Man of Steel (There Be Spoilers)

[Magus Prime]

That'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

[Tenzhi]

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.

[Magus Prime]

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".

[Tenzhi]

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.

[FatherXmas]

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.

[Magus Prime]

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."

[Tenzhi]

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.

[primeknight]

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.

[Thunder Glove]

... 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.

[houtex]

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.

[Sleepy Wonder]

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.

[Arnabas]

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?

[houtex]

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. :)

[JetFlash]

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.

[Golden Girl]

I'm sure one could find many things wrong with ANY movie if you picked at the nits hard enough.

http://problemswithavengers.blogspot.com

[houtex]

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

:D

[Tenzhi]

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.

[Joshex]

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.

[Magus Prime]

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.

[Thunder Glove]

inconsistensies 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.

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 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.

Superman'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.