Apparently early buzz is great for this one and the studio is expecting it to bring in 100 million opening weekend. Regardless of whether it achieves that, will you be seeing it? Do you expect it to be amazing? Better than Batman Begins?
I'm very excited about this movie, possibly more than any film this year (yes, even Ender's Game). I've honestly been waiting for a good Superman movie since I was a teenager. This one looks like it could be it.
I also can't wait to see where the franchise goes, since if it does well we'll undoubtedly get sequels.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I miss Christopher Reeve.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
I have never been interested in Superman stories. And yet I'm pumped enough to go with friends to see this at the first midnight showing.
I know I'm not the first person to express that thought and I bet that's what the studios are counting on.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It looks catastrophically bad; Crowe and Adams seem to be slightly bearable, to the point that I find myself interested in a Russell Crowe sci-fi epic, but the trailers have been nothing but squishy CGI storm and fury.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
It looks good and Michael Shannon looks cool in it.
The only CG I frowned at is the part where Superman's in the foreground, lifting up an object, persevering through a cg inferno. And I think a lot of the blocking and camera angles look cool. I hope Nolan just ghost-directed this.
Although, without looking totally garish the fire in the movie, in general, has this weird metalic look.
[ June 07, 2013, 12:17 AM: Message edited by: umberhulk ]
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
I'm going to see it opening weekend, but I'm expecting it to suck. I was really hyped when the first trailers carried an almost word for word quote from my favorite comic of all time, but since them I've realized Snyder will never live up to Quietly.
I'm sure we'll get some badass fight scenes though.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
I'm fairly excited. Like Jeff I've been waiting for a good Superman movie for years. It can be done I tell ya. Returns would have been great if it had a decent - well okay, it was a train wreck. But it did have a few things going for it.
What I really want to see is the Doomsday/Reign of the Supermen story split into two movies. Maybe it'll happen if this one takes off.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Now with more fighting!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Trailers for this actually look pretty good. I'll catch it on a matinee in the next couple weeks.
I get a little confused whenever I look at the trailer because Cavill looks like Matt Bomer run through the Captain America beefcake serum.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: New trailer.
Now with more fighting!
Wow.
Looks even better.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
i cannot help but think this movie won't have any grey area, it will either be really good or really bad
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
The fact it appears the movie doesn't rush us out of Krypton, along with Superman's parents, which better ties Superman between two worlds, I think is a promising sign.
I honestly find Superman boring typically, but I would really like such an iconic character to get a solid movie (I'm ignoring the original ones, as much as I like Christopher Reeves).
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I hate -- hate -- when they try to tie Superman to Krypton. He's not the Last Son of Krypton; he's Clark Kent. He never spent a day on Krypton. He was never raised by Kryptonians. Krypton is a lead weight around his neck; his only association with the planet is literally the only thing that can kill him.
His origin is the least interesting thing about him.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
am i correct in assuming that crowe is playing superman's dad, who is alive, on earth, talking to superman as an adult, am i seeing this right
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Sam: I suspect Jor-El is a holographic projection + AI that is based on his personality.
Tom: You can't escape the nature part of nature/nurture. And Superman does have a desire to learn about his origins and bring back some of those cultural sensibilities as he is one of the very last Kryptonians.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You can't escape the nature part of nature/nurture.
Why not?
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
You have to address the fact that he is an alien. Like Bill says in Kill Bill 2, Superman is who he really is; Clark Kent is the mask. He's a stranger from a strange land, even though he was raised human. He wants to understand himself, and he longs to know others like himself. He's the strongest man in the world, which makes him the most alone.
The point of them focusing in Krypton is simple. This is a journey of him becoming Superman. In order to do that, he has to search and discover who he is, which means coming to terms with his origins as well as the demons that those discoveries unleash. Once the dust has settled and he's proven that he's still "human", he can ascend to the protector status that he ultimately deserves.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:You can't escape the nature part of nature/nurture.
Why not?
Jeff covered it pretty well, but you can't escape what you aren't aware of. Millions of years of evolution.
Superman has to learn about where he came from. He's basically analogous to Tarzan. What makes Tarzan interesting is it's a study of what intrinsically makes us human. Superman is the reverse, so he is a case study on what can a non-human learn about being human. Even more, how can he personify everything that humanity should aspire to?
The best of us, is not of us.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: You have to address the fact that he is an alien. Like Bill says in Kill Bill 2, Superman is who he really is; Clark Kent is the mask. He's a stranger from a strange land, even though he was raised human. He wants to understand himself, and he longs to know others like himself.
Bill was 100% wrong. Clark Kent is the only "real" persona Clark has. Both Farmboy Kent and Superman are masks he wears to conceal his identity.
quote:He's the strongest man in the world, which makes him the most alone.
Supes has never been alone, not truly. And the distance between him an mere mortals is only shown to have any sort of effect on him after some very significant trauma, and when he is not in his right mind.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: In order to do that, he has to search and discover who he is, which means coming to terms with his origins as well as the demons that those discoveries unleash.
No, see, that's the problem; I think that's precisely the wrong direction for the character. Superman does not have demons; Superman is a farmer's son from Kansas who, thanks to an accident of his birth, is also bulletproof and can fly. If he has origins with which he has to come to terms, he's not Superman.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
<3 Tom.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think I tend to agree with Tom regarding Superman not having demons.
But I also think it's reasonable to expect that Clark would have origin questions. Where did he come from? Who were his real parents? Isn't that sort of natural for an adopted child, especially when your parents are aliens?
I don't necessarily think that means he has to have a huge existential crisis, but it's not like he's going to find all those questions irrelevant just because he grew up in Kansas and can fly.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Bill was 100% wrong. Clark Kent is the only "real" persona Clark has. Both Farmboy Kent and Superman are masks he wears to conceal his identity.
How do you figure that? As Clark, he has to hide the fact that he's invincible, can fly, and is an alien. As Superman, it's all out in the open. He freely admits to the press that he's an alien from a planet called Krypton multiple times.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: In order to do that, he has to search and discover who he is, which means coming to terms with his origins as well as the demons that those discoveries unleash.
No, see, that's the problem; I think that's precisely the wrong direction for the character. Superman does not have demons; Superman is a farmer's son from Kansas who, thanks to an accident of his birth, is also bulletproof and can fly. If he has origins with which he has to come to terms, he's not Superman.
Yeah, I'm not saying he has demons per se. I was thinking more to what Lyrhawn said. It's common for adopted people to look into their heritage and try to connect to it.
That's all I'm trying to say. I absolutely agree that Superman doesn't have demons, or a dark side.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.:
quote:Bill was 100% wrong. Clark Kent is the only "real" persona Clark has. Both Farmboy Kent and Superman are masks he wears to conceal his identity.
How do you figure that? As Clark, he has to hide the fact that he's invincible, can fly, and is an alien. As Superman, it's all out in the open. He freely admits to the press that he's an alien from a planet called Krypton multiple times.
As Clark Kent he doesn't hide the fact that he's invincible, can fly, crush coal into diamonds, etc. He doesn't have to. He gets out his giant plow and does some farm work, eats breakfast with Ma Kent, and heads off to work in the big city.
Now, when he goes out to Metropolis and works at the daily planet, interviews Luthor, and sees Lois everyday, he needs to put on the mask of the bumbling farmboy who is too clumsy for his own good. He doesn't dress good, he slouches, even though he towers over most people in the office you would never know it because he's practically not even there.
Then he whips out his suit he plays the alien Superman, the Last Son of Krypton who tirelessly protects both Metropolis and the world, catching only a few Z's before returning back to his everlasting vigil.
ETA: Also in reality Superman is not an alien from Krypton. He's a mask that Clark Kent from Smallville puts on. Superman has never been to Krypton, he was raised right here on earth.
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
I am a family therapist and I can tell you there is no way someone who has such stark differences in strength, flying ability, and hearing is going to ever feel like a "normal" person in this world, until they have worked through these differences head-on. We are very social creatures and we are highly prone to being judgmental of one another, especially when there are unusual differences.
This leaves Clark with two options:
1) Hide his super powers to fit in, which is not healthy for him. He wouldn't be able to keep such things hidden and feel like he belongs. He would always feel like an outsider. I work with secrets for a living and I can tell you that such secrets have a very negative, if subtle, long-term effect. One of the number 1 causes of human loneliness is secrets kept out of fear of being judged or abandoned. Abilities of such magnitude as flying and being invicible (2 of some of humanity's greatest fantasies) go beyond boundaries of basic privacy. They would be secrets indeed.
2) Reveal his super powers, which brings tons of questions and social judgment/awe/curiosity because he is different. He would need to spend time working through this and learning to develop connections to the world, despite his differences. Only by facing it would he release the toxic effects of secrets and work through the process of fitting in. This process would inevitably require him to face questions about his origins.
I don't believe he has demons because he's from Krypton, though there is evidence that traumas during infancy have long-term effects. But we can consider these negligible. He doesn't need to face demons, but he does need to face his own questions and the questions of others, unless he chooses option 1, which is not good for him.
In my experience, when a child's intuition tells him that he is different or that there is something not right about himself, and he/she does not get the right information to make sense of that intuition, problems ensue.
If his mortal parents just said, "Hey, I guess you just got the best part of the gene pool, go figure," that would be bad. That kind of denial would be toxic. Or, they tell him he is not from their world, and such a revelation could not be ignored. "Okay, mom and dad, thanks for the info. I am gonna' go play ball down the street now. See you for dinner." Not.
That kid has some stuff to work through now. He needs to make sense of this. He needs answers, he needs support, he has a process he has to face, if he wants to feel connected and secure.
Being the most different person in the whole world is no small issue that can just be ignored because you grow up on an all-American farm with great parents.
Now, whether or not he ever needed to become Superman is a whole different story on a therapeutic level. That would just ruin the fun of the movie, though, so we won't go there
Now that I have said all of that, there is a 3rd, hybrid solution: He tells some close people so he feels like he belongs, but never reveals his abilities to the rest of the world. This could potentially be the best of both worlds, so he doesn't become a worldwide figure for the rest of his life, always to be targeted by villains, governments, and scientists. This would still require a certain degree of self-repression, quite similar in my mind to the days when homosexuals told their closest, trusted friends or family, but never revealed their sexual orientation to the broader world out of fear of being shamed or judged. It is better than number 1, but it is questionable whether it is better than option 2.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yes, you're right. There are some things about the character of Superman that are not strictly realistic.
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Yes, you're right. There are some things about the character of Superman that are not strictly realistic.
The whole point of the story is so we can connect to the humanity of a person who has super abilities and is an alien. Yes, his powers and origin are fantasy. But to connect, you have to be realistic about the emotional struggles he goes through so we can connect to the character. That's the whole point of this discussion about the story.
We are expected to suspend belief for his superpowers, but not about the emotional part of the story.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
My wife is a HUGE Superman (I typed Syrupman at first....Strange) fan. She forced me to buy tickets to the midnight showing. It is the 3D DFX IMAX (Whatever it is) version, since it was the only one showing at that time at the theater we go to.
I don't mind though. It is one of those luxury theaters with leather recliners for seats. I can always nod off if I need to. Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: My wife is a HUGE Superman (I typed Syrupman at first....Strange) fan. She forced me to buy tickets to the midnight showing. It is the 3D DFX IMAX (Whatever it is) version, since it was the only one showing at that time at the theater we go to.
I don't mind though. It is one of those luxury theaters with leather recliners for seats. I can always nod off if I need to.
Oooooo good idea! I should pre-order my tickets...
Posted by Magson (Member # 2300) on :
quote:That speech in Kill Bill is 100% erroneous – Superman is unique from other heroes in that he does not have a split identity. Superman is Clark Kent, and Clark Kent is Superman, and if he puts on a front in certain situations to maintain some semblance of peace and order in his life, his own identity is sound, singular, and unified. Man of Steel, as an origin story, deals with duality not as an ongoing truth of the character, but a struggle he must overcome to reach his full potential.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Man, that dude loves hyperbole.
quote:These are artistic philosophies that Rogen and Goldberg have always appeared to live by, but in This is the End, their grasp on the form is stronger than ever. It is as clear a contemporary example as I can point to of a comedy nailing every part of the big picture evenly, across the board, and I think the way the audience’s laughter practically drowns out the soundtrack by the time the final minutes roll around is proof of what legitimate depth does for comedy. This is the End is an unexpectedly poignant, side-splittingly hilarious treat, unique from everything else I have seen this year and truly, endlessly surprising in its extreme audacity.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
I just saw it, and I thought it was pretty good. This post has only the most basic spoilers - e.g., Superman and Lois Lane kiss - so I think it is ok to read if you haven't seen the movie.
Zod isn't really much of a villain; they give lip service to the idea that he's a complex and grey, but he's really just a mustache twirler.
There's no real chemistry between Superman and Lois Lane. If I didn't know the characters, I would have assumed their first kiss was stress related horniness rather than anything romantic.
Superman doesn't really get a chance to be capital-G Good. In terms of his moral disposition, he's a standard good guy. The Russel Crowe speech you hear in the trailer (ripped from All Star Superman) about humans joining him in the sun doesn't really pay off.
And now for the good: the action scenes in this movie are perhaps the best I've ever seen in a comic book movie. I think they top the White House assault in X-Men 2, anything in Iron Man or Nolan Batman, and perhaps even top the climatic Avengers battle. The edge the Avengers might have is the humor.
Clark Kent's main conflict is his attempt to fit in, and this is handled really well - with one glaring hickup, in which Kent does something rather passive aggressive - the truck scene, You'll know it when you see it. The trailer lays it out well: Pa Kent wants him to be very careful about concealing his powers because of how he thinks the world will react. Kent's life before Superman nails that conflict, but once Zod shows up, Superman benefits from the comparison with Zod and earns the trust of many humans quite easily.
Russel Crowe nails it. I say this on the strength of living Jor-El vs hologram Jor-El: hologram Jor-El is just a shade less expressive and emotional; it is clearly a copy of the passionate man you see in the beginning.
I realized one thing about watching this movie: there is no way for them to top the fight scenes; there is no real way to have any variations. Why? Because the environment is completely irrelavent. When the X-Men or the Avengers (for the most part) get into a fight, the buildings around them, the ground and weapons are all factors which necessitate a diversity of tactics. Superman, on the other hand, can see through and punch through his environment. Every fight in which he cuts lose will be a variation on the exact same tactics, over and over. His primary villain, Luthor, is not about combat spectacle, but given the extraordinary achievement of this movie's battle scenes, I wonder if anything else could ever live up to the thrill.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Oh, and I agree with the paragraph Magson quoted, at least insofar as this movie is concerned - not necessarily the character of Superman full stop.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
My quick review: After all these years, Jon Peters finally got the Superman movie he wanted.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Supes fights a giant spider in the third act?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Damn near.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Movie Bob I think agrees with Tom.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
I saw it and I rather enjoyed it. It's high thrills, amazing CGI, and gritty and realistic superman. This is definitely not Chris Reeves anymore.
And if you ask me, that's just fine. The Superman of the 80s was great for the 80s. That was before 9/11 and the crappy state of current affairs. I also like the fact that Superman acts like a real person and makes realistic decisions in this film. While Chris Reeves will always be brilliant in the role, this new version is still a great change of pace and provides a fresh perspective on one of the oldest superhero characters in the world.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: My quick review: After all these years, Jon Peters finally got the Superman movie he wanted.
Heh. I get that reference.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Supes fights a giant spider in the third act?
I leaned over to my wife during that part and said "I've seen enough hentai to know where this is going."
She didn't get it. :/
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
this was the best Dragonball Z movie i have ever seen.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
Did someone do "solar flare"?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
By and large I liked it.
I thought it was insanely, overbearingly loud, but maybe that was just my theater, but almost everyone I looked at had a hand or finger partially covering their ears.
I thought the fights went on way, way too long. I get it, you're invincible and you can throw other invincible people through skyscrapers and what not. Let's move on, please.
I see the DBZ joke, though frankly a Superman on Superman fight was always going to be like that.
I think the parts that were well done were very, very well done. Cavill was very convincing. The heart strings moments were well pulled. The end of the fight with Zod was really good.
All in all, I call it a surprising delight.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Foust:
And now for the good: the action scenes in this movie are perhaps the best I've ever seen in a comic book movie. I think they top the White House assault in X-Men 2, anything in Iron Man or Nolan Batman, and perhaps even top the climatic Avengers battle. The edge the Avengers might have is the humor.
I had to read like 6 paragraphs before you, out of the blue, disqualified your opinions on film from consideration ever again.
You should state before all future postings that you think the avengers battle sequence is distinguished as quality cinema. That is all.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
It was alright.
Honestly I'm a bit disapointed, Pa Kent was just dumb, Zod didn't have anyone kneel, Lois was boring and her investigation seemed contrived, and worst of all they all had horrible teeth.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Foust:
And now for the good: the action scenes in this movie are perhaps the best I've ever seen in a comic book movie. I think they top the White House assault in X-Men 2, anything in Iron Man or Nolan Batman, and perhaps even top the climatic Avengers battle. The edge the Avengers might have is the humor.
I had to read like 6 paragraphs before you, out of the blue, disqualified your opinions on film from consideration ever again.
You should state before all future postings that you think the avengers battle sequence is distinguished as quality cinema. That is all.
He's speaking purely about comic book action scenes, not high art. And he's not wrong. That entire action scene in the Avengers is very well done and very entertaining. Why? Because it's a summer action movie and it's not trying to be anything else. He also stated that the humor is what sets the marvel films apart, which in my opinion is pretty on the nose.
quote:Honestly I'm a bit disapointed, Pa Kent was just dumb,
Why?
quote:Zod didn't have anyone kneel
You're comparing him to the Superman 2 version, which is silly. The Zod in that movie was extremely cheesy and wouldn't work very well in a realistic Superman movie. What kind of realistic person would make people kneel? Zod wasn't trying to rule over humanity; he's trying to save his race. Why would he want them to kneel? Besides, when Loki did it in The Avengers, I seriously cringed. It just wouldn't work today. Did you also expect Superman to rip off his "S" symbol and fling it at them like he did in Superman 2? Because that made absolutely no sense at the time, but no one seems to remember that when they're defending it.
quote:Lois was boring and her investigation seemed contrived
She seemed like a realistic human being to me. As for her investigation, I don't really know what you mean. She followed up on tall tales and researched them until they eventually led her to Clark. Doesn't really seem very contrived.
quote:worst of all they all had horrible teeth.
Because real people have perfect teeth...? How did you even notice this? Were you actively looking for reasons to hate it?
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Foust:
And now for the good: the action scenes in this movie are perhaps the best I've ever seen in a comic book movie. I think they top the White House assault in X-Men 2, anything in Iron Man or Nolan Batman, and perhaps even top the climatic Avengers battle. The edge the Avengers might have is the humor.
I had to read like 6 paragraphs before you, out of the blue, disqualified your opinions on film from consideration ever again.
You should state before all future postings that you think the avengers battle sequence is distinguished as quality cinema. That is all.
My, aren't we feeling edgy today. Getting a headstart on the Avengers backlash?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Not posting specifics here since there's no spoiler warning in the title, but it boils down to this: At the pivotal scene in the movie, Clark makes a choice I cannot reconcile with what I believe makes Superman Superman. Simple as that.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:This should have been the moment when Superman transcends the situation. When he outthinks his opponent, uses something besides brute strength, sacrifices himself if necessary, doesg something none of us (or Zod) expect, refuses to accept a no-win scenario. This should have been the moment to make all of us watching feel triumphant, inspired.
Superman is Captain Kirk?
I agree with some of your criticisms. But I'm not at all surprised. Dark is the buzzword in movie remakes these days. EVERYTHING has to be edgy and moody. It made sense with Batman because Batman was always the darkest of the big heroes. So even America's Boy Scout can't come out of today's movies without issues.
It seems no one wants a perfectly upstanding hero these days.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Not posting specifics here since there's no spoiler warning in the title, but it boils down to this: At the pivotal scene in the movie, Clark makes a choice I cannot reconcile with what I believe makes Superman Superman. Simple as that.
MORE SPOILERS------------------------- Here's a counter-argument that I think is . . . well . . . more valid.
quote:It humanizes Superman quite a bit and, Superman being a character whom many exalt to godhood
I just need to point out that the film "humanizes" Superman while ladling on the Christ metaphors. *rolls eyes* It was as terrible as I thought it was going to be, sadly.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:This should have been the moment when Superman transcends the situation. When he outthinks his opponent, uses something besides brute strength, sacrifices himself if necessary, doesg something none of us (or Zod) expect, refuses to accept a no-win scenario. This should have been the moment to make all of us watching feel triumphant, inspired.
Superman is Captain Kirk?
I agree with some of your criticisms. But I'm not at all surprised. Dark is the buzzword in movie remakes these days. EVERYTHING has to be edgy and moody. It made sense with Batman because Batman was always the darkest of the big heroes. So even America's Boy Scout can't come out of today's movies without issues.
It seems no one wants a perfectly upstanding hero these days.
Captain America
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I never saw his first movie, but the second one looks interesting.
He was a Boy Scout in Avengers, but really only to serve as a foil for every other character who was not. But I would be surprised if he keeps that up in the next movie.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
He actually does begin to get a little edgier, in the Winter Soldier graphic novel/series.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:This should have been the moment when Superman transcends the situation. When he outthinks his opponent, uses something besides brute strength, sacrifices himself if necessary, doesg something none of us (or Zod) expect, refuses to accept a no-win scenario. This should have been the moment to make all of us watching feel triumphant, inspired.
Superman is Captain Kirk?
I agree with some of your criticisms. But I'm not at all surprised. Dark is the buzzword in movie remakes these days. EVERYTHING has to be edgy and moody. It made sense with Batman because Batman was always the darkest of the big heroes. So even America's Boy Scout can't come out of today's movies without issues.
It seems no one wants a perfectly upstanding hero these days.
Captain America
By far the most uninteresting of the main heroes. And by main heroes, I mean those with their own movies.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Foust:
I had to read like 6 paragraphs before you, out of the blue, disqualified your opinions on film from consideration ever again.
You should state before all future postings that you think the avengers battle sequence is distinguished as quality cinema. That is all. [/QUOTE]My, aren't we feeling edgy today. Getting a headstart on the Avengers backlash? [/QB][/QUOTE]
Heh. Well, it's not *blacklash* in the sense that I had nothing invested in Avengers, and my initial reaction was largely negative (not to the entire movie- just to this sequence). I commented even while first viewing the scene, that I wished it would end, or at least stop attacking my eyes with such ferocity. Sadly, it went on another 20 minutes.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
I enjoyed the Avengers, too. In fact, the only recent big budget Superhero movie like these films that just completely dropped the ball and made me hate it was Green Lantern.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Here's a counter-argument that I think is . . . well . . . more valid.
Yes, "shut up" is certainly a more compelling argument (or, more likely, an SEO-grabbing linkbait title).
I never once argued that my version of Superman is the only one. I believe I said that explicitly in my review. But I also pre-answered this guy's arguments regarding past stupid plot choices, so.
The story arc is how a boy becomes a man, and then a hero. He shouldn't have had to learn "oops, better not do that again," that should have been ingrained bone-deep.
The core of Superman is his moral center. It's what makes him different from the other heroes, why he's considered the greatest of them all. I don't need to see him flawed to consider him relatable, and I think it's kind of sad so many people do.
This may be your Superman. It's not mine, and this guy telling me to shut up about it probably isn't going to convince me otherwise.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:You should state before all future postings that you think the avengers battle sequence is distinguished as quality cinema.
I do. Of course, you haven't explained what "quality cinema" is supposed to mean, here.
The final battle in Avengers had a lot of what Man of Steel lacked. For one thing, there were civilians everywhere and the heroes were clearly aware of them and trying to save them at every opportunity. A few scenes like that would have helped Man of Steel immeasurably.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: Did someone do "solar flare"?
probably, who cares. strange thing about this movie is that Jesus Goku Christ's backstory was remade a little bit to superficially resemble Superman's backstory. Superficially.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
So it seems like there are two main criticisms of the movie: the generic Christ stuff, and the lack of shining, absolute morality.
I don't think either is particularily daming. The Christ imagery was *not* overbearing, and come on, it's a guy who was sent to the Earth by his father. It's hard to get away from it.
Superman as paragon of absolute virtue is a relatively new phenomenon: he's always been a really good guy, of course, but so is every super hero! Super goodness has only been one of his powers since DC started playing up Batman's darkness, back when Frank Miller got his gloves on him. Superman is Batman's foil. All-Star Superman has been canonized, and yeah, I would like to have seen more influence from that comic beyond Crowe's voiceover, but I don't think we can really say it is a betrayal of Superman's character.
Did he have to kill Zod? Nah. That was dumb.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Wow. Spoilers much? Someone please mark up the whole thread.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges:
quote:Here's a counter-argument that I think is . . . well . . . more valid.
The core of Superman is his moral center. It's what makes him different from the other heroes, why he's considered the greatest of them all. I don't need to see him flawed to consider him relatable, and I think it's kind of sad so many people do.
This may be your Superman. It's not mine, and this guy telling me to shut up about it probably isn't going to convince me otherwise.
SPOILERS:------------------
He killed Doomsday. That's about as canon as it gets. But well argued, certainly.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
To be fair, he "killed" Doomsday only because they punched each other for so long that they both died of exhaustion.
But, yes, Superman has -- in a few bad stories -- killed a handful of times before. In fact, you can often recognize a bad Superman story by whether or not he kills somebody.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: To be fair, he "killed" Doomsday only because they punched each other for so long that they both died of exhaustion.
That seems like a cop out. Superman is throwing all his strength into his blows. Even normal people will once in awhile die if they get punched in the right places.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges:
quote:You should state before all future postings that you think the avengers battle sequence is distinguished as quality cinema.
I do. Of course, you haven't explained what "quality cinema" is supposed to mean, here.
The final battle in Avengers had a lot of what Man of Steel lacked. For one thing, there were civilians everywhere and the heroes were clearly aware of them and trying to save them at every opportunity. A few scenes like that would have helped Man of Steel immeasurably.
To be fair, the whole reason Superman killed Zod was to save a family of civilians. You can tell that he didn't want to do it, and his cries of anguish at the end showed that he IS that paragon of morality. He hated himself for doing it.
And let's not forget there are still a bunch of Kryptonians trapped in the Phantom Zone. Who knows? Maybe one day they will break out. I for one would like to see more of Feora (Or however you spell her name). She made a better villain than Zod.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Bah double post. Sorry, BB would you mind deleting this?
[ June 18, 2013, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: Geraine ]
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
I don't see the problem with him killing someone if it means saving the world. No person living in the real world would be able to not kill in that kind of situation. Even Vash the Stampede killed a guy to save innocent civilians (and his whole 'thing' was that he would never kill). Even Batman has killed before, and that's his one rule (that whole "I don't have to save you" line in Batman Begins doesn't justify him leaving a man for dead).
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
SPOILERS-------------
It wasn't just the civilians RIGHT THERE . . . Zod made it clear quite vocally that he would never stop until we were all dead.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.:
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:This should have been the moment when Superman transcends the situation. When he outthinks his opponent, uses something besides brute strength, sacrifices himself if necessary, doesg something none of us (or Zod) expect, refuses to accept a no-win scenario. This should have been the moment to make all of us watching feel triumphant, inspired.
Superman is Captain Kirk?
I agree with some of your criticisms. But I'm not at all surprised. Dark is the buzzword in movie remakes these days. EVERYTHING has to be edgy and moody. It made sense with Batman because Batman was always the darkest of the big heroes. So even America's Boy Scout can't come out of today's movies without issues.
It seems no one wants a perfectly upstanding hero these days.
Captain America
By far the most uninteresting of the main heroes. And by main heroes, I mean those with their own movies.
I like the first movie up until after he gets his powers. Then it gets a little boring, and that movie has some of the goofiest cuts ever. But I like the comic the second one is being based on.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:When I look at Man of Steel, I see the Superman for the 21st century
Damn, that's depressing.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
So many of the arguments I'm seeing in defense of the ending boil down to "The end justified the means, and I'm glad we finally got a Superman who realizes that." Not all, but enough to make me sad about an awful lot of people.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: So many of the arguments I'm seeing in defense of the ending boil down to "The end justified the means, and I'm glad we finally got a Superman who realizes that." Not all, but enough to make me sad about an awful lot of people.
I think it was pretty much the world versus one life. I'm fairly certain that any version of Superman would have made the same decision.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
He did have a point about critics being too harsh, though. Was it really a worse movie than Spiderman 3 and X-Men: Last Stand? What about Ang Lee's Hulk or Superman Returns.
Seriously? It's within 10 percent of Daredevil on RottenTomatoes? This movie was definitely better than the final Dark Knight film.
[ June 18, 2013, 03:32 PM: Message edited by: Aros ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I'm fairly certain that any version of Superman would have made the same decision.
Not without first testing to see whether it was a false dichotomy.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
You don't think he did that? He briefly had the upper hand against an equal, if not superior, opponent. He could have easily been killed himself, and the world with him.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I don't think the film earned that decision, no. But, again, the decision to kill wasn't the problem for me; it was the decision to put him into a position where killing was arguably the right choice that was the problem. That's not what Superman's about.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
That's stupid. He tried to save the guy's life first, sending him into the Phantom Zone. He briefly had the upper hand. The choices were death of humanity or death of Zod.
You might argue that it was a problem for the script writers to put in the dilemma. It's pretty similar to the climax from the Dark Knight. But I think it was a thematic decision. Krypton represented predetermination. Earth represented hope and choice. Zod was the total destructive manifestation of predetermined, mechanistic fatalism. Superman chose humanity.
Seriously, though. Writing aside, any iteration of Superman in those conditions would have made the same choice.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
Superman killing Zod wasn't nearly as bad as everything about Pa Kent.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I just felt like the ending with Zod was sort of forced. We had no reason to believe Superman couldn't just lift Zod up in the air, or I dunno, apply a basic takedown to redirect his gaze...
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Didn't Superman kill the bad guy in Superman: The Quest for Peace?
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: To be fair, he "killed" Doomsday only because they punched each other for so long that they both died of exhaustion.
But, yes, Superman has -- in a few bad stories -- killed a handful of times before. In fact, you can often recognize a bad Superman story by whether or not he kills somebody.
The only truly great Superman story I'm aware of is All Star Superman.
There are a handful of other stories that are good, like Red Son. But for a front line character with 80 years of history, that's a terrible record. Compare with Batman, Fantastic Four and the X-Men.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
I thought that Red Son was a great idea, but the execution of it did almost nothing for me.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's hard to make a great Superman story that's actually about Superman.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Am I the only one who was bothered by the his passive aggressive tantrum on the sexist guy's truck? If that is the Superman of the next century, I'm siding with Lex.
If anyone here is interested in a new Superman book that has some potential, Scott Snyder (the recently minted rock-star for his writing on Batman) and Jim Lee (google him, dude has done some amazing stuff) are doing a book called Superman: Unchained. They are only one issue into it but it looks good, and I really do not read Superman books.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Foust:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: To be fair, he "killed" Doomsday only because they punched each other for so long that they both died of exhaustion.
But, yes, Superman has -- in a few bad stories -- killed a handful of times before. In fact, you can often recognize a bad Superman story by whether or not he kills somebody.
The only truly great Superman story I'm aware of is All Star Superman.
There are a handful of other stories that are good, like Red Son. But for a front line character with 80 years of history, that's a terrible record. Compare with Batman, Fantastic Four and the X-Men.
I thought the "Death of Superman" arc was pretty good, though it came out when I was eleven years old and every comic was amazing.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)