jonathon Kent seemed to be a rather cold character - not at all what I would expect. They didnt take full advantage of Costner's acting
abilities.
3. The casting for Lois Lane was just ... off. That was not Lois.
4. Like most movies these days, the emphasis was on special effects and violence. More time could have spent
on character development. The constant switching back and forth in the time line didnt help in that regard.
Overall, an "ok" movie. Maybe 3 out of 5 stars - nothing I'd care to repeat watching.
Another positive is Hollywood - we won't have to wait to many years before there's a reboot :P
Hm. If this reboot doesn't work/continue, how many more can there be? I mean... really. You have George Reeves, Christopher Reeve/Brandon Routh, and now Henry Cavill, and those versions thereto. Of course, there's the Tim Daly/George Newbern version in the Timmverse, which is as close to THE Superman you could want, I suppose.
What other versions can there be and still be Kal El/Superman? I imagine it'll be interesting to find out.
Quote from: houtex on July 01, 2013, 04:28:54 AM
Hm. If this reboot doesn't work/continue, how many more can there be?
As many as they feel they're able to do - for example, the next Batman movie isn't very likely to be a follow up to Nolan's trilogy - there's a pretty good chance that we'll be seeing a new take on Batman, starting with his origin story.
This applies more to DC than Marvel, as Marvel's now got a well established movie universe, so they're more likely to simply recast roles when actors retire from them, rather than trying to fit a reboot into the middle of an ongoing meta-story.
Quote from: Golden Girl on July 01, 2013, 06:25:36 AM
As many as they feel they're able to do - for example, the next Batman movie isn't very likely to be a follow up to Nolan's trilogy - there's a pretty good chance that we'll be seeing a new take on Batman, starting with his origin story.
Just once I'd like to see them gloss over the origin retread and get to the established hero doing his established hero thing.
Quote from: Tenzhi on July 01, 2013, 10:49:40 AM
Just once I'd like to see them gloss over the origin retread and get to the established hero doing his established hero thing.
Well, WB did actually do that for a while, until the franchise was derailed by rubber nipples.
Quote from: Golden Girl on July 01, 2013, 04:46:47 PM
Well, WB did actually do that for a while, until the franchise was derailed by rubber nipples.
Ah yes, I suppose that's true. I've been deluged with so many origin stories over the past several years that it slipped my mind. Still my two favourite Batman movies, too.
Up until the rubber nipple crisis, it seems like they were using the James Bond franchise as a template - a series of self-contained stories with occasional references to previous movies, and recasting the leads as and when they needed to.
That is one thing about superhero films that always annoys me, particularly for well-known characters. Why do they always feel the need to start off with an origin story? Superman, Batman, and Spider-Man's origin stories are among the most well-known in the world, but they insist on treading over all-too-familiar ground for the millionth time.
If you really think your audience consists entirely of 3-year-olds who have never seen a superhero before in their life, then start with an opening montage. The first few minutes can be an origin story flashback, the next five or ten minutes can show the superhero handling a routine crisis, and the rest of the film can be the superhero actually taking on the Threat of the Movie.
It's the only action-movie genre that does this (especially to the extent that superhero movies do, taking half the film until the hero is actually in costume), and it continues to annoy me.
Quote from: DJMoose on June 30, 2013, 06:41:18 AMCall me strange, but my favorite character was the villainous female sidekick Faora. ;D Completely badass, and enjoying it. Also, her armor silhouette certainly had a fun Arachnos vibe to it.
Yup, she was awesome, and I just realized that Antje Traue also played Nadia in Pandorum. Gorgeous lady that can pull off being a badass. :D
Quote from: Thunder Glove on July 02, 2013, 01:05:41 PM
That is one thing about superhero films that always annoys me, particularly for well-known characters. Why do they always feel the need to start off with an origin story? Superman, Batman, and Spider-Man's origin stories are among the most well-known in the world, but they insist on treading over all-too-familiar ground for the millionth time.
If you really think your audience consists entirely of 3-year-olds who have never seen a superhero before in their life, then start with an opening montage. The first few minutes can be an origin story flashback, the next five or ten minutes can show the superhero handling a routine crisis, and the rest of the film can be the superhero actually taking on the Threat of the Movie.
It's the only action-movie genre that does this (especially to the extent that superhero movies do, taking half the film until the hero is actually in costume), and it continues to annoy me.
Blame the 1978 Superman for establishing the origin story trope for the first film of a super hero film. The 1989 Batman perpetuated it. X-men in 2000 had too large of a cast and with the exception of Rogue simply did a voice over about the school. But soloing super heroes, tend to get an origin story especially if it's a year one story.
Superman, Man of Steel, Batman Begins, Punisher, Hell Boy, Spiderman, The Amazing Spiderman, Daredevil, Ghost Rider, Spawn, Howard the Duck, Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, Captain America, Fantastic Four, Wolverine, X-men: First Class, Green Lantern, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. I'm sure there are many more that I forgotten. But you also have to realize, and you said it yourself, "well known characters". Well movies are international, superhero comics are primarily US/UK and to most of the world they aren't well known. It's been 35 years between Superman origin stories, 16 for Batman. Since the two Spider-man versions are very different (organic Vs mechanical web shooters, MJW Vs GS) it needed to be retold with only a 10 year gap.
Just read this review by an inebriated Brandon Routh. Very entertaining.
http://www.nextmovie.com/blog/brandon-routh-man-of-steel/ (http://www.nextmovie.com/blog/brandon-routh-man-of-steel/)
Quote from: FatherXmas on July 02, 2013, 08:06:39 PM
Blame the 1978 Superman for establishing the origin story trope for the first film of a super hero film. The 1989 Batman perpetuated it. X-men in 2000 had too large of a cast and with the exception of Rogue simply did a voice over about the school. But soloing super heroes, tend to get an origin story especially if it's a year one story.
Superman, Man of Steel, Batman Begins, Punisher, Hell Boy, Spiderman, The Amazing Spiderman, Daredevil, Ghost Rider, Spawn, Howard the Duck, Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, Captain America, Fantastic Four, Wolverine, X-men: First Class, Green Lantern, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. I'm sure there are many more that I forgotten. But you also have to realize, and you said it yourself, "well known characters". Well movies are international, superhero comics are primarily US/UK and to most of the world they aren't well known. It's been 35 years between Superman origin stories, 16 for Batman. Since the two Spider-man versions are very different (organic Vs mechanical web shooters, MJW Vs GS) it needed to be retold with only a 10 year gap.
In the 1989 Batman film, they don't tell his origin, except as a brief flashback lasting a couple of seconds halfway through the film. Otherwise, Batman was already well-established in Gotham when the film started. (To be sure, it was something of an origin film for the Joker, but even with him they don't start at his childhood; he's already established as a big shot in Gotham criminal circles even before the accident. Certainly we didn't watch his mother in the delivery room giving birth to little Jackie Napier, like we did with Kal-El)
More specifically, what I have a problem with is spending a significant portion of a first film on the origin, rather than having it be just an introduction to an established hero. There's nothing there that requires a half-hour of screen time to explain. When literally nobody in the world knew who Superman was, his origin was told in only one page (http://ifanboy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Action-Comics-Vol.-1-1-1938.jpg). And that's all you need to know right there.
And that's all they should need to include for a Superman movie. You can go back and fill in details later, but there's no need to have your lead character wandering around for an hour before finally getting into costume.
Quote from: Thunder Glove on July 05, 2013, 08:52:08 AM
More specifically, what I have a problem with is spending a significant portion of a first film on the origin, rather than having it be just an introduction to an established hero. There's nothing there that requires a half-hour of screen time to explain. When literally nobody in the world knew who Superman was, his origin was told in only one page (http://ifanboy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Action-Comics-Vol.-1-1-1938.jpg). And that's all you need to know right there.
And that's all they should need to include for a Superman movie. You can go back and fill in details later, but there's no need to have your lead character wandering around for an hour before finally getting into costume.
I wholeheartedly agree, but it seems that filmmakers want to over-explore the origin as a means to create pathos. I would prefer they develop the character and the audience's attachment to said character in the here and now rather than spend 1/4+ of the movie on prologue and flashback, because otherwise they run the risk of avoiding more relevant character development and we end up with Superman kissing Lois Lane for no other reason than it's Superman and Lois Lane.
Some times an origin story can work for a Super Hero film. The Tom Jane Punisher film (Which I consider the one, true Punisher movie) told the story of how Frank Castle became The Punisher and made that the centerpiece of the plot, as it involved Tom Jane's Frank Castle not simply walking up to John Travolta and shooting him, but deliberately tearing down everything Travolta's character had ever loved and cared about.
Punishing him, if you will.
It's just a shame that film flopped, because it really was crafted with love and understanding of the character. The only hokey part came at the end with the exploding cars in the shape of a skull. Beyond that? It's a brilliant film, does its character justice (Too often Frank Castle is portrayed as nothing more then a psychopath - even in his own comics), has several scenes directly lifted from the comics (The interrogation with a Popsicle scene and the fight with the Russian), and manages to even be a love letter to the action films of the 1970s (a la Death Wish).
I much preferred War Zone, and somewhat prefer the cheesy Dolph Lundgren film. About the only thing I liked about Thomas Jane's Punisher was the fight with the Russian. Part of it was that Jane himself just didn't make a convincing Punisher for me, and part of it is that I'll always think of the movie as the worst episode of Friends I've seen. And thus, for me, any origin story they wasted time on in that movie was overshadowed completely.
They do and then redo origin stories because it's all a retread of the hero's journey: the favorite classic story of the populous. Star Wars (1977), Star Trek (2009), Die Hard (1988), and even Dumb and Dumber (1994), sort of...
It's how Hollywood and story tellers in general get us to root for the hero. Anyway, that' s my take on it.
Also...I liked the Man of Steel, but it was lacking that basic sense of hope that Superman symbolizes.
Peace!
Quote from: primeknight on July 06, 2013, 05:59:57 AM
They do and then redo origin stories because it's all a retread of the hero's journey: the favorite classic story of the populous. Star Wars (1977), Star Trek (2009), Die Hard (1988), and even Dumb and Dumber (1994), sort of...
It's how Hollywood and story tellers in general get us to root for the hero. Anyway, that' s my take on it.
Also...I liked the Man of Steel, but it was lacking that basic sense of hope that Superman symbolizes.
Its box office seems to be reflecting that too - it started off very strongly, but it's fallen away quite sharply, and it'll struggle to make 300 million domestically now.
When you've got the most iconic superhero ever created as the star of your brand new show, you really shouldn't be getting destroyed by the 3rd entry in the Iron Man franchise.
Oh, now that I can explain.
Iron Man is fun. It doesn't take itself terribly seriously. They *know* it's a comic book, and just go with it.
Whereas this Superman and Nolanverse Batman wants to go with the nitty gritty "No, really, this could be real and such."
Which is nifty to watch once in a theatre, but not twice. Excepting The Dark Knight, and THAT, friends, was due to Heath Ledger being completely, utterly awesome beyond words with his Joker, not Christian Bale and his Batman, nor Two Face. Nope. All about the Joker.
Ditto with Iron Man, you just.. can't help it, you WANT to see RDJ be all bad ass and overly cocky. He IS Iron Man. Born for that part. And he is goood at it.
/Hell, I wanna go see IM3 tomorrow now. :)
//Just watched Avengers again a couple of nights ago on Netflix... no reason. It showed up and I said... "IMMA WATCH IT AGAIN!!" *click*
Quote from: houtex on July 07, 2013, 04:42:39 AM
Oh, now that I can explain.
Iron Man is fun. It doesn't take itself terribly seriously. They *know* it's a comic book, and just go with it.
Whereas this Superman and Nolanverse Batman wants to go with the nitty gritty "No, really, this could be real and such."
And I wouldn't be totally surprised if this un-Superman Superman movie was the result of WB using the flawless logic of "Nolan's Batman trilogy was very successful, Superman Returns and Green Lantern weren't very successful = DC characters only work with the Nolanverse treatment".
Also, it's not just Iron Man that doesn't take itself too seriously and knows that it's a comic book - the entire Marvel movie universe pretty much sticks to that line, include their recent take on the same aliens-attack-large-American-city storyline.
And, unlike Man of Steel, it didn't feel the need to film almost everything in a cold, washed-out, faintly blue-gray lifeless palette to try and be deep, artistic and profound, almost as if it was trying to distance itself from the bright, vibrant and dynamic source material.
Of course, even the awesomeness of RDJ can't make me want to see Iron Man 2 again.
And I, too, almost watched Avengers again when it popped up on Netflix. But then I started watching Fringe instead.
Quote from: houtex on July 07, 2013, 04:42:39 AM
Which is nifty to watch once in a theatre, but not twice. Excepting The Dark Knight, and THAT, friends, was due to Heath Ledger being completely, utterly awesome beyond words with his Joker, not Christian Bale and his Batman, nor Two Face. Nope. All about the Joker.
I'd disagree there. I got the biggest "kick" out of watching Harvey's fall from grace. Joker was the side show - the admittedly fun side show, but still a side show.
Also, The Dark Knight functions as a good movie on its own merits without any attachment to the Batman franchise. Replace Bruce/Batman with a FBI Agent and the Joker with any mayhem causing Hollywood Terrorist and you've still got the exact same movie. It's a good Drama.
The problem with the Nolan Batfilms is they are (ironically) the byproduct of another age. Batman Begins came out in 2005. Iron Man came out in 2008, when the neo-Super Hero Film revolution began. The Nolanverse is still operating on the same principles that created X-Men and the Raimi Spider-Man Trilogy. And Warner Bros has been very slow to grasp how much Marvel Studios has changed the nature of the medium.
WB and DC seem intent on pushing away the bright, primary colors and tropes of comic books. Disney and Marvel are actively embracing them.
QuoteOf course, even the awesomeness of RDJ can't make me want to see Iron Man 2 again.
I put Iron Man 2 in the same category I put The Dark Knight Rises - Unnecessary Sequels are completely Unnecessary.
Quote from: Rust on July 07, 2013, 08:47:00 AM
I'd disagree there. I got the biggest "kick" out of watching Harvey's fall from grace. Joker was the side show - the admittedly fun side show, but still a side show.
They kinda crammed Harvey's fall in. It felt rushed to me, and was ultimately overshadowed by the Joker. And as much as I enjoyed Heath Ledger's performance (enough to forgive the aesthetic they went with for the character, which I still dislike on its own), I think the movie would've been better served had the Joker been treated as a 'side show'.
QuoteAlso, The Dark Knight functions as a good movie on its own merits without any attachment to the Batman franchise. Replace Bruce/Batman with a FBI Agent and the Joker with any mayhem causing Hollywood Terrorist and you've still got the exact same movie. It's a good Drama.
And now you have me drawing comparisons in my head between The Dark Knight and, of all things, Speed. Thanks for that. ;P
Quote from: Tenzhi on July 07, 2013, 09:42:53 AM
And now you have me drawing comparisons in my head between The Dark Knight and, of all things, Speed. Thanks for that. ;P
(https://images.weserv.nl/?url=replygif.net%2Fi%2F537.gif)
Whoa.
Quote from: Golden Girl on July 07, 2013, 05:54:49 AM
And I wouldn't be totally surprised if this un-Superman Superman movie was the result of WB using the flawless logic of "Nolan's Batman trilogy was very successful, Superman Returns and Green Lantern weren't very successful = DC characters only work with the Nolanverse treatment".
Also, it's not just Iron Man that doesn't take itself too seriously and knows that it's a comic book - the entire Marvel movie universe pretty much sticks to that line, include their recent take on the same aliens-attack-large-American-city storyline.
And, unlike Man of Steel, it didn't feel the need to film almost everything in a cold, washed-out, faintly blue-gray lifeless palette to try and be deep, artistic and profound, almost as if it was trying to distance itself from the bright, vibrant and dynamic source material.
Oh, goodness yes. Reminds me of Star Trek:Generations, where they apparently had to cut the lights off to save money or something. SO badly lit.
And don't forget the grainy film look. I mean, really. Digital this, digital that... and you grain up the footage?
Perhaps it was the theatre I went to... no, wait, the other stuff before the movie was crystal clear, so... nope, they did it on purpose. Grr.
/Maybe I need my eyes checked...?
Quote from: Tenzhi on July 07, 2013, 09:42:53 AM
And now you have me drawing comparisons in my head between The Dark Knight and, of all things, Speed. Thanks for that. ;P
...
It fits.
It really, really fits.
I think I'll only offer this one thing to this thread...
When referring to these DC films... it should be "realistic"... not realistic.
Excessive air quotes and eye-rolling is acceptable.
I've seen the movie four times. I wasn't a huge fan of Lois and how she knew Superman's identity before he was Superman, before he worked at the planet, and heck, before she even knew him. And the suit could have incorporated the red in the waste area, but I did like how the suit kinda had it's own origin. That it was actually the same suit his father wore, minus the armor, and plus the color.
I have to say, at first, Shannon's portrayal of Zod was a bit strange to me, but by the end of the first viewing, I liked it. Clark's/Kal's dads were both amazing. As FatherX said, the origin works. And it works well.
I can see Luthor being in the next film, but because he has such a rich history (as is seen in Smallville), I don't know if it should be as the antagonist. I think their best bet would be to introduce him as a friendly guy, but by the end of the film, he begins to Supes as a threat. Of course, that is if this is going to be a trilogy. If they keep their plans of doing just two films, then Justice League, then Luthor should definitely be the next bad guy.
After that, I think the coolest thing they could do would be to have the JLA movie have Doomsday. That would be sweet.
I'd like to see Manchester Black and the only person who could ever play him in my mind would be Christopher Eccleston. Trying to figure out who would make a great Lex. I'm thinking Patrick Wilson, who, funny enough, is married to the woman who played Mercedes in Count of Monte Cristo, mother to Henry Cavill's character ;D. Luthor's tricky. He's gotta be clever and deranged like Hannibal Lecter, brilliant on the order of Tony Stark, with all the business acumen of Gordon Gekko. A close second would be Rufus Sewell.
I want to see Luthor be an adversary, but not necessarily a villain. Namely akin to how he was in Superman: The Animated Series. He was directly responsible for many threats to both Metropolis and Superman, but he never got his hands dirty and ensured nothing could stick to him.
Plus, given the property damage seen in Man of Steel, Luthor's rhetoric about Superman being a threat to public safety has some weight behind it.
The difference between the batman movies and the superman movie. Is that I am not having a metaphor for the social contract being shoved down my throat for 2 hours. Too bad Thomas Hobbes wasn't around for the new Batman movies, he would of loved them.
Speaking of metaphors, why must everyone draw comparisons and similarities between Superman and Jesus whenever a new movie comes out? I mean I get why. They're messianic saviors with great powers who embody all the good traits of humanity yadda yadda. Yeah, it's obvious someone's gonna go there. But do you have to? I mean, come on. Why can't I watch a Superman movie and it just be a Superman movie? And it's not enough that we would have made the connection naturally but both Bryan Singer and Zack Snyder laid it on a little thick with their imagery in their films. I'm not particularly religious but don't get me wrong, I'm not one of the types who gets up in arms when it somehow winds up making its way onto my plate. I just think that discussion's been done to death and that while it's natural to make the connection between two such iconic figures, at the end of the day, Superman was created as a mythos all its own and not to be propped up against a biblical backdrop.
Because all the stories have been told, it's just a matter of rehashing them. Superman as Savior still sells. Pretty much all there is to it.
There's nothing stopping you from watching a Superman movie (which this isn't) and taking it as a Superman movie alone (again, isn't.) Heck, the whole Superman as Jesus never entered my mind... I was just watching it and enjoyed it. Also I understood it wasn't Superman, but Kal-El, which helped. I *wanted* new eyes on it. I like he's not, specifically, Superman, and wasn't shown as such.
/Yes, I'm gonna drive that Kal-El point home. It's important to note, and yet, y'all keep calling it a Superman movie (which it never was.)
Quote from: houtex on July 12, 2013, 04:13:29 AM
/Yes, I'm gonna drive that Kal-El point home. It's important to note, and yet, y'all keep calling it a Superman movie (which it never was.)
They should change the title to Last Son of Krypton if they want it to be a Kal-El movie. Superman is the Man of Steel. Or the Man of Tomorrow (wonder if that will be the name of the sequel, if there is one).
Quote from: Tenzhi on July 12, 2013, 09:55:02 AM
the sequel, if there is one.
I'm pretty sure that they'll have already green lit one - just like all studios sign up the casts of blockbusters for 3 movies before the first one's even been made.
Plus, WB have a track record of this - they green lit the pre-production of "Batman Triumphant" because they were so impressed with what they saw during the making of "Batman and Robin", and also green lit a sequel to "Superman Returns" before shooting on it was even completed.
It's beyond the green light stage. It's pretty much a forgone conclusion given that the movie earned passed the half a billion mark and it can be considered the first stepping stone towards a JL movie.
BTW, did anyone else think Henry Cavill did a pretty decent job? A lot of the reviews I've read have stated he's just eye candy and that he was wooden as a tree trunk but I think he made for a great portrayal as a mid-western American, one that was brought up with respect and humility, especially since he was raised abroad. If I didn't already know he was from the U.K. I would have been properly fooled. And this carried over when he put on the costume. As ostentatious as it was, you can tell he didn't suffer from hubris and that Clark was still a small town man about to reveal his existence to the world.
This is one thing Christopher Reeve wasn't able to convey. Even when I was little it didn't ring true to me that Superman wouldn't be shy to use his x-ray vision to tell Lois what color her underwear was. Make no mistake, this Superman was flirty, intrepid, and smooth, which for me, does not a big blue boy scout make.
Quote from: Magus Prime on July 12, 2013, 09:16:17 PM
It's beyond the green light stage. It's pretty much a forgone conclusion given that the movie earned passed the half a billion mark and it can be considered the first stepping stone towards a JL movie.
Which shows how poorly thought out their long term vision is - if they even have one. This scowling, humorless wannabe "profound" art style won't work for the JLA - they'll need to change it if they want to get anywhere near the Avengers.
QuoteMake no mistake, this Superman was flirty, intrepid, and smooth, which for me, does not a big blue boy scout make.
That's what a lot of the complaints are about :P
Quote... it didn't ring true to me that Superman wouldn't be shy to use his x-ray vision to tell Lois what color her underwear was.
Yeah, back then, that was an example of how the filmmakers tried to update Superman to be more contemporary for the movie-going audience of the day. They made Lois "edgier", too. In the same scene, when Superman says he's here to "fight for truth, justice, and the American way", she sasses, "You're gonna end up fighting every elected official in this country!" I read an interview with Julius Schwartz, long-time editor with National Periodical Publications, in which he stated he hated that "Superman II" showed Superman and Lois in bed... he argued, they had already flown together in "Superman: The Movie", and that's how superheroes did it.
What was touted as risque in 1978 now seems tame, particularly to the audience that embraced "Man of Steel". As for me, I won't pay to see a sequel. Sitting through MoS was enough to know, I will not like it.
Quote from: Golden Girl on July 13, 2013, 01:12:33 AMThat's what a lot of the complaints are about :P
Are you saying that a lot of the complaints that are out there right now are about Chris Reeve's Superman being too flirty and cavalier? Because I believe his portrayal was, but I have a hard time believing it's a hot button topic in this day and age. The other way to interpret your statement is that you misunderstood what I was saying and you may have thought I was referring to Cavill being so bold which is, in fact, quite the opposite. And to which, I must reply, I thought I told you to "make no mistake". :P
Christopher Reeves' Superman was a 30 year old man. Far more sure of himself than Cavill's Superman who was still caught up in the uncertainties of youth and identity, magnified by his unique origin (not sure what age they were going for but it felt like early twenties). I prefer the more self-assured Superman, personally.
That said, I think Cavill made a decent enough Superman, but we didn't really get to see if he'd make a good Clark Kent reporter for the Daily Planet. WeGot to see Clark Kent - guest star of a few reality shows on the Discovery channel, but no one likes that guy.
Not to nitpick as I'm sure you'll recall Cavill's Superman was also in his 30's. I think Reeve and Donner just imagined Supes to be a confident and assertive person whereas Cavill nailed it with a more reserved and humble characterization. To further contrast the two, Donner's version aimed to fight for "truth, justice, and the American way" while Snyder's version is simply "here to help".
Quote from: Magus Prime on July 13, 2013, 10:22:24 AM
Not to nitpick as I'm sure you'll recall Cavill's Superman was also in his 30's. I think Reeve and Donner just imagined Supes to be a confident and assertive person whereas Cavill nailed it with a more reserved and humble characterization. To further contrast the two, Donner's version aimed to fight for "truth, justice, and the American way" while Snyder's version is simply "here to help".
I don't recall them specifying his age, and the timeline as presented was extraordinarily disjointed. Hence why I said I wasn't sure what they were going for. One of Superman's iconic poses is standing tall, hands on his hips, chest proudly displayed with an almost self-satisfied smile on his face. If Superman radiated any more confidence he would empower everyone around him with flight, super strength, etc. (and with the help of some lightning he just might do anyway). Save the uncertainty and overt humility for Clark Kent mode.
Reeves' Clark Kent went into the FoS as a late teenager and came out some 10+ years later after being taught by the fat man Jor-El.
Cavill's Clark Kent found the ship and was fighting Zod within months at best.
Quote from: Tenzhi on July 13, 2013, 12:51:44 PM
I don't recall them specifying his age, and the timeline as presented was extraordinarily disjointed.
When he's being detained in the interrogation room with Lois and General Swanwick expresses his concerns over alien pathogens and Clark says something along the lines of "I've been here 33 years and no one's been sick yet."
Quote from: Magus Prime on July 13, 2013, 08:48:06 PM
When he's being detained in the interrogation room with Lois and General Swanwick expresses his concerns over alien pathogens and Clark says something along the lines of "I've been here 33 years and no one's been sick yet."
On Zod's ship or something I think they mentioned that he'd had x number of years to adapt to the atmosphere, too. But the specified amount fell out of my head and all I'm left with is the impression of youthful uncertainty. Possibly cemented by the entire film's coming-of-age kind of story.
Quote from: Tenzhi on July 13, 2013, 09:51:37 PM
On Zod's ship or something I think they mentioned that he'd had x number of years to adapt to the atmosphere, too. But the specified amount fell out of my head and all I'm left with is the impression of youthful uncertainty. Possibly cemented by the entire film's coming-of-age kind of story.
I'm 33, so I thought it was coincidental that he was 33 as well. The movie age of superman kind of stuck with me like that.
... now that I think about it, how did Clark get hired at the Daily Planet? He has no experience in journalism (or work history of any kind - all his previous jobs were under assumed names, so he couldn't list them) and no college degree.
Clark as a reporter was something that made sense back in the 1930s, when newspapers were the best way to stay connected with what was happening in the world, and the post-Crisis comics portrayed journalism as something he actually wanted to do since he was in high school, not part of his Superman persona.
But in Man of Steel, he seems to become a reporter only because the audience expects Clark Kent to be a reporter.
So, bam, he's suddenly a reporter, with no justification of any kind.
Ok... that's a very good question. I like it.
And the answer is... as much as we'd like to think previous incarnations of Superman never lied... he did. All the time. He was Clark Kent, and hid his being Kal-El/Superman from everyone, including Lois Lane. Basically, lying about his real persona, one way or another. "Pfft, I'm not Superman, as if!" "Clark? Who's that?"
So this Kal-El... the one that steals clothes from a line (without knowing if he took them back or paid for them later)... the one that destroys a $12 Million USD drone as a show of "I'm bigger than you, knock it off with you're trying to spy on me" and does so with a LOT of close danger to the people he's showing off to... The one who *changes his identity all the time* and gets a new job when his heroing has happened. (and doing that takes forgery and lying/misdirection)...
Yeah. I'd pretty much guess it'd be no problem to fake his credentials... And then get them in his spare time to make it legit if he must.
Although journalistic integrity would be... an interesting concept to uphold in this iteration.
I don't know if anyone brought this up (it didn't look like it), but while I'm not one to pick apart a movie's plot holes, I was wondering if someone could explain the following to me:
The scout ship in the ice is 20,000 years old, so.. how does Superman get his suit? And how does Jor-El's hologram function still? Is the key/technology he uses backwards compatible with that ship's technology despite how big of a time gap it is? Because the film never implies it one way or the other, and it is my best guess to make sense of it. Someone told me it stands to reason that the time gap compatibility can be explained by the fact that its plausible that the technology used may not have needed any further refining and that they've been using it for thousands of years without change.
Quote from: Sleepy Wonder on July 17, 2013, 09:08:17 PM
I don't know if anyone brought this up (it didn't look like it), but while I'm not one to pick apart a movie's plot holes, I was wondering if someone could explain the following to me:
The scout ship in the ice is 20,000 years old, so.. how does Superman get his suit? And how does Jor-El's hologram function still? Is the key/technology he uses backwards compatible with that ship's technology despite how big of a time gap it is? Because the film never implies it one way or the other, and it is my best guess to make sense of it. Someone told me it stands to reason that the time gap compatibility can be explained by the fact that its plausible that the technology used may not have needed any further refining and that they've been using it for thousands of years without change.
I have wondered about that myself. I think that basically their society had stagnated both biologically and technologically. I assume technology hasn't changed much in thousands of years. I also figure that Jor-El's hologram had the ship make the suit.
Things that I want to know: is Jor-El the only one who knew about the effects of the uyellow sun? If not, why didn't the Kryptonians make colonies on planets with yellow suns? Of hundreds (thousands?) of failed colonies, none was in a system with a yellow sun?
Also, the skinsuits make Kryptonians almost as powerful as Superman. So at the beginning, why can Zod and Jor-El punch each other in their unprotected heads without brains splattering everywhere?
Scout ship is old, but the tech is there. Jor-El's programming along with the nano-tech in the ship can make a suit. The programming is semi-sentient, far more advanced that anything we got, so yes, it can be made to be backwards compatible... and that is also far outstripping what we got. When the Kryptonians are being made according to what function they're going to be doing, and not just naturally born anymore, there's a stagnation there that was implied. They'd been coasting for more than the 20,000 years, which is what was the big heretical deal with Jor-El and Lara making a baby themselves.
I can't speak as to why Jor-El and Lara did that, exactly, except to see if it could be done. One wonders why the Kryptonian race as a whole didn't wind up being a genderless mix of male/female androgeny with the same looks for everyone...
Then again, a society who stops breeding but makes their progeny, one wonders WHY there were soldiers at all... except to conquer OTHER worlds, not their own... Or defense... but you'd genetically manipulate them to do that and that alone... not war against their people... right?
Hm. There is a lot about Man of Steel that I'm starting to thinkg was a bad BAD plot device, and I'm beginning to agree with others... this movie sucked in a whole lotta ways.
/Still can't wait for part 2. :)
Oh please. Now you guys are really reaching to find fault with this movie. I'm sure one could find many things wrong with ANY movie if you picked at the nits hard enough.
What's wrong with just kicking back and watching a movie? If you don't like it, that's cool, not everyone likes the same thing. Just don't over-analyze it and try to convince everyone else that they should have your opinion.
Quote from: JetFlash on July 19, 2013, 05:50:31 PM
I'm sure one could find many things wrong with ANY movie if you picked at the nits hard enough.
http://problemswithavengers.blogspot.com
Ok, GG. Mary Poppins. Don't give us that thing about the author, just the movie itself. Go!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T5_0AGdFic (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T5_0AGdFic)
:D
Quote from: JetFlash on July 19, 2013, 05:50:31 PM
What's wrong with just kicking back and watching a movie? If you don't like it, that's cool, not everyone likes the same thing. Just don't over-analyze it and try to convince everyone else that they should have your opinion.
It's not like we're sitting in the movie theatre as we type or anything. Chances are most of us did just kick back and watch it initially (not houtex, though - he was probably doing complex analyses of that gravity pulse thing and how that's a terrible way to terraform, and figuring out reasons why the foliage in Kansas wasn't right, all while getting a popcorn refill using telekinesis ;) ). Over-analysis comes later - it's a movie version of "replay value". Saying "Meh, it was okay" and leaving it at that is far less interesting than dissecting it and arguing over the bits and pieces.
Quote from: FatherXmas on June 14, 2013, 08:01:38 AM
Came from the Midnight 2D showing.
Warner Brothers should immediately create a DC movie division and pay SynCopy whatever they want to be a production consultant. The movie is excellent. Don't care what the fanboys may think. I love how they dealt with the Lois situation. The fights were excellent but still gritty. The revamped origin works.
Sure, people will compare it to the 2nd Reeves film because of Zod. He is a product of what he is and unfortunately that makes him evil in our morality.
And I can see the 2nd movie now. And yes, I'm betting Luthor as the antagonist but as the industrialist, someone who honestly considers Superman as a threat to mankind. He'll be the major force behind rebuilding Metropolis (which gets significantly crushed with massive losses of life, 10s of thousands if not more).
Like I said, the back story works. It jumps back and forth between Clark "finding" himself, doing the whole David Banner/Hulk wandering thing, and episodes about him growing up.
Russell Crow was great as Jor-El. Keven Costner was a great Pa Kent. Amy Adams was a great Lois Lane and lastly Henry Cavill is the best Superman ever, including Christopher Reeves. Now maybe that's because his Superman/Clark is NOT corny at all and he doesn't strike me as someone who would skip off planet and find a son when he gets back.
Go see. Must see. This IS the Superman fans have always wanted to see. Yes they strayed from decades of dogma but they made it work.
Previews included RIPD, 2nd Hobbit film and Catching Fire.
father Xmas.. I almost can't believe your stance on this.
the newest superman movie is a prime example of whats wrong with the movie/game industry; they spend all their time working on the special effects and none on the plot or causality. it's like saying a good movie is all about graphics :-\ , obviously it's not, but your post praising this movie indicates otherwise.
I can see plot development as the story unfolds, often times with a poorly designed movie I can expect the ending plot long before it's revealed.
I was able to do that with man of steel.
inconsistensies with the original superman story;
Lois lane does not know who superman is. in the movie she figures it out rather fast.
Superman's homeworld doesn't get destroyed by implosion, the cities get shrunk causing superman to make it his goal to somehow someday find a fix for this problem.
Superman's race is not a bunch of planet hoppers. Krypton was thier only homeworld.
and probably some others, I don;t have time to give a full discourse on how they molested the story for this film.
this story was a intended subliminal message:
"sometimes you have to kill to be a hero"
"sometimes you need to sacrifice unborn lives to save lives" - abortion message
"the government is good"
and probably some other sinister plots, after watching this movie.. I can see how far society has transgessed, this whole 'darkness is cool' thing has some really evil intentions behind it.
Quote from: Joshex on July 20, 2013, 02:32:30 PM
father Xmas.. I almost can't believe your stance on this.
the newest superman movie is a prime example of whats wrong with the movie/game industry; they spend all their time working on the special effects and none on the plot or causality. it's like saying a good movie is all about graphics :-\ , obviously it's not, but your post praising this movie indicates otherwise.
I can see plot development as the story unfolds, often times with a poorly designed movie I can expect the ending plot long before it's revealed.
I was able to do that with man of steel.
inconsistensies with the original superman story;
Lois lane does not know who superman is. in the movie she figures it out rather fast.
Superman's homeworld doesn't get destroyed by implosion, the cities get shrunk causing superman to make it his goal to somehow someday find a fix for this problem.
Superman's race is not a bunch of planet hoppers. Krypton was thier only homeworld.
and probably some others, I don;t have time to give a full discourse on how they molested the story for this film.
this story was a intended subliminal message:
"sometimes you have to kill to be a hero"
"sometimes you need to sacrifice unborn lives to save lives" - abortion message
"the government is good"
and probably some other sinister plots, after watching this movie.. I can see how far society has transgessed, this whole 'darkness is cool' thing has some really evil intentions behind it.
And then sometimes it's just a summer blockbuster we're all meant to enjoy. I get there are overtones and alternate messages in any film but the fact is that some of these speak more strongly to others. Who's to say Father Xmas was condoning these messages by liking the film? I personally didn't pick up on the abortion thing. Honestly, I thought it was understood that when we're talking that level of power, a fight would bring about some serious wanton destruction. People are going to get hurt and people are going to die.
I don't mean for this to sound like an insult or indictment to anyone, I think superman fans are some of the more implacable fans, steeped in tradition, and just as stalwart in their vision of an icon, which is a laudable trait. Unfortunately, this clashes with the ever evolving taste of the modern audience. It gets harder and harder, as movie goers preferences become more discerning, to accept that the sum total collateral damage from a super powered tussle is a toupeé flying off and a roller skater getting blown backwards.
Quote from: Joshex on July 20, 2013, 02:32:30 PMinconsistensies with the original superman story;
Lois lane does not know who superman is. in the movie she figures it out rather fast.
I actually liked that. We don't need more Silver Age nonsense of "Lois loves Superman but rejects Clark". In fact, I liked that she learned who he was before he even became Superman.
But Lois knew who Superman was for a couple of decades in the 1990s through the end of the 2000s, and they were even married in the comics from 1996 to 2012. It was retconned only with the New 52 reboot, but most of the recent animated movies still have Lois and Clark as a couple (with Lois fully in on his secret) as the status quo.
QuoteSuperman's homeworld doesn't get destroyed by implosion, the cities get shrunk causing superman to make it his goal to somehow someday find a fix for this problem.
Superman's planet blows up in every single version of the story. Brainiac shrinking and stealing a single city (Kandor, usually) before it blows up is sometimes part of it, but there's no version of Superman's origin where the planet doesn't blow up at all.
QuoteSuperman's race is not a bunch of planet hoppers. Krypton was thier only homeworld.
Varies from take to take. Superman's origin has been rewritten a dozen times since he was first created in 1939. (The original 1930s version, for example, said that Kryptonians were so powerful on Earth because that's simply how they'd evolved. They were just as powerful on Krypton as on Earth)
In fact, Kryptonians are shown as launching colony ships back in the 1990s Adventures of Superman cartoon (which makes Argo a separate colonized planet rather than a city on Krypton that survived the explosion by improbable means), but even if it hadn't been done before, but that doesn't mean it's "wrong", just as it's not "wrong" for Kryptonians to have no powers on Krypton.
And the same goes for every aspect. You can't nitpick the little things, because Superman has been around for over 80 years and his backstory has changed a dozen times since then. Man of Steel just another alternate take on the story, another parallel universe where things went a little differently.
I had some issues with the movie (the sheer scale of the destructiveness, the constant Jesus imagery, and some things that just didn't make sense when thinking about it), but deviations from the dozen previous versions of his origin story were not among them.
Quote from: Magus Prime on July 20, 2013, 07:34:32 PM
And then sometimes it's just a summer blockbuster we're all meant to enjoy. I get there are overtones and alternate messages in any film but the fact is that some of these speak more strongly to others. Who's to say Father Xmas was condoning these messages by liking the film? I personally didn't pick up on the abortion thing. Honestly, I thought it was understood that when we're talking that level of power, a fight would bring about some serious wanton destruction. People are going to get hurt and people are going to die.
I don't mean for this to sound like an insult or indictment to anyone, I think superman fans are some of the more implacable fans, steeped in tradition, and just as stalwart in their vision of an icon, which is a laudable trait. Unfortunately, this clashes with the ever evolving taste of the modern audience. It gets harder and harder, as movie goers preferences become more discerning, to accept that the sum total collateral damage from a super powered tussle is a toupeé flying off and a roller skater getting blown backwards.
my point is that; it seems more and more effort is put into subliminal conditioning and less and less effort is put into plot development.
you know whats better than any of the new superman stories? a definitive version.
thats what hollywood directors weill never make case it doesn't suit thier tastes. they like to make movies based on some fever enduced weird dream they had. it needs to stop.
Just read the good news that the sequel is gonna have a Batman! Hooray! That's awesome I love it! And such a smart move on several levels. This will bring everything in line for a JL movie sooner and it's one less separate film they have to make.
Now for the part that makes my heart sink a little bit. In the article I read, Harry Lennox (General Swanwick, Commander Lock in the Matrix movies) was asked to read a passage from Dark Knight to further whet ComicCon goers' appetites. I'm left with a moral quandary that nags at me and should merit its own Star Trek: TNG episode. I strongly feel we need to stop referencing Frank Miller. It's been the rumblings of a lot of comic book critics that he uses his stories as vehicles for his own ignorance. Atop that, he's also wayyyy overrated. (I'm the godda** Batman anyone?) I don't want to turn this into a political thing. Let me say that again. I DON'T WANT TO TURN THIS INTO A POLITICAL THING!!! I only want to say that Frank Miller, for all his contributions, has become irrelevant, outdated, obsolete, and IMO we've all outgrown him.
Subliminal messaging? Really? Is the Illuminati behind it this time or the Greys?
SMOF controlled by the Gnomes of Zurich with their orbiting mind control lasers.
This announcement of a team up with Batman seems a little left-field - while it's an obvious movie to make eventually, it seems kinda rushed to go straight into it from MoS - plus, by bringing in a non-powered partner, it might cramp the range of traditional Superman enemies that they could bring in.
And of course there's also a pretty high chance that the 2 of them will fight each other at some point on the movie, so it'll be interesting to see how they hand the human vs godlike being angle to create a plausible and interesting fight.
When are you going to do Justice League?
When are you going to do Justice League?
When are you going to do Justice League?
When are you going to do Justice League?
When are you going to do Justice League?
When are you going to do Justice League?
When are you going to do Justice League?
When are you going to do Justice League?
Here, Batman, Superman, same movie. Now shut up so we can figure out a story.
The good news is I think this can be a good step to set up a Justice League movie without having to go through an intro movie for all the characters. On the other hand I thing they are being tone deaf to the criticisms of MoS and are going to continue with their cynical view of realism.
This move makes more sense if viewed from WB's perspective - the Nolanverse Batman is their most successful DC adaption, so when their attempt at a Nolanverse Superman failed to match the critical and commercial success of the Nolanverse Batman, the next logics step was to make a Superman movie with Batman in it.
Ya, but, in Nolanverse, Batman retired and is living the rest of his life peacefully in Paris with Selina Kyle. (Plus, he has hardly any knee cartilage. And, he had retired previously for seven years.)
So, is he gonna unretire to team with Supes? Will Robin John Blake assume the Batman mantle? Does the audience need to be concerned about where in Nolan's Batman chronology this super-team-up takes place?
For that matter, where was Batman when the Kryptonians invaded? Shouldn't a threat to end all life on Earth have drawn Bruce out of retirement? Did he just stay in Gay Paree and drink wine with Selina?
Despite Nolan being executive producer for Man of Steel, I don't think it's set in the same universe as the Dark Knight films. This is a more "realistic" (I use the term loosely) take on Superman, but it's not as "realistic" as the Nolan-Batverse. As soon as you throw flying aliens into the mix, the whole setting goes out the window.
A "realistic" Batman only works in the Nolan-Batverse, where everyone else is just as "realistic". A Batman/Superman movie, by necessity, has to present a Batman closer to the version in the Brave and the Bold cartoon - not in terms of being campy, but in terms of knowing that he's living in a high-powered world, and being equipped to deal with that.
Trying to come up with a threat that will be a challenge to Superman but won't instantly splatter a "realistic" Batman all over scenery is somewhere between difficult and impossible, but if Batman is wearing body armor, flying around on a jetpack, and throwing exploding Batarangs, then it becomes more feasible.
Quote from: Golden Girl on July 19, 2013, 06:58:25 PM
http://problemswithavengers.blogspot.com
I looked through it, and nothing I've seen listed is an actual problem, other than "something the author didn't like". He isn't just nitpicking, he's making up "problems" just for filler, most of which I answer "Who the heck cares?", and the rest I answer "you have no imagination or sense of humor". I could go through just about every thing he lists and debunk it. I won't because I'm not going to waste any more of my time on it.
Since Kal-El isn't your typical Kal-El in MoS, I pretty much doubt they're going to have your typical Bruce Wayne here. Heck, Batman could be Terry McGinnis, and never even MET a Bruce Wayne. He's a product of a military organization, or something like CADMUS, and that's how he comes to be. A mis-mash of things that lead to *a* Batman, but not *the* Batman.
Or perhaps it is Bruce Wayne, who went into the military as a troubled, but rich, orphan to learn to fight and play with techy stuff, so he could then be the vigilante he wants to be... in which case, the Kal-El/Batman fight would make more sense, in that Kal-El is asked to deal with this vigilante? Maybe. Or perhaps Bruce is asked to take his stuff and go try to stop Kal-El (Incredible Hulk plotline, anyone?) and then it turns into respect, if not trust, between the two to fight a larger problem... Lex making a Bizarro, say, from recovered Kryptonian tech layin' about Metropolis or the other side of the Earth.
Among a few other ideas I have in my head....
That would just move the story further and further away from any resemblance to the DC universe, and make any Justice League movie more and more of a problem.
Quote from: JetFlash on July 23, 2013, 12:34:38 AM
I looked through it, and nothing I've seen listed is an actual problem, other than "something the author didn't like". He isn't just nitpicking, he's making up "problems" just for filler, most of which I answer "Who the heck cares?", and the rest I answer "you have no imagination or sense of humor". I could go through just about every thing he lists and debunk it. I won't because I'm not going to waste any more of my time on it.
Agreed. By this person's criteria how does one go about enjoying any movie? I would have to guess the only movie deserving to be on this guy's shelf is Bambi vs. Godzilla because it delivers on its one promise.
Quote from: Magus Prime on July 20, 2013, 07:34:32 PM
...as movie goers preferences become more discerning....
I disagree.
Quote from: Mantic on July 23, 2013, 03:52:27 PM
I disagree.
I'm gonna need you to elaborate... or pull a proper quote with subject and predicate.
Quote from: Magus Prime on July 23, 2013, 08:20:18 AM
Agreed. By this person's criteria how does one go about enjoying any movie? I would have to guess the only movie deserving to be on this guy's shelf is Bambi vs. Godzilla because it delivers on its one promise.
Geez, how oblivious does Bambi have to be to not notice the giant radioactive lizard lumbering at him? And what gawdawful effects, looks like it was drawn on flip paper...
Quote from: Magus Prime on July 23, 2013, 04:54:43 PM
I'm gonna need you to elaborate... or pull a proper quote with subject and predicate.
I'm usually not a fan of sentence fragments myself, but I fully understood and agree with what he was said there, and I think said very well.
Quote from: JetFlash on July 23, 2013, 05:42:58 PM
Geez, how oblivious does Bambi have to be to not notice the giant radioactive lizard lumbering at him? And what gawdawful effects, looks like it was drawn on flip paper...
Lol I stand corrected.
Quote from: Golden Girl on July 23, 2013, 04:43:31 AM
That would just move the story further and further away from any resemblance to the DC universe, and make any Justice League movie more and more of a problem.
Yeah, well, sticking with DC's universe has done so well with the Superman series past Superman 1, as well as Green Lantern, Jonah Hex, and that atrocity of atrocities, Supergirl.. *shudders*. Oh, wait, Catwoman. No, I mean Steel. Even Watchmen didn't do as well as they'd have liked. And that was as close a direct adaptation as you can ask, near as I've heard. (Fantastic movie, ya ask me, though.)
The Batman series had to stop what it was doing after Batman and Robin and reboot. DC had to change Batman to make it relevant again, hence Nolanverse version.
Point is... doing the expected is not necessarily a good thing. Change can be good, and in this case, I bet it is. It will remain to be seen, however.
/Star Trek reboot.
//BSG reboot too.
///TNG while I'm at it.
Quote from: houtex on July 24, 2013, 02:44:40 AM
Yeah, well, sticking with DC's universe has done so well with the Superman series past Superman 1, as well as Green Lantern, Jonah Hex, and that atrocity of atrocities, Supergirl.. *shudders*. Oh, wait, Catwoman. No, I mean Steel. Even Watchmen didn't do as well as they'd have liked. And that was as close a direct adaptation as you can ask, near as I've heard. (Fantastic movie, ya ask me, though.)
Contextually it seems like you would be listing off movies that stuck to the source material, but most of those didn't. It's like we have two sarcastic sentiments at war here: "They've done so well sticking to the source material" and "sticking to the source material has done so well".
I haven't seen Steel, so I'm gonna call Catwoman the worst offender at source material deviation as it seemed to need the DC license about as much as Maximum Overdrive needed the Marvel license.
Quote from: FatherXmas on July 21, 2013, 11:35:14 PM
When are you going to do Justice League?
When are you going to do Justice League?
When are you going to do Justice League?
When are you going to do Justice League?
When are you going to do Justice League?
When are you going to do Justice League?
When are you going to do Justice League?
When are you going to do Justice League?
Here, Batman, Superman, same movie. Now shut up so we can figure out a story.
I personally think that it will take the WB so long to actually get a JLA movie out that by the time they do the general public will be going "They just ripped off the characters from the Squadron Supreme movie Marvel did in 2018" :-)
One thing Whedon confirmed is that Quicksilver will be in the next Avengers movie which kind of steals the Flash's thunder or it will at least make it hard for the DC movies to make super speed look cool on their terms when we will have already seen Pietro treading things up at Mach 7 in Avengers 2.
Well, as ComicCon just showed us, even when DC has a potential show-stealing announcement of a Superman/Batman team-up, Marvel still finds new ways to run rings round them and get all the headlines :P
Quote from: Magus Prime on July 25, 2013, 04:24:34 AM
One thing Whedon confirmed is that Quicksilver will be in the next Avengers movie which kind of steals the Flash's thunder or it will at least make it hard for the DC movies to make super speed look cool on their terms when we will have already seen Pietro treading things up at Mach 7 in Avengers 2.
Only Mach 7? That'd be a leisurely pace for a proper Flash. It's a good deal faster than Quicksilver could run last I paid him any attention, though - as I recall he was topping out at the speed of sound back then. Good on him.
Quote from: Magus Prime on July 25, 2013, 04:24:34 AM
One thing Whedon confirmed is that Quicksilver will be in the next Avengers movie which kind of steals the Flash's thunder or it will at least make it hard for the DC movies to make super speed look cool on their terms when we will have already seen Pietro treading things up at Mach 7 in Avengers 2.
Quicksilver is not that interesting a character. His design is mediocre in terms of recognizability (can any real live actor sport that signature shock of hair, btw, or will he not even have that going for him?. If not associated with Magneto and the Scarlet Witch, I think he'd have faded away with all the other bronze age Marvel third-stringers. He won't be any more interesting as an "also ran" in an Avengers movie.
The Flash has already been onscreen, too, at least the small one.
The real problem with DC is that nobody working on these properties really seems to care for them. They're treated like vehicles for the egos of creators who have "better" ideas, rather than celebrated for how awesome they are in themselves. Marvel has been going the other way. Successful or otherwise, none of their big movies have been about showcasing any director's unique vision, so much as about bringing the characters to the screen and building up the franchise. Warner does not appear to have faith in their properties, and letting the likes of Jim Lee run the actual comic business shows they think of that medium the same way.
Quote from: houtex on July 24, 2013, 02:44:40 AM
Even Watchmen didn't do as well as they'd have liked. And that was as close a direct adaptation as you can ask, near as I've heard. (Fantastic movie, ya ask me, though.)
Watchmen was very well done, about the closest you can get putting a comic book on screen. I didn't care too much for the changed ending (it has some serious logic flaws), but other than that it was excellent. Even certain shots looked exactly like live-action version of iconic panels.
The problem is that the source material itself doesn't have a very wide appeal. It's a dark, gritty story about flawed characters in imperfect situations with no clear way out. Very adult-oriented, no happy endings. If they were expecting it to be a box-office blockbuster then somebody was fooling themselves.
I'm still glad they made it, though.
Quote from: Codewalker on July 25, 2013, 03:15:14 PM
Watchmen was very well done, about the closest you can get putting a comic book on screen. I didn't care too much for the changed ending (it has some serious logic flaws), but other than that it was excellent. Even certain shots looked exactly like live-action version of iconic panels.
The problem is that the source material itself doesn't have a very wide appeal. It's a dark, gritty story about flawed characters in imperfect situations with no clear way out. Very adult-oriented, no happy endings. If they were expecting it to be a box-office blockbuster then somebody was fooling themselves.
I'm still glad they made it, though.
yeah. My favorite comic based movie. Not all cheesy or look like they forced some dark angle.
Kind of like what could be reality in the real world if people took up the mask. At first they probably will be praised then eventually called vigilantes and etc. and not liked very much and it's a decent showing that a hero doesn't need to always be some cheesy eat your Wheaties type dude or some mental killing machine that kill for revenge. Some just have a cynical view of the world, some a bright feel lonely and like they are surrounded by idiots, some are depressed, some refuse to give up (like here the Rorschachs, regardless of what "the man" says), some are aging and retired, some locked away for life, some got their cape stuck in a door and gunned down and was a corporate image hero, and one have actual true super powers but seem to be losing touch with humanity.
Humans are not perfect nor can all problems be solved in a nice neat bow on top manner. Actually majority of life's (world's) problems cant be solved in a nice neat bow on top happy ending manner.
My problems with Watchmen stem more from Miller in general. The man gave the comic industry a shot in the arm, but I think the success of Miller's initial work tainted the medium.
Superheroics are supposed to be escapist fantasy. A world that is simpler, easier to define. When I was growing up, those stories bored me to tears and I wanted drama and action and heroes that weren't afraid to get their hands dirty if they needed to. I saw no problem with Batman killing Joker's henchmen or shoving a stick of dynamite down a lackey's pants and smiling as they died.
As I've gotten older, my knowledge of the world around me has broadened and then I turn to Comics to escape the day to day grind only to find the characters I grew up with there dealing with much the same - even worse situations.
My three favorite heroes growing up were Darkhawk, Iron Man, and The Green Goblin (Phil Urich). Yeah, I was a Marvel guy.
Darkhawk was a long time backburner hero who was unceremoniously killed and the source of his powers utterly destroyed after being corrupted by an evil force.
Phil Urich - the Heroic Green Goblin - was transformed into a raving psychopath and the new Hobgoblin
And Iron Man...well. I could rattle on about Tony Stark's descent into character assassination that Marvel could only cure via explosive amnesia, but for me his end came much earlier then that. In a "Christmas" issue where New York is threatened by a Terrorist plot (This was circa 2001 or 2002) to detonate a nuclear device delivered via submarine.
Iron Man catches wind of the plot and proceeds to ram into the Sub...while it is submerged. We get a two page spread of Iron Man erupting through several bulkheads of the sub, with water filling in behind him as terrified crew only begin to comprehend their destruction. Iron Man then attempts to disarm the nuke (Coincidentally, he did this with ease back in the Early 90s when he fought the Military Armor gone Rogue Firepower), but cannot and is at the end of the issue saved by a literal Angel (Not the X-Man, the Heavenly Host variety).
So yeah. Given how prior to this, the taking of a life was something Tony Stark was fundamentally unwilling to do (and something which destroyed him in the few cases it did happen), watching him brazenly sentence an entire ship of people to die only to be delivered from death itself by literal Divine Intervention...
So yeah. Needless to say, I'm not a fan of Miller's legacy or what his work being used as the announcement for this Batman/Superman film might entail. All I will say is I am seriously considering picking up Golden and Silver Age trades...because the Modern Comic Scene has no merit to me any longer. I don't want to watch imperfect people make the best of a series of bad choices or be like "real people if they put on the mask".
I want my icons, ideals, and role models. The reason I adored Captain America is because he was the ideal. Steve Rogers was not "darkened", he was his Golden Age Persona through and through, and I loved it. It gave me hope for Super Heroes again. That it doesn't have to be about the Kick-Asses and Watchmen, there is room for hope for a better tomorrow, that men of good character still do exist and are still given over by fate to great purpose and deeds.
I miss the age of Heroes.
Quote from: Mantic on July 25, 2013, 02:55:30 PM
Quicksilver is not that interesting a character. His design is mediocre in terms of recognizability (can any real live actor sport that signature shock of hair, btw, or will he not even have that going for him?. If not associated with Magneto and the Scarlet Witch, I think he'd have faded away with all the other bronze age Marvel third-stringers. He won't be any more interesting as an "also ran" in an Avengers movie.
The Flash has already been onscreen, too, at least the small one.
The real problem with DC is that nobody working on these properties really seems to care for them. They're treated like vehicles for the egos of creators who have "better" ideas, rather than celebrated for how awesome they are in themselves. Marvel has been going the other way. Successful or otherwise, none of their big movies have been about showcasing any director's unique vision, so much as about bringing the characters to the screen and building up the franchise. Warner does not appear to have faith in their properties, and letting the likes of Jim Lee run the actual comic business shows they think of that medium the same way.
That is EXACTLY how I feel.
Quote from: Rust on July 26, 2013, 12:59:42 AM
My problems with Watchmen stem more from Miller in general. The man gave the comic industry a shot in the arm, but I think the success of Miller's initial work tainted the medium.
Do you mean Moore?
Quote from: Mental Maden on July 26, 2013, 02:28:57 AM
Do you mean Moore?
I do. I get them confused often, which is embarrassing as all get out. You should also see how crazy I can sound when I mix up Harlen Ellis with Warren Ellis.
Quote from: Rust on July 26, 2013, 12:59:42 AM
I miss the age of Heroes.
Eventually, they will make a Superman movie again.
Quote from: Golden Girl on July 26, 2013, 05:17:15 PM
Eventually, they will make a Superman movie again.
And it'll have an origin story.
Quote from: Mantic on July 25, 2013, 02:55:30 PM
The real problem with DC is that nobody working on these properties really seems to care for them. They're treated like vehicles for the egos of creators who have "better" ideas, rather than celebrated for how awesome they are in themselves. Marvel has been going the other way. Successful or otherwise, none of their big movies have been about showcasing any director's unique vision, so much as about bringing the characters to the screen and building up the franchise. Warner does not appear to have faith in their properties, and letting the likes of Jim Lee run the actual comic business shows they think of that medium the same way.
This is the problem at DC. It's more about the artists than the character .
Quote from: Rust on July 26, 2013, 08:11:03 AM
I do. I get them confused often, which is embarrassing as all get out. You should also see how crazy I can sound when I mix up Harlen Ellis with Warren Ellis.
I wouldn't be. Personally I hold them responsible for what went wrong with comics in the 90's and certain extent still going on today.
Quote from: fdbryant3 on July 28, 2013, 01:11:47 AM
I wouldn't be. Personally I hold them responsible for what went wrong with comics in the 90's and certain extent still going on today.
It's just wrong to lump Miller with Moore.
Frank Miller is practically the opposite of Alan Moore. Even when Miller was Marvel's darling, the literati fan elite (represented by the likes of Comics Journal) were not fans, because his work was essentially "pulp," in the tradition of noir (on the less respected side, too, where Mickey Spillane resided, not the dry, snobby end with Raymond Chandler) and even a bit of grindhouse cinema, where degraded women found their claws and came back strong. You could tell he actually liked the superheroics (throwing ninjas around by the hundreds, while playing up the overblown melodrama of Electra, DD, and Bullseye in a style that, if adapted faithfully to film, would look like Tarantino's Kill Bill).
Those same snobs who openly hated superhero comics across the board fell in love with Alan Moore. No wonder: he was
one of them.
Alan Moore himself clearly hated the American superhero genre and everything it ever represented (before he came along). From MiracleMan (MarvelMan) onward, he did nothing but trash them, though being all about spinning himself as the great maestro, he sold that trash(ing) under the label "deconstruction." Worse, he's a more pure misogynist. Where Miller seems fascinated with prostitutes and abused women, he always has them come out the other side more powerful and taking the control back. But when Moore tears down a woman his focus is on the degradation, and he leaves her broken. Telling, I think, of which man is more the feminist (and of the two, only Moore ever even called himself that... brazen liar that he is).
Sure, he tried to mask his hatred in the '90s, by misdirection befitting the magician he fancies himself. Pairing up with one of the most over-the-top pop superhero artists around to parody Superman. But he couldn't help being himself even then, so there's plenty of hate for both America and Americana in the pages of Supreme, too.