Freedom Reborn

Zack Snyder has apparently cast him.

http://www.wired.com/underwire/2011/01/superman-henry-cavill/ (http://www.wired.com/underwire/2011/01/superman-henry-cavill/)

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0147147/ (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0147147/)

Yes, he's British.  So is the guy playing Batman.  So what?  Sherlock Holmes is American.  

His IMDB page has a photo of him without a beard that seems to be a few years old.  (Not uncommon for IMDB photos to go un-updated.)

Before all the complaining begins, let's give the guy a chance. 

 :unsure: ... but, who was complaining?

Wait, Christian Bale is British?  :blink: Learn something everyday.

I'm much more surprised that Zack is in charge of the movie, must have missed earlier news. I like him, hopefully he is what the series needs.

Quote from: BWPS on January 30, 2011, 07:26:13 PM
:unsure: ... but, who was complaining?

Hamrick is convinced that we're a group of malcontents who unfairly tear apart every adaptation of a comics property of which we catch wind. 

I don't know the fellow, but I suppose Snyder could do a decent Superman flick.  To be honest, I think this one is going to come down to just how much the suits at the top dabble.  If he's told "Superman must be "dark" because "dark" is in right now," then we may be in for a train-wreck.  If they let him just make a Superman movie with an antagonist other than Lex Luthor....well, honestly, it should be relatively easy to get it right.

I haven't seen Henry Cavill in anything, but he looks like he could suit the character visually at least.  I'm hopeful about Zach Snyder; he's made several interesting movies, if not an outright great one yet.

And Christian Bale is Welsh, if I'm remembering correctly.

I'm quite fond of Zack Snyder. His action scene style could be perfect for Superman.

Seconded what Benton said there. If the film stays lighter than, say, Watchmen or even Batman we should be in for a treat.

Who would we like to see as an antagonist? If it isn't Lex, maybe we'll be seeing someone like Darkseid?

 I actually think  Snyder might be able to make an excellent  Superman movie and not fall into the ponderous, pretentous trap Superman movies seem to needlessly fall into.. I'd rather see someone I'm really not familair  with as Superman. Thsi guy looks fine so far.

My complaining won't start until the costume is revealed.... ;) :P

Quote from: Courtnall6 on January 30, 2011, 10:09:02 PM
My complaining won't start until the costume is revealed.... ;) :P

You will hate it and you will skin it regardless, knowing you.  ;)



I'm just a little concerned with Zacks love of violence, he even made Watchmen a lot more violent than the comic which was already adults only. This could hopefully be the first time I get to see him be really creative (not adapting a specific work, less violence, a lighter palate) so this could be his real break out.

Quote from: lugaru on January 30, 2011, 11:01:00 PM

Quote from: Courtnall6 on January 30, 2011, 10:09:02 PM
My complaining won't start until the costume is revealed.... ;) :P

You will hate it and you will skin it regardless, knowing you.  ;)

Ha!

As for antagonist, I feel like the obvious choice is Brainiac.  He offers a great way to revisit Supes' origins if they feel they must without retelling them, he is actually able to stand up to Supes physicallly, and he could easily support an entire movie by himself.  What I REALLY would love to see is the same thing I said way back when Superman Returns was still in production.  I'd love to see Brainiac up front, then some Apokolips villains in the second movie, an encounter with Darkseid himself in a third, and Apokolips invades in a JLA pic.  It won't happen, but how awesome would that be?  I also think Metallo might make a nice bit player in this film or the next, a-la Scarecrow in Batman Begins.  Parasite and Bizarro could both show up if they wanted to have Luthor in the movie again.  Either of those characters could easily be used as catspaws that would still give us an exciting film.

and what was wrong with Brandon Routh?

Quote from: captmorgan72 on January 31, 2011, 03:48:25 AM
and what was wrong with Brandon Routh?

I think Warner Bros wants to forget that film ever existed. Brandon Routh was never Superman. They did not make a boring Superman movie. And so forth....

Quote from: BentonGrey on January 30, 2011, 11:15:26 PM

Quote from: lugaru on January 30, 2011, 11:01:00 PM

Quote from: Courtnall6 on January 30, 2011, 10:09:02 PM
My complaining won't start until the costume is revealed.... ;) :P

You will hate it and you will skin it regardless, knowing you.  ;)

Ha!

As for antagonist, I feel like the obvious choice is Brainiac.  He offers a great way to revisit Supes' origins if they feel they must without retelling them, he is actually able to stand up to Supes physicallly, and he could easily support an entire movie by himself.  What I REALLY would love to see is the same thing I said way back when Superman Returns was still in production.  I'd love to see Brainiac up front, then some Apokolips villains in the second movie, an encounter with Darkseid himself in a third, and Apokolips invades in a JLA pic.  It won't happen, but how awesome would that be?  I also think Metallo might make a nice bit player in this film or the next, a-la Scarecrow in Batman Begins.  Parasite and Bizarro could both show up if they wanted to have Luthor in the movie again.  Either of those characters could easily be used as catspaws that would still give us an exciting film.

Superman's orgin is quite known.  You'd have to be from another planet if you don't know that Superman came from Krypton and was raised on a farm.  I even think my 5-year old niece knows that.  That being said, this is Hollywood and theymay want to go with some sort of origin material, like what Singer did in SR using flashbacks.  With that in mind, I could see them using Brainiac(with the TAS origin) as an antagonist or even Zod(I don't think they technically said no) to use the villain to tell Superman's origin.  Then again, it's kinda hard to imagine Superman without Lex Luthor.  However, kinda hard to imagine Batman without the Joker but that's exactly what Nolan did by going with Ras Al Ghul and Scarcrow, two fairly unpopular(in the mainstream) villains and made a really compelling movie.  So it wouldn't be hard to imagine Snyder going with lesser known (action-oriented) villains if that's the style he wants.  The only problem I see with villains like Metallo and Parasite is them being characters that take the "super" out of Superman.  If you want a movie where Superman can exercise his Super powers, which is the problem many had with SR, then I don't think that favors those two guys.

Quote from: Courtnall6 on January 31, 2011, 05:43:11 AM

Quote from: captmorgan72 on January 31, 2011, 03:48:25 AM
and what was wrong with Brandon Routh?

I think Warner Bros wants to forget that film ever existed. Brandon Routh was never Superman. They did not make a boring Superman movie. And so forth....

It's a shame because I remember liking Brandon Routh, and actually liking most things about the movie EXCEPT for the fact that it was boring. It even caught me off guard since the first two X-Men movies where funny and full of action (not to mention Unusual Suspects). Superman had good effects, acting, cinematography, dialog... but a practically plotless script.

The problem with Superman Returns was two things: the script and Singer being more interested in channeling Donner's work on Superman 1 and 2 than on doing a good Superman move.  I don't think Singer went in with a good understanding of the character but rather an admiration of the two earlier films.

With regards to Routh, it's not that anything was wrong with him directly.  It's the fact that there were so many misfires from the previous film that I think Warner Brothers wanted a clean slate.  Routh's been detached from the project from years and no one is complaining too loudly that is in a position to make a different on the matter.

A few notes on Henry Cavill, this is the second time he's been cast as Superman.  The first was in the McG film that was in production before Singer started his.  McG's stalled and then shut down, Singer's carried on and was eventually made.  And the funny thing is that McG's film fell apart because of his fear of flying.

As for a villain in the film, or villains, I know what I hope happens.  I hope that Luthor is in the movie but not really the "main villain" but more lurking in the background.   And that the main villains are something like Brainiac and Metallo.  It's be interesting to see Luthor portrayed more as the behind the scenes manipulator than direct threat to Superman.

About Henry Cavill,

I remember when I started watching the Tudors a few years back. Cavill immediately stood out to me. I thought he was a handsome and charismatic actor, even moreso than the lead be was playing second banana to. I found myslef thinking that if I was directing some kind of feature, especially something that needed a dashing adventurous lead, he'd be someone I'd look at. That thought stayed upfront in my mind through the rest of the series, so I guess I'm saying that I'm really glad he's now getting this shot at the big time.  :thumbup:

If Luthor is the main villain (probably inevitable, let's face it) I hope for a few things:

1.  He's competent, and has competent associates - no comic relief bunglers need apply.

2.  He is not openly villainous.  He fights Superman through proxies, like secondary villains, until the end or near the end of the film.

3.  Luthor's proxies can take at least one punch from Superman.  Whether it's an army of robots, a giant robot, Metallo, Bizarro, whatever - I want an actual super-powered fight scene.

I like having someone new.   I hated Routh from the beginning because it seemed to me that he was playing Christopher Reeve playing Superman and Clark Kent rather than play the characters themselves.  Cavill looks nothing like Reeves so I don't have to worry about that.   Of course for someone my age, until I saw Christopher Reeve, my idea of Superman had always been George Reeves.  :rolleyes:

I hope they don't use Lex again; its been done to death.   Really like the idea of featuring Brainiac, especially given the tie-in with (free plug here to) DC Universe Online.    I still remember as a kid reading Superman coming up against Brainiac and not being able to make a dent in that 50s force field he had.  And of course, now Brainiac is so much more than what he was back in the day.

Hope the "reboot" is only being done to get rid of the Superman as deadbeat dad crap.    They don't need to do much retelling, as been pointed out, virtually everyone  on the planet knows Superman.

   

It would probably be a good thing to have Luthor in the film as an ancillary character, or at most a puppet master like Talavar described, because eventually the franchise will want to bring him back.  They may as well establish him as part of Supes' world (hopefully in the TAS fashion), and portray him as competent and understated...rather than Gene Hackman. :P

One of the biggest problems with Superman over Batman is that for an iconic hero he doesn't have that many iconic villains to choose from.  In the hands of good writers who are dedicated to good movies, it could be an advantage, but if they are only trying to cash in on Superman's name value then their aren't many options.  The way I see it the less known the villain is to the audience the more wiggle room you have to shaping him into an interesting property.

Quote from: Tawodi Osdi on February 01, 2011, 01:40:35 AM
One of the biggest problems with Superman over Batman is that for an iconic hero he doesn't have that many iconic villains to choose from.  In the hands of good writers who are dedicated to good movies, it could be an advantage, but if they are only trying to cash in on Superman's name value then their aren't many options.  The way I see it the less known the villain is to the audience the more wiggle room you have to shaping him into an interesting property.

He's got less iconic villain, but he does still have several excellent villains, and many of them (like Brainiac) would translate quite well to a feature-length story.

To be quite honest, I don't think I wouldn't mind seeing Luthor as the villain, but instead of a criminal mastermind that we've seen or the behind the scenes, exploitation-type we want, why not give him his powersuit?  Again, part of the problem with Superman Returns was an inadequate villain for Superman to fight.  give him a powersuit and let him fight Superman.  It could be fun.

In regards of Cavill, I've only seen him as a kid in The Count of Monte Cristo.  Judging by his look, the chin, the jaw-line I guess I could see him as a "Superboy"-ish type.  If he is Superman, I could see those traits in him.  I just hope he gets bigger.

You know who I'd love to see in a Superman movie? Bizarro. Then you could have Lex AND somebody for Supes to fight! Of course people would compare that to Supermans three and four. Wait, do people still remember those?

Okay, how about Parasite or Titano or something? Neither of them can hold up a movie on their own either though. Lex is really all he's got. Except maybe the Ultra-Humanite.

Alright, I'm cool with Brainiac. And I like the look of this new guy. More square-jawed that Routh. Is DC going to build up to a crossover movie yet? Ever?

Unko, I mentioned Parasite too.  I think he could definitely round out a movie, even if he couldn't carry it on his own.  I'd be fine with them putting Lex in the background of a series of films and throwing the likes of Metallo, Parasite, and Bizarro at Supes in the foreground.  The Ultra-Humanite...that would be interesting, but he's a bit too much like Luthor to give Supes a good, physical, fight.

It'd be hard to go wrong with many of DC's awesome villains. Lex is so great, and can bring with him Metallo or pretty much anyone else. Bizarro has been done 100 different ways and is often awesome. Braniac is like the coolest villain ever. Darkseid brings with him some excellent enemies and storylines despite his stupid name. Vandal Savage and Solomon Grundy aren't specific to Supahbloke, but they are cool. Just not Doomsday.

Quote from: Tawodi Osdi on February 01, 2011, 01:40:35 AM
One of the biggest problems with Superman over Batman is that for an iconic hero he doesn't have that many iconic villains to choose from.  In the hands of good writers who are dedicated to good movies, it could be an advantage, but if they are only trying to cash in on Superman's name value then their aren't many options.  The way I see it the less known the villain is to the audience the more wiggle room you have to shaping him into an interesting property.

I actually way prefer most of Superman's villains to Classic Batman's who tend to be just a bunch of insane giuys playing dressup except for Ras and Hugo Strange.

Nolan has proved to me a lesser mainstream known villian may be the best way to go anyway. At least at first.

One aspect that I have always liked about Superman (at least in audiovisual media that I have seen) is that he is also Clark Kent.  This contrasts against Batman, where the persona of Bruce Wayne (though incredibly entertaining to watch) is a fake persona.

It is because I enjoy Clark Kent so much that I would be concerned about a movie that involved an otherworldly villain.  The more otherworldly the plot gets, the more that I fear that it would be at the expense of Superman's ability to be Clark Kent.  Obviously, it can be done with skilled direction and writing - but Hollywood can very easily use alien adversaries as an excuse for special-effects schlock.

Why can't they do it like the animated series:  Lex creates villains to fight Superman and Supes stops them but can't prove that Lex was behind them.  You can do for 2 movies and the third, make Lex become President and he gives Superman orders.  I think it would be a great concept

Quote from: JeyNyce on February 03, 2011, 02:31:14 PM
Why can't they do it like the animated series:

Not to be Benton lite again but that would be the gold standard for me.

Considering that most modern fans were weaned on the animated cartoons and the comics of the last couple of decades, the original movies should be a non-factor regarding what should be done.  No one complained about the current string of Batman movies not being associated with the previous string, and the old string of Superman movies are a lot older than the Batman movies.  Pretty much, only old fogies, like myself, and dedicated fans are likely to remember much about them.

Quote from: steamteck on February 03, 2011, 03:53:10 PM

Quote from: JeyNyce on February 03, 2011, 02:31:14 PM
Why can't they do it like the animated series:

Not to be Benton lite again but that would be the gold standard for me.

And what, pray tell, is wrong with that? ;)

Quote from: BentonGrey on February 03, 2011, 05:05:56 PM

Quote from: steamteck on February 03, 2011, 03:53:10 PM

Quote from: JeyNyce on February 03, 2011, 02:31:14 PM
Why can't they do it like the animated series:

Not to be Benton lite again but that would be the gold standard for me.

And what, pray tell, is wrong with that? ;)

Oh man, you want a list? ^_^

Quote from: Previsionary on February 03, 2011, 05:11:42 PM

Quote from: BentonGrey on February 03, 2011, 05:05:56 PM

Quote from: steamteck on February 03, 2011, 03:53:10 PM

Quote from: JeyNyce on February 03, 2011, 02:31:14 PM
Why can't they do it like the animated series:

Not to be Benton lite again but that would be the gold standard for me.

And what, pray tell, is wrong with that? ;)

Oh man, you want a list? ^_^

Better than being a mini-Prev!  Could the world stand such horror? :blink:

Oh Vandal Savage. I didn't think of him. He would be perfect, actually... Sort of like Superman's Ra's al Ghul.
Actually I was just thinking Despero would be a rad villain, but like Viking mentioned they probably wouldn't want to get too off-worldy with Superman, at least not at first. They've got Green Lantern for that.

As to all the people mentioning Darkseid, I really dislike that idea. I hate seeing Darkseid as a Superman villain. I much would prefer to see him as an entire planet villain. If they do a Justice League movie they had ought to use him, in my opinion.

But I'm still for Lex using other villains to do his dirty work, as long as they don't make any rad villains end up looking like throwaway punks, ala Nolan's Scarecrow. Anyhow, we'll have to wait and see.

thats kinda funny. superman, the greatest super hero of all and no one to fight. he's SO super that in a movie theres no one that would give him a big enough challenge. lex luthor has been over used. 4 movies and its always lex luthor. *yawn*! just my opinion but he's got alot of lame villians considering he can move planets. thats why superman is way down on my fave list. they moved him into a super corner. captain marvel is better as far as a character but then his arch villians are a little bald guy and a worm. black adam is cool though. superman can do anything and everything , wonderwoman/captain marvel have the powers of gods, flash runs faster than light, green lantern can imagine anything and make it with his ring, and batmans mind is so deadly he can think of 20 ways to defeat you before the fight starts. then look at their villians. joker, penguin, lex luthor, toyman, cheeta, mirror man, ect...! thats why STAN is the man! :lol:

Quote from: herodad1 on February 03, 2011, 08:14:38 PM
thats kinda funny. superman, the greatest super hero of all and no one to fight. he's SO super that in a movie theres no one that would give him a big enough challenge. lex luthor has been over used. 4 movies and its always lex luthor. *yawn*! just my opinion but he's got alot of lame villians considering he can move planets. thats why superman is way down on my fave list. they moved him into a super corner. captain marvel is better as far as a character but then his arch villians are a little bald guy and a worm. black adam is cool though. superman can do anything and everything , wonderwoman/captain marvel have the powers of gods, flash runs faster than light, green lantern can imagine anything and make it with his ring, and batmans mind is so deadly he can think of 20 ways to defeat you before the fight starts. then look at their villians. joker, penguin, lex luthor, toyman, cheeta, mirror man, ect...! thats why STAN is the man! :lol:

I think you're underselling both Flash and Batman's Rogue Galleries a great deal.  As for Superman...

The biggest problem with his rogue gallery is that it lacks the depth of Batman's for the most part. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Superman_enemies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Superman_enemies)

The major list is rather short considering the number of years that the ol' big blue boyscout has been around.  Out of that list, there are several Kryptonian and other worldly villains.  However, they are perfectly acceptable villains when used properly in the comics.  Furthermore, in the right story and with the right director, most of them would translate to film without too many adjustments.  Luthor gets used because he is the constant and is always lingering about.  He was misused in the movies in the 80s somewhat actually, in my opinion.  (Which is one of the reasons that Singer dropped the ball in his film.)

I like the villain structure used with great success in the Nolan Batman films.  Basically a 4 villain structure with two of them being major, one being a "mob" villain, and a cameo.  I think a similar villain structure could be used for the Superman movies with One major villain, one cameo, and Luthor in the background manipulating.  We see Luthor, we know he's the villain and Supes knows but proving it is another matter.  The major villain could be a character that Luthor is providing funding for (think a Metallo type) or Kryptonian in origin and Luthor forms a temporary alliance with them (Donner tried it with Superman II and failed because of the misuse of Luthor) and the cameo could be anything from Intergang to Livewire.   You could almost do two major villains with this format as well if the cards were played right.

As for rather or not Superman's villains are lame, a lot of the pre-crisis Superman villains were but it's gotten a little better since the early 90s.  I think the biggest problem is figuring out how to effectively use the villains given Superman's abilities. 

As for "Stan the Man", I have much respect for the guy but hardly feel he is infallible.  The Fantastic Four is a prime example of this as their rogue gallery leaves a lot of be desired once you move past Sub Mariner, Silver Surfer (both of whom are now their allies), Dr. Doom, Super-Skrull and Galactus.  There are others but it's hard to take them too serious.  As a matter of fact, several Marvel characters have a lot worse Rogue Gallery than Superman or Batman.  The worst of the bunch is The Hulk.  (A character who I pretty much abhor.)  Iron Man is not known for his Rogue Galleries' depth either.  The Avengers?  You got Ultron Thanos (I think) and Kang and then others brought from individual heroes.  That's it.    The only good Rogue Galleries are the X-men, Thor and Spiderman, pretty much.  So, Stan is far from batting 100.

true mr. Hamrick, very true. like i said before...just my tiny, humble opinion. i do like flash's rogue gallery more than any for some reason. most (99%) of my DC stupidity comes from lack of DC knowledge. ive always liked MARVEL from age of 6. more of marvel's characters( villians ) are more evenly matched in my opinion or stronger than their arch foe. alot has to do with a persons preference DC or MARVEL. a fan will focus on their likes and overlook the truly silly stuff but not the other way around. what i wish they would do with superman is pin down just how he has all these powers. no saying because he's an alien. is his powers psionic, gravity, mutant, ect..? superman is a big super mystery to me. :unsure:

Originally, Superman came from a high gravity planet, so all his powers came from that--high strength, high endurance, and a super high jump, essentially.  As he became more and more popular, they started throwing more and more powers at him.  I think it's kind of like the old Batman show.  If they had a problem for Batman to solve, the writers just created a new Bat-gadget out of nowhere to deal with them.  Same thing with Superman's powers.  Most were forgotten, but a few have stuck around ever since.

Of course, they no longer make that much sense, but at least they are better than some of the ones that have been forgotten.

What I'd really like to see is Superman vs. an alien invasion.  Basically throw Superman at Independence Day or War of the Worlds - you've got the invaders' high technology AND  superior numbers to actually challenge Superman's abilities, showcase him fighting in orbit vs. their drop ships or starfighters, in cities vs. some kind of mechs, walkers or tanks, and finally one on one vs. their despotic superpowered overlord, who could be a version of several DC villains (Mongul, Despero, maybe Darkseid).  He could fight alongside the various military and police forces of earth to showcase his ability to inspire, and you also get the thematic contrast of Superman the benevolent alien vs. the invading malevolent ones.  It's also thematically strong because Superman is saving the whole world, contrasted with the destruction of his birth planet Krypton.

As to the "science" of Superman's powers, well, it doesn't make a lot of sense.  His cells are essentially vast solar batteries, absorbing energy from our sun.  That energy enhances his muscles and physical durability, increases his senses and speed, and can be used to power flight and heat ray vision.  If cut off from sunlight for long enough, Superman will expend his store of energy and be rendered powerless, he can't absorb light of some other spectrums (notably red), and radiation from Kryptonite interferes with his ability to absorb and make use of this stored energy.  Why?  Because it's a product of his alien physiology in our environment - and that's about as good an explanation as it gets. 

Early on, Superman's powers weren't just based on Krypton having high gravity - they were the product of Kryptonians being more advanced than humans, both technologically and evolutionarily.  That's why one of Superman's early tag lines was 'the Man of Tomorrow;' it implied that one day humans could be as advanced as his people, and have similar powers.  As power creep made Superman, and by association all Kryptonians, more and more powerful, as well as the realization of its unpleasant associations with eugenics and racial evolution,  this explanation for Superman's power was dropped.

PS. While a number of DC villains are weak, the Joker and Lex Luthor are the two best villains in comics.

Hmm... that's a good idea. I could see maybe Superman's been doing things secretly for a while but the big alien invasion forces him into the spotlight, and after he defeats them the entire world is pretty much, "Holy crow, Superman is awesome!" Thus setting him up to be a big deal, which is he, and for Lex Luthor to totally resent him.

Also, thinking about it, lots of superheroes have lousy rogues galleries. Iron Man 2 used Whiplash as the main villain. I always thought that guy was lame in the comics, but he worked in the movie. Most of his villains who aren't the Mandarin are just guys in versions of his own armor (Hey Iron Monger!). So, I guess I'm not too worried about it.

But Hammy... Hulk is swell! And Leader is a rad villain. I also like Abomination, Absorbing Man, Bi-Beast, MODOK, Tyrannus. I even like seeing him fight Rhino or Juggernaut, even though those aren't his villains. Of course most of these guys are just "random super strong weirdo" but I've always dug that. It's what Hulk stories are about. Superman fighting a random super strong weirdo would be pretty lame. Unless that weirdo was a giant gorilla with laser eyes.

One area where Marvel villains over DC villains is that Marvel has longer history of sharing its villains between different heroes.  Who hasn't fought Dr. Doom, after all?  But, in DC, villains are tied to specific heroes with very little sharing.  Personally, I don't have a problem with a movie maker creating a new villain from scratch, and I don't feel that movies and comic books need to share the same continuity.  My complaint is when they change the character of a character I like.

Quote from: UnkoMan on February 04, 2011, 05:56:24 AM
Hmm... that's a good idea. I could see maybe Superman's been doing things secretly for a while but the big alien invasion forces him into the spotlight, and after he defeats them the entire world is pretty much, "Holy crow, Superman is awesome!" Thus setting him up to be a big deal, which is he, and for Lex Luthor to totally resent him.

Also, thinking about it, lots of superheroes have lousy rogues galleries. Iron Man 2 used Whiplash as the main villain. I always thought that guy was lame in the comics, but he worked in the movie. Most of his villains who aren't the Mandarin are just guys in versions of his own armor (Hey Iron Monger!). So, I guess I'm not too worried about it.

But Hammy... Hulk is swell! And Leader is a rad villain. I also like Abomination, Absorbing Man, Bi-Beast, MODOK, Tyrannus. I even like seeing him fight Rhino or Juggernaut, even though those aren't his villains. Of course most of these guys are just "random super strong weirdo" but I've always dug that. It's what Hulk stories are about. Superman fighting a random super strong weirdo would be pretty lame. Unless that weirdo was a giant gorilla with laser eyes. 

My issue with The Hulk actually is less to do with his rogue gallery and more to do with other factors.  I use to have the same issues with Wolverine that I have with The Hulk but Wolverine has grown on me a bit.  The Hulk never has.  I disliked pre-crisis Superman, too.

Quote from: Tawodi Osdi on February 04, 2011, 07:02:22 PM
One area where Marvel villains over DC villains is that Marvel has longer history of sharing its villains between different heroes.  Who hasn't fought Dr. Doom, after all?  But, in DC, villains are tied to specific heroes with very little sharing.  Personally, I don't have a problem with a movie maker creating a new villain from scratch, and I don't feel that movies and comic books need to share the same continuity.  My complaint is when they change the character of a character I like.

I'm not sure why DC never has really gotten into doing that.  I would assume it's because in theory, the match-ups wouldn't be that good.

As for the movies creating a new villain, I'm all for it.  Especially if that villain can somehow be incorporated back into the comics in some cases.   I also prefer the idea of a similar but different continuity between the two as long as it makes sense.

The thing with the Hulk vs the Leader was brains vs brawn.  With Lex & Supes it's more of a "why do we need worship an alien?  They should be worshiping me!"

Various sites from around the net are reporting that blonde women are auditioning for the part of...

Spoiler

Ursa.  That suggests that the villains will be her and Zod, escaped Kryptonians criminals.  Let me be the first to give this news a hearty thumbs down.  :thumbdown:

In other rumours, supposedly Olivia Wilde (House, Tron Legacy) has auditioned for the part of Lois Lane.

If that rumor is true, that is not surprising, but it is pretty disappointing nonetheless.

edit: wow, sorry about the spoiler fever
:unsure: Really?

Spoiler

kneel before Zod!

is probably the most iconic thing/most beloved memory from the original Superman movie franchise; so i don't see why it's such a bad thing.
Or is it that you think that particular story doesn't need to be remade?
Anyway i'm all for it. It offers the possibility of having Luthor as a secondary villain

Spoiler

)collaborate with the kryptonaian, get his hands on some of their tech for later movies)

and most importantly givs us the possibility to be an origin movie without really being one:

Spoiler

No need to show krypton exploding, the kent finding the crashed spaceship and such. Act I, you begin the movie in metropolis, he's either already a hero or better yet becomes one for the first time to save lois lane; making him realise that his weird capacities he was told to hide since he was a  kid could actually be used to make a difference in the world.
Act II, Zod arrives, recognise him as one of his own and tries to recruit him, giving him all the background info an origin movie needs without needing to lose the first act to it. Training montage to show him learning about his powers and his heritage, maybe even finding a message of his father (carefully edited by Zod to helf supes make the wrong choice). Act III, supes realise they're evil, oppose them, classic grand finale battle. But in the end people fear that he could one day turn on them like Zod did. Post generic sequel-hook: luthor is asked to make a military controlled super freak of his own to ensure  the security of the world. Leading to bizarro controlled by luthor in the second movie, hopefully.

A reboot is the best thing that could happen to this franchise anyway. 1&2 are okay, we'll just pretend the others don't exist. But i still wouldn't show those to "convert" someone to the superman mytho. So if they manage a "light" origin in the movie (as to not alienate the older generation who knows evething about the character) plus an introduction of the two most iconic villains he had in the previous franchise (

Spoiler

Luthor and Zod

) then this would allow a new genration to join  the old fan for the possible sequel where they would have to pick as-yet unexplored villain (brainiac having been written out of three previous script and being almost present in superman 4 if i'm not wrong, he might be an obvious choice )
So, here's to hoping it won't suck

Ehh Trelau, I don't have much of a problem with that set of villains in-and-of themselves, but what you said is about it:

Spoiler

We've already seen this.  There are a thousand and one great stories that could be told, and I for one really wish that they'd do Brainiac.  While Zod and co. do most everything I think they really need to do in a new Superman movie, I just feel like there are several other characters who could do those things better.  Most importantly, they can give Superman a good fight, which is an absolute necessity.  However, it's been done, and after the train wreck that was Returns, I'd rather we avoid anything that smacks of the Donner films, even the more positive elements of them.

On that same topic...

Spoiler

Like Benton and Trelau have both said - Zod and Co. have been done, so having them as the villains isn't terribly interesting to me.  Like Benton, I also think any connection to the Donner films needs to be eliminated.  Sure, to people who grew up in the '80s "Kneel before Zod" is iconic, but people who grew up in the '80s also liked Ewoks.  Superman 2 isn't a great film by any means, particularly the edit most people from that decade actually saw (Cellophane S throw, anyone?  Memory wiping kiss?  The third, comic relief evil Kryptonian?). 

I'm also getting tired of the recent crop of superhero movies pitting the hero against basically villainous versions of themselves.  Iron Man has fought 2 bad guys in power armour at this point, and the Hulk fought the Abomination.  I don't need to see Superman fight two people who can do exactly the same stuff he can - let's see something different.

Well Benton, i might be biased, but the thing is, I wasn't even born when those movies were released. I only saw them on tv in a badly dubbed way some 15 years later and...i didn't liked them the first time around. What Talavar said about the 80s feel and sometimes stupidity of these is true, and that's why i only liked them after learning to like the character (Superman Tas and later JLU) and getting curious about his history.
But like i said, i wouldn't ever show them as an introduction to the character, they've aged (in my opinion) relatively badly (as opposed to the Tim Burton's Batman who can still hold itself against the Nolan version)
We really need a new "updated" superman for a new generation, and i believe it should mean redoing what as already been done but in a new way. Batman had already fought the Joker played by Jack f**king Nicholson, i though they could never do better than that, and yet i think we can all agree that the other/new version of the Joker as now his place in his history.
So yes i think he should fight Luthor again, even if it's been done to death, because there's potential for something completely different.
Same goes for

Spoiler

Zod

, even the Smallville version had its merit. And with Snyder in command, whose fidelity/dedication to comic books is not to doubt, i believe he could pull something great, by keeping the good part of the old movies and removing the cheesiness (and executive meddling) inherent to the eighties.

Now about the trend of fighting the evil version of oneself in superhero movie...yeah, i admitt it's getting old; but it's also due to the rogue of some heroes (ironman DOES spend most of his time fighting guys who stole his tech). Maybe there'll be more than one villains in the movie, even having cameo of lesser known ones.
The problem will still be that his rogue gallery consit of 50% evil kryptonian, 25% aliens (green lantern's job) and 25% mutant/experiment gone wrong who needs there own origin (i don't think we can use Parasite, metallo, grundy or silver banshee without first explaining where they come from)

I thinki also accept the recycling of villains better because i'm already expecting the second and possible third movie, so i want the first one to take the safe route and give use a solid "see? that's superman" movie to show my nephew. Let them go wild in the sequels.

First Look at Russell Crowe as Jor-El in Man of Steel (http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/168540-first-look-at-russell-crowe-as-jor-el-in-man-of-steel)

Laurence Fishburne as Perry White....wow! 

I wonder how they'll get Kevin Costner to keep his clothes on.

It really seems to be a cast full of stars so I hope DC delivers a great superman film.

I'm not really a Superman fan, but I think any "first" Superman film would be wise to use Lex Luthor, as he is one of, if not the most important Earthly enemy of Superman.  I'd like to see a combo of Luthor and Bizarro or Luthor and Metallo, to be honest.

Dana

Quote from: thalaw2 on October 05, 2011, 07:44:18 AM
Laurence Fishburne as Perry White....wow! 

I wonder how they'll get Kevin Costner to keep his clothes on.

It really seems to be a cast full of stars so I hope DC delivers a great superman film.

Are we thinking of the same Kevin Costner?  When has he ever had trouble keeping his clothes on?  I don't remember a lot of male nudity in Field of Dreams or Waterworld....

Quote from: cmdrkoenig67 on October 05, 2011, 02:53:14 PM
I'm not really a Superman fan, but I think any "first" Superman film would be wise to use Lex Luthor, as he is one of, if not the most important Earthly enemy of Superman.  I'd like to see a combo of Luthor and Bizarro or Luthor and Metallo, to be honest.

Dana

I disagree. While I think Luthor is important to the mythos overall, I don't think he really needs to be in every superman film. Looking at a movie like Fantastic Four, I honestly think they'd have benefitted from not having doom at all in the first film, and bringing him in later on. By contrast, Begins didn't jump at Joker, choosing instead to spend the next movie developing him.

Lex should be in this. Not as the villian, but rather as the bystander who is helping both Supes and Zod for his own gain. Moving the pieces on the board, playing these two kyrptonians against each other. Planning his next move three steps ahead of the "aliens". If done right, Lex could shine in the movies. Oh yeah, have Michael Rosenbaum play him otherwise forget putting Lex in.  :)

Luthor was in four of the five earlier movies, the Superboy TV series, Lois and Clark, Smallville...
I'm very glad baldy will take a vacation, he'll probably be back in the sequel, but we need to see someone else in the next movie.

Quote from: Talavar on October 05, 2011, 03:16:35 PM

Quote from: thalaw2 on October 05, 2011, 07:44:18 AM
Laurence Fishburne as Perry White....wow! 

I wonder how they'll get Kevin Costner to keep his clothes on.

It really seems to be a cast full of stars so I hope DC delivers a great superman film.

Are we thinking of the same Kevin Costner?  When has he ever had trouble keeping his clothes on?  I don't remember a lot of male nudity in Field of Dreams or Waterworld....

And yet his best movies were those where he dropped trou.  Well, maybe they should let him direct himself into a nude scene.

Superman Goes Shirtless in New Man of Steel Pics (http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/168630-superman-goes-shirtless-in-new-man-of-steel-pics)

:blink: He put me to shame. :lol:

I do this not to re-hash an old topic, but because i just saw a design that had incorporated the trunks into the new suit's style, and it captured what i was imagining.

Spoiler

(http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ltapbrXqoI1qbuewbo1_500.jpg)

Quote from: Midnite on October 14, 2011, 04:20:44 AM
Superman Goes Shirtless in New Man of Steel Pics (http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/168630-superman-goes-shirtless-in-new-man-of-steel-pics)

:blink: He put me to shame. :lol:

Well, I guess that throws the "its a muscle suit" theory out the window. This might turn out to be a really good Superman movie.

The Man of Steel Teaser Trailers are Here! (http://vhttp://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/171909-the-man-of-steel-teaser-trailers-are-here)

Saw this trailer at Dark Knight Rises. At first I was thinking this was a trailer for a Deadliest Catch movie, I missed the DC logo.  :doh:

I saw some images of the new costume (like those here (http://collider.com/superman-man-of-steel-set-photo-costume/112353/)). Those images and some comments attributed to Zack Snyder have had me concerned that Zack and crew have confused Superman with some Grim-&-Gritty™ superhero. Then I saw some other costume mock-ups (like this one (http://www.shockya.com/news/2012/01/07/superman-man-of-steel-gets-a-new-fan-made-movie-poster/)) and I am somewhat relieved. Though the latter is a fan-made movie poster, it at least confirms some of what the costume apologists have been claiming that the costume can be made lighter and more colorful in post processing. To be clear, I still dislike the costume concept as too dark and pseudo-military, but at least it isn't as bad as the earlier one, which would be more appropriate for some sort of Superman doppelganger villain, IMO.

And, FWIW, that is emblematic of my biggest concern with the new movie. I hate it when people try and make Superman more "relatable", particularly when they do it by highlighting his dark side. Superman isn't supposed to be an outlet or affirmation for our anger and need for vengeance. That isn't in any way saying that the character should be perfect and never show anger or whatever. The classic Superman has an incredibly sad backstory and every reason to be alienated - the only one of his kind (and not because he listens to different music or something but because his planet actually exploded) who was adopted and raised by loving parents, who also died just as he was entering adulthood, and someone whose abilities and perceptions make him separate and alone in a way normal people can't really understand. But, that potential for darkness never became the core of Superman because he took that incredible tragedy and forged from it an appreciation of the beauty and fragility of life and he took his unique powers and tied them to a responsibility to protect life.

None of that is to say that Superman is devoid of darkness, either. But, it doesn't define him. There are compelling dark heroes - I like them - but Superman isn't one of them. And none of that is to say he has to be portrayed as bland or as all sunshine either. His best characterizations have him with a sense of humor and even mischief from time to time. He feels anger, disappointment, and sadness at the recklessness shown to those things he holds most dear. But, his humor is not born of cynicism and his reaction to villainy isn't an underlying belief that the world is a garbage dump and it's his job to kill the rats. Once again, none of that is to say Superman can't face true evil or deal with a cynical world. Any modern hero must. Superman just does what he does without making those things part of who he is. Superman isn't Grim-&-Gritty™ and a film that tries to take him in that direction risks a fail that is as epic as the character.

I enjoyed Snyder's 300 and Watchmen. I think he did those films well. But, I am hoping that what he brings to the Superman franchise is something with a very different tenor.

A friend of mine told me this about the Superman Trailer:

QuoteWow it looks like they took Batman begins and put it on a boat. Do all superheroes wear a beard before they get a costume?

It does look that way, but I hope they don't go there.

Tailer anti excites me and for me and a Superman film that really means something not good.

I hate, Hate, HATE the textured look of the costume.  That said, the trailer was well done enough to bump me into the "cautiously optimistic" camp.  Well see how the first full, as opposed to teaser trailer does.  It's supposed to be attached to The Hobbit .

Man of Steel SDCC 2012 footage

This video is unlisted. Only those with the link can see it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1DoW5F64_Jg

You know, I got to say, I'm a little optimistic of what I just saw, the comic-con footage made me a little more hopeful, but seriously, in movie history there are three theme songs that should absolutely survive any remakes that are made for the original and that is Shaft, Flash Gordon and Superman.  It sounds like the put Gladiator music in a Superman movie.  I mean, Hans Zimmer is good, but do we really need to re-do the theme?

Hans Zimmer was given the job to score MoS, last month. I don't understand why they didn't use John William's score in the teaser and SDCC footage.

To me, it makes perfect sense not to use the John Williams score.  This time around they're trying to distance themselves from the '70s films, not instantly remind everyone of them.  It's also why they didn't cast a guy who looks like Christopher Reeve.

That cape, that glorious glorious cape... Im impressed, and i cant wait to see where this goes. It still looks a TAD too dark, as far as plotline, but man visually its gonna be a stunning movie.
Another verison, As the old one is gone now: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlbzhYmH4as

Anyone wonder why the red undies are gone?

Spoiler

(http://i45.tinypic.com/30m6eli.gif)(http://i50.tinypic.com/fay8f9.jpg) :lol:

Dumb question moment:

How does Superman shaves???

Quote from: JeyNyce on July 23, 2012, 11:29:52 PM
Dumb question moment:

How does Superman shaves???

Pre-Crisis, his hair didn't grow under a yellow sun, so no worries.  Even since then, they've established that he uses his heat vision reflected off of  a very hard, reflective piece of metal.  Don't know if they've come up with anything else on the subject since '91.

He did something similar in the animated series.  He'd look in the mirror and use heat vision reflecting from the glass.

Or I guess he could take the Hancock approach and just use his hand and scratch it off.  Wish I could do that sometimes.

Quote from: docdelorean88 on July 23, 2012, 10:13:10 PM
As the old one is gone now: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlbzhYmH4as

So is the new one. :(

Quote from: Midnite on July 23, 2012, 10:33:51 PM
Anyone wonder why the red undies are gone?

Spoiler

(http://i45.tinypic.com/30m6eli.gif)(http://i50.tinypic.com/fay8f9.jpg) :lol:

This made me laugh SO hard. OMG..

Quote from: captmorgan72 on July 24, 2012, 07:09:14 PM

Quote from: docdelorean88 on July 23, 2012, 10:13:10 PM
As the old one is gone now: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlbzhYmH4as

So is the new one. :(

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuBPTeDSiTM

Quote from: docdelorean88 on July 23, 2012, 10:13:10 PM
That cape, that glorious glorious cape... Im impressed, and i cant wait to see where this goes. It still looks a TAD too dark, as far as plotline, but man visually its gonna be a stunning movie.

Cape does look awesome.  :wub:

(http://i812.photobucket.com/albums/zz50/frogsplash46/mosflyingleaked001.gif)

From the rumor mill:

http://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/man-steel-feature-woman-cameo/2/

How likely is this going to happen?

In case anybody is interested, a remixed version of the comic con trailer is here. http://vimeo.com/46158451

Link (http://www.comicsalliance.com/2012/10/16/parting-shot-superman-man-of-steel-toy-commercials-zod-video/)

So, this is somewhat related, as it's leaked toy commercials that will be linked to the movie.  Some spoiler-ish info on the link and the videos.

Honestly, I sat watching this with my mouth agape.  And not in a good way.  I know some merchandise in the toy lines for superhero stuff has been drastically tangential, but I'm just seeing fail for these things.  "Let's make toys that have nothing to do with Superman, but market them with the movie anyway!"

Trailer #2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVu3gS7iJu4)

That's quite a bit more intriguing.

Still not quite sold on it.

Hmmm  :unsure: http://movies.cosmicbooknews.com/content/superman-man-steel-henry-cavill-seen-wonder-woman-gina-carano

Quote from: captmorgan72 on January 04, 2013, 03:41:31 AM
Hmmm  :unsure: http://movies.cosmicbooknews.com/content/superman-man-steel-henry-cavill-seen-wonder-woman-gina-carano

She looks super tough, good choice. I have good hopes for this movie.

Hmmm http://movies.cosmicbooknews.com/content/batman-superman-man-steel-nolan-cant-talk-about-it-big-grin

Quote from: Tomato on October 05, 2011, 03:33:12 PM

Quote from: cmdrkoenig67 on October 05, 2011, 02:53:14 PM
I'm not really a Superman fan, but I think any "first" Superman film would be wise to use Lex Luthor, as he is one of, if not the most important Earthly enemy of Superman.  I'd like to see a combo of Luthor and Bizarro or Luthor and Metallo, to be honest.

Dana

I disagree. While I think Luthor is important to the mythos overall, I don't think he really needs to be in every superman film. Looking at a movie like Fantastic Four, I honestly think they'd have benefitted from not having doom at all in the first film, and bringing him in later on. By contrast, Begins didn't jump at Joker, choosing instead to spend the next movie developing him.

Its just my opinion, you're under no obligation to agree with it, Tomato...And I don't believe I said any where that Lex Luthor has to be in every Superman film.  I certainly think it would be good to at least introduce the character in the first movie.

Dana

We don't know that they aren't doing that, though. Yeah, by all accounts he's not front and center in this film, but that's not to say that lexcorp won't be present and there won't be hints at the character within the world. It's Lex Luthor for goodness sake, obviously he's going to exist in some form, even if they choose not to show him directly.

That said, Zod is a better fit for the first film's villain. His origins and motivations have always traditionally been tied with Superman's, he provides a legitimate physical threat to the Man of Steel, and he doesn't have to waste film time with a lot of back-story or deep psychoanalysis. Lex Luthor is a very complex character, and I'd rather they hold off on him in the first film so they can spend the appropriate amount of time developing him in a sequel.

No Lex unless he's got on his supersuit.  It's time to FIGHT!

idk about Lex but the costumes look sweet according to these figures


http://imgur.com/a/r3s4V

Those maybe not so much, but as a toy collector I'm looking forward to some of the stuff Mattel's been showing.

I don't necessarily agree that Lex would need his supersuit, but darn it, Thalaw is freaking right.  It's time for a super-powered smack down.  In fact, it's way past time.

Man, the Super suit just looks unfinished without the trunks.  It looks like Supes left the phonebooth before he was done getting into costume.

I wish the movie people would be confident enough to bring some of the Superman rogue's gallery to the big screen.  Brainiac, Parasite, Metallo, Toyman... we deserve to see the Man of Steel up against more threats than just Luthor and the occassional Kryptonian totalitarian.

In this case, I think Zod's inclusion has more to do with his origin being an extension of Superman's own, which allows the movie to focus on one origin story rather than cramming in the origin of an additional villain (Especially since many villains, such as Metallo, have origins that occur as a result of Superman's existence). I think once we've established Superman in this film, the next film can expand into more of his universe. Granted, we're almost guaranteed to have a Luthor in the next film (assuming he isn't in this one at all, which is still a stretch) but I could definitely see Luthor/Metallo or something.

To be fair though, the only Superman franchise to last more than one movie was the Reeve films, and they just kind of ignored the comics in general.

Not to be cynical, but I suspect it's more of a challenge to get a big name to play a villain most people haven't heard of. There are plenty of exceptions (e.g. Liam Neeson playing Ras in Batman Begins), but I suspect it'd be harder to convince a big box office draw to make his mark on the franchise by playing Brainiac or Metallo than by playing Luthor, who is considered THE Superman villain. After the disappointment in Superman Returns, it seems like they are trying to put a recognizable face behind most of the recognizable names in this one.

And, that's on top of the issue where actors don't get the same face time if they play masked or heavily-made-up villains. Even in movies where the stars get plenty of screen time while not in costume, they still keep taking their masks off for no reason. I always find that somewhat annoying and distracting to the story, even understanding the meta excuse that the actor can do a better job of acting when people can see his face. Though these heroes have gone through all sorts of contortions to create and maintain their secret identities, apparently it doesn't occur to them that a famous superhero standing in costume on a rooftop overlooking the city with his face exposed would have about 90 seconds before that picture was on Facebook.

Anyway, I am looking forward to this and I don't mind seeing Zod. We watched the extended cut of the original Superman a couple weeks ago and there was quite a bit of Zod and Krypton and it worked pretty well in the movie. And, really, that movie was better than I remembered. Yes, parts were campy and the special effects (especially the flying) were pretty unconvincing. But, with a couple exceptions, the story worked and the "first date" scene with Lois was actually one of the better ones of its kind.

Quote from: Tomato on February 12, 2013, 02:59:31 AM
Those maybe not so much, but as a toy collector I'm looking forward to some of the stuff Mattel's been showing.

The Movie Masters? I saw pics of them and they look fantastic, especially Superman.

Primarily those yes, but even the kiddie ones mattel's making (which I'm buying because Hasbro won't make Black Widow or Mark VII IM in 6" scale, and I want both movieverses in the same scale) look good, despite the lack of decent articulation.

Quote from: stumpy on February 15, 2013, 08:40:29 PM
Not to be cynical, but I suspect it's more of a challenge to get a big name to play a villain most people haven't heard of. There are plenty of exceptions (e.g. Liam Neeson playing Ras in Batman Begins), but I suspect it'd be harder to convince a big box office draw to make his mark on the franchise by playing Brainiac or Metallo than by playing Luthor, who is considered THE Superman villain. After the disappointment in Superman Returns, it seems like they are trying to put a recognizable face behind most of the recognizable names in this one.

Depends on the "big name" actor.  A lot of actors, even big name ones, would relish the opportunity to play a lesser villain to a character like Superman or Batman if the script was good, a good director was involved, and/or it was pitched to them well.  Tom Hardy took about 5 seconds to accept the part of Bane even with the mask coming into play.  He was eager to do it because of the director involved.  Robin Williams offered to play a random thug in the movie just because he wanted to be a part of the Batman franchise.

Getting a big name onto a franchise playing a lesser known villain usually comes down to how it is pitched to them and how good the script is that they are shown.  The problem there is that their agents are usually the ones who are approached first and some agents have a reputation for turning parts for their clients without the clients even being asked.   However, the "superhero/comic book movie" has become a genre unto itself and a lot of actors are surprisingly receptive to being involved with them.

IIRC, Robert Downy Jr. actually took on the role of Iron Man (who had devolved into kind of a tool in the years prior to the movie) for less pay then he really deserved, just because he wanted to play a superhero. Yeah, he wasn't exactly at the height of his popularity like he is now, but the sheer fact that he took home less for IM 1 then Cuba Gooding/Rhodey did says a lot about how coveted even "minor" roles in superhero films have been, especially with Avengers running around beating the pants off everyone.

Again, I think this has far more to do with the fact that the focus of this film is to establish SUPERMAN. They don't want to waste time with a complex character like Lex Luthor or with more alien races or kryptonite powered robots. Zod's powers are the same as Superman's, his origin can be worked into the Krypton stuff with minimal effort, and it allows them to focus on establishing their main character.

Superman is not any easy character to work with. We're not dealing with someone with the pseudo-racial drama of the X-men, the poor-mes of Spiderman, or the brooding of Batman. We've seen it in comics for ages, this notion that Superman's too tough to write because no one can relate because there's no drama in his life and blah blah blah. It's even worse for a film, because you only have a few hours to convince non-comic fans that someone like this can exist, and you can't distract them with petty drama like you can for Spiderman.

Quote from: Tomato on February 17, 2013, 06:49:42 PMhe took home less for IM 1 then Cuba Gooding/Rhodey did

Gee, I'd certainly hope that's not true. I felt Cuba Gooding's performance in IM1 was lacking substance to such an extent that it almost felt like he wasn't in the movie at all.

Errr...aahhhh....wasn't Terrence Howard playing the part of Rhodey in IM1?

LOL!  BWPS

Quote from: BWPS on February 17, 2013, 07:16:52 PM

Quote from: Tomato on February 17, 2013, 06:49:42 PMhe took home less for IM 1 then Cuba Gooding/Rhodey did

Gee, I'd certainly hope that's not true. I felt Cuba Gooding's performance in IM1 was lacking substance to such an extent that it almost felt like he wasn't in the movie at all.

Ha! :D

Teach me not to google first... whatever, my point is, the Guy who played Rhodey (who did nothing substantial relating to the plot, and who had less to do with that film than Coulson did) got paid more then RDJ did.

Edit: BTW, in my defense, I was scrambling to finish that post quickly because my dad decided to bring my two year old foster brother downstairs, and invariably that means I'm watching him because my dad just lets him do whatever while he gets on the computer.

I understand that the more obscure Superman villains (i.e., everyone not named Luthor and Zod) would be a hard sell for most studios, but that's why I give Marvel so much credit for taking a chance on the first Thor movie.  I never thought they would be able to convincingly integrate that mythology into the already established Iron Man universe, but they did.  And they even decided to feature Loki (in all his crazy horned green costume-ness) as the primary villain of The Avengers.  And it worked.  Somehow, it worked. 

So I certainly think WB ought to trust the Superman source material more when it comes to inspiration for movie characters.  I would love to see Brainiac on the big screen.

And how would they include Braniac's origin with that of Superman, without taking away screen time from establishing Superman? Again, I think it has far less to do with recognition (Zod is not a big part of the comics, he's only remembered at all due to Superman 2) and more logistics. Zod is a character they don't need to devote much screen time to, at all.

Man of Steel - Official Trailer 3 [HD] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6DJcgm3wNY)

:o

Man they are really taking themselves seriously. Can't wait.

See, this is already my most anticipated movie for the summer, so it's tough for me to get any more excited then I am. WB's trying though.

Ehh, it looks good.  I just am not super excited about this.

Quote from: BentonGrey on April 17, 2013, 06:29:57 PM
Ehh, it looks good.  I just am not super excited about this.

I see what you did there.

Meh... I can see why some fans are a bit apprehensive going into this one... much as I enjoyed TDK, I probably fall into the same group of "enough with the Nolanverse Batman" comic fans as Benton does. Nolan severely limited the scope of Batman's universe (Both in terms of the rogues gallery as well as the character of Bruce Wayne), and by the time TDKR came out, we were already bashing our heads on those limitations.

That said... I don't get that impression with MoS. I mean, it's a movie about a super-powered alien, so it's not like kryptonite powered robots or aliens with shrink rays are THAT far outside the realm of possibility here. I also don't feel like they're vainly trying to make him an everyman either... he's going to have flaws, sure, but this trailer in particular showcases him as every bit the earnest boy scout Superman is supposed to be. Combine that with the fact that this film is being directed by Zack Snyder (himself a huge comic fan) a director known for being able to direct action (Nolan's biggest flaw as a director)... Yes, I have high hopes for this one. I wish I could say those hopes extended toward a JLA movie, but... well, they don't.

Quote from: Tomato on February 18, 2013, 01:34:35 AM
And how would they include Braniac's origin with that of Superman, without taking away screen time from establishing Superman? Again, I think it has far less to do with recognition (Zod is not a big part of the comics, he's only remembered at all due to Superman 2) and more logistics. Zod is a character they don't need to devote much screen time to, at all.

Like in the cartoon Brainiac could originally have been the Krytonian world computer that falsified Jor-Els findings to keep the people from keeping it busy trying to save them instead of itself.

But then you still have to spend time justifying not only the existence of aliens, but also supercomputers that rebel against their creators. That takes away from Superman's story, potentially turns off an audience, etc.

I'm not saying it couldn't be done (as you said, STAS did it... which ironically adds on the additional problem of them avoiding ripping off a cartoon)  but this was a better solution for the origin movie. Based on everything I've heard about the film, Zod's inclusion actually adds more to Superman's story then if the villain was any other character.

They could have written anyone in and while Zod is fine I guess, Braniac should be in the sequel, Braniac is awesome.

There is a benefit to leveraging common elements in the origins of the hero and villains to do double-duty in developing both. To the extent they can do it, it's a synergy worth exploiting. And I certainly agree that a superhero origin story movie needs to spend time on the hero and that time spent developing villains takes away from the hero time. However, that line of reasoning only goes so far because, in a movie with finite time to tell a story, any time not spent on the hero can be said to take away from him in some way. But the goal of the movie isn't only to develop the hero. A well-developed villain adds something to the movie, even in an origin story. It's the trade-off between using more screen time developing the hero and giving him something compelling to do once we know who he is. The latter is what time spent on the villain does. If developing the villain means we don't understand that Kal grew up knowing he was the sole-survivor of an entire planet and that that tragic loss shapes his values and his determination to protect people, then the trade-off isn't worth it. On the other hand, if developing the villain means we don't get the second or third scene of young Clark hoping to get Lana's attention but being disappointed as she cozies up to a football player, then I would much prefer the compelling villain.

(Nevermind that using Zod immediately starts to undermine the sole-survivor aspect of his origin. I'll let the people who complain that Kara, and Krypto, and so on all undermine Kal's origin wrestle with that one.)

Overall, though, I am pleased with Zod as the first Big Bad in the series. For one thing, having someone that Kal has to deal with on physically equal terms does give free reign to create a visually stunning, no-holds-barred, action movie. More importantly, it sets a standard for the scale of threats he will face in future movies. If they can do Zod now, then Brainiac, Darkseid, Mongul, etc. should be on the table for later movies. And, as has been noted, many good Superman stories center around Kal confronting a problem that he can't solve by putting his fist through it. When they do add Lex to the rogue's gallery, he can present Kal with that problem. Hopefully, it will be something more original than a greedy businessman who weakens Kal with kryptonite long enough to threaten the world with some implausible money-making scam. ;)

See, I personally have never understood the necessity of making Clark the only kryptonian, just like I don't understand why Kyle suddenly had to be the only GL, or why the Doctor had to be made half human to separate him from the other time lords. Superman in particular is important because of WHO he is, not because he flies around and punches people. And from a narrative perspective, giving him that sense of lonliness is only important in the beginning, when he finds out he's an alien and suddenly he's all alone. Zod's inclusion actually adds to that particular narrative, because there's this brief hope in Clark that suddenly he isn't alone, only for him to realize how little he has in common with them.

Is it me or did the meaning of the 'S' change again?  How long has it stood for hope now?

It's been the symbol of hope and the coat of arms for superman's family for almost a decade, since Mark Waid's Superman:birthright series in 2004. It may have been that on Smallville too for all I know, but I don't recall too well.

Ok.  I knew about it being part of the El family coat of arms, but never read the Mark Waid stuff (I know I should...I love that man...for his writing). 

It's a good thing that aliens have one language all across their planet unlike us Earthlings.  We'll never unlock the secrets of intergalatic travel until we're all speaking the same langauge and share one culture.

(http://i47.tinypic.com/24oyn9w.jpg)  :lol:

Haha, that's very clever. :)

Man of Steel - "Fate of Your Planet" Official Trailer [HD] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlOF03DUoWc)

Eldest daughter is taking me to the midnight premier Thursday as a pre father's day thing so I'll report back. I must confess , I am insanely excited.

I'm looking forward to hearing what folks think.  The reviews I've read so far are not terribly encouraging, and if nothing else they definitely seem to say or more less what many of us have been saying since the project was first announced, that attempting to shoehorn angst and ultra-serious tones into Superman is missing the point of the character.

In that vein, I've been engaged in a running debate with a friend of mine about the viability of Superman as a solo character.  He, like Hollywood and many folks on the street, thinks Supes is boring because he's a morally upright character with 'no flaws,' while I argue that just because a character doesn't have an arc that leads from heel to hero doesn't mean you can't tell great stories about him.

Quote from: BentonGrey on June 12, 2013, 07:43:40 PM
In that vein, I've been engaged in a running debate with a friend of mine about the viability of Superman as a solo character.  He, like Hollywood and many folks on the street, thinks Supes is boring because he's a morally upright character with 'no flaws,' while I argue that just because a character doesn't have an arc that leads from heel to hero doesn't mean you can't tell great stories about him.

I think it's less that you can't tell great stories, and more that most audiences and creators think that sounds less interesting/ it's easier to tell interesting stories about flawed characters.

Previews look promising, but I don't know if I'm enough of a Supes fan to see this in the theater.

So reading through some of the reviews, I've pretty much come to similar coclusions that Benton did.  Not the that's all a bad thing.  It promises to be high on the action and angst.  But there are a few things that I skimmed over accidentally that bothered me about this movie and any sequel(s) that will be produced.  It's a bit of a departure from what we know to be Superman and what makes the story what it is.

Please, if you do not want a pretty MAJOR plot point revealed, do not read ahead...

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

I'm warning you...

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

You've been warned...

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Lois figures out Superman's secret identity.

Quote from: Podmark on June 13, 2013, 05:00:42 AM
I think it's less that you can't tell great stories, and more that most audiences and creators think that sounds less interesting/ it's easier to tell interesting stories about flawed characters.

I think that's quite fair.  It's certainly EASIER to tell fantastic stories that feature Superman with the League, and Batman lends himself to compelling storytelling more easily, but it doesn't mean that you can't do the same things with Supes by himself.  Well said.

To bw honest with you Benton, Superman is not a very interesting character in my point of view. Considering that he has similar values with Cap someone could say i find both of them boring. But that couldnt be farther from truth. Cap resides on his humanity such as Batman. They are both compelling because despite the fact they socialize with Super beings they are both leaders in their teams. Why? Because the feats they accomplish have far greater value due to their lack of superpowers. They are more grounded and they reflect in some degree US. Superman is a god. I dont care with psychological problems he has(no pun intended) but he will never be so inspiring due to his supreme traits. Just my opinion.

Jimaras, I disagree strongly with that statement. I agree that most writers don't know what to do with him, so he's boring like, 80% of the time, but there are some really great, down to earth superman stories. I grew up listening to some of the old Superman Radio series (My dad got me into them as a kid) and most of those stories are just superman against small town thugs, but they're every bit as engaging now as they were when I was a kid because the characters are much more grounded in reality.

Again, I'm reserving judgement until I see it, and not letting other people decide for me. If I had gone in listening to what critics were saying, I might have disliked IM3... and that was one of the better movies in the franchise. I've heard very good things from some hardcore superman fans too, so it's not like this is a hopeless mess.

Tomato, call me Jim and will be easier for you  :D. I understand what you are saying and i strongly declared that my post was my personal POV. Superman is the most famous comic book hero, it would be insane if he didnt have avid fans. I just never grew on him and the DC universe in general. I am not saying Man of Steel is bad, havent seen it yet, but maybe snyder fall into the trap of mimicing Dark knight style due to Nolans influence on the project. Dont know, but if they are trying to do a <<Man of Steel Rises>> they are on the wrong track if you as me.

Jim, when written well, those non-"relatable" characteristics are largely what I like about Superman. I can go to the supermarket checkout stand and read about what humans do, but I don't want those as Superman stories. And, there are plenty of superhero stories written where the message is "despite all the powers/skills/gadgets, he's still just like you and me under it all." That's fine for them, but I don't want Superman to be "humanized". Bleh. He isn't like me or like anyone I know and I don't want him to be. Superman isn't special just because of his powers, but because he takes the high road in ways that most people would not. He overcomes the temptation to misuse them (e.g. he doesn't return from a 5-year space trip and use his powers to stalk his ex-girlfriend and find ways to interfere with the stable environment she's built for her young son), he beats the bad guys without using their tactics, he values and protects humanity despite the fact that he is so different, and he is a beacon of hope despite traditionally having a backstory that is as tragic as that of anyone in comics.

Don't get me wrong, there are excellent superhero stories to be written about flawed individuals who overcome those flaws (or who don't) and go on to save the day. In fact, that's the normal story-writing template. I just don't see it as the best Superman template.

FWIW, I personally think Elliot S! Maggin (a Superman writer during the Silver Age) had about the best take on Superman (and Luthor, too). For better or worse, comics were targeted at younger audiences when he was writing, so some of the comics don't have the sophistication and polish we expect these days. But, his two Superman novels, Superman: Last Son of Krypton and Superman: Miracle Monday are both excellent reads and tell compelling Superman stories without "going dark" or giving every other street thug a chunk of kryptonite. I bought both in paperback form from an online used book seller several years back, but they were also available for online reading at least one Maggin-affiliated website for a while. I highly recommend them.

BTW, Morrison and Quitely's All-Star Superman mini-series was also an excellent modern take on Kal. Engaging stories about a very powerful being who faces challenges and meets them in the characteristic way Superman would.

Anyway, I am hopeful about the movie. I have my doubts about Hollywood's ability to make a big picture about a unique character without panicking and falling back on the standard bag of tricks in order to humanize him and make him relatable. But, Snyder generally has done some good work and he could pull this off.

Stumpy, i see your point and is totally respected  :D. I am just more into guys who are somehow....psychos. One hint is that my favourite marvel chars are wolvie, deadpool and rocket raccoon. So.... that says a lot. A good writer can make wonders with characters like supes. I just think he distant form what i want from my super heroes. Flying with super speed, catching airplanes, or smashing walls, or go turn back time are a bit outdated for me. Instead a shootout against multiple foes, a survival story thats tests a characters limit, or a brawl showdown between arch enemies have my number. But after all these are tastes!

I'm obviously an enormous Superman fan and I'm good with a little "alien raised as a human who doesn't really quite fit in anywhere " in my Superman.  The above mentioned Elliot S! Maggin  used that theme quite often. The loneliness of never quite fitting in is part of Superman to me. One thing I like about Superman, Captain America, Thor, Doc Savage and their ilk is their larger than life heroism and strong moral stance. I get tired of protagonists I feel morally superior to.

Like Superman I'm a country boy who moved to the big city.Like Superman (as a SF and fantasy geek in the 60s and 70s growing up in a small town) I never quite fit in. To me Superman is very relatable and at the same time someone you wish you could be.. I can even relate from work and life experiences choosing to make the right moral decision when the world seems to be against you doing it.

Extremely well said, Stumpy.  I'll have to look those books up.  As the Atomic Robo team wrote:

QuoteLoading characters up with angst was a revolutionary move on the part of Marvel Comics back in the '60s. I haven't looked at a calendar today, but that was four decades ago. There are other emotions and motivations available to characters.

Steamteck, I know precisely what you mean.

OMG. It was fantastic! Seeing again with the wife on Tuesday ( $5 movie night ) some purists may have a problem with the  final big fight but it worked for me.  We're talking Marvel  cinematic universe good here IMO.

Just got back from the first showing.  I gotta say I wasn't too much impressed.  It had its moments, but it didn't stick with me.

Spoiler

I'm not going to go through every bit that bothered me and such, but I'm really getting bothered by this recent trend of certain producers feeling a need to alter intrinsic parts of what makes some characters and book work for whatever reason.  I mean, I'm still having trouble finding a reason why

Spoiler

Lois had to discover Supeman's identity.  And then feel the need to blurt out his name whenever she felt the need.  I know it might just be me being picky, but the whole Lois/Superman/Clark triangle is an element that's almost as ingrained in the Superman mythos as him being the last son of Krypton.  But her finding out who he is, again, can't figure out what it accomplished.

More than that though, it seemed like they wanted to go out their way to make Superman a Superman for 2010 and what would Superman be like in the real world, but then dampen that idea by having these large-scale , massive holocaust like destruction, laying waste to entire cities cause them to be effective war zones.  I know a superpowered alien stretches by suspension of belief, but ain alien invasion by earth seemed to be taken fairly well by an entire population.  Especially after the death of thousands with skyscrapers being pulverized like dandilions.  Hard for me to take it too seriously when it does that.

It just seemed rushed or disjointed and it seemed to go out its way to make it more complicated than necessary.

Quote from: Shogunn2517 on June 14, 2013, 02:21:44 PM
Just got back from the first showing.  I gotta say I wasn't too much impressed.  It had its moments, but it didn't stick with me.

Spoiler

I'm not going to go through every bit that bothered me and such, but I'm really getting bothered by this recent trend of certain producers feeling a need to alter intrinsic parts of what makes some characters and book work for whatever reason.  I mean, I'm still having trouble finding a reason why

Spoiler

Lois had to discover Supeman's identity.  And then feel the need to blurt out his name whenever she felt the need.  I know it might just be me being picky, but the whole Lois/Superman/Clark triangle is an element that's almost as ingrained in the Superman mythos as him being the last son of Krypton.  But her finding out who he is, again, can't figure out what it accomplished.

More than that though, it seemed like they wanted to go out their way to make Superman a Superman for 2010 and what would Superman be like in the real world, but then dampen that idea by having these large-scale , massive holocaust like destruction, laying waste to entire cities cause them to be effective war zones.  I know a superpowered alien stretches by suspension of belief, but ain alien invasion by earth seemed to be taken fairly well by an entire population.  Especially after the death of thousands with skyscrapers being pulverized like dandilions.  Hard for me to take it too seriously when it does that.

It just seemed rushed or disjointed and it seemed to go out its way to make it more complicated than necessary.

I must have seen a different movie? Seemed pretty tight to me.

Your big spoiler issue is actually not a big deal for me. I actually prefer this approach  ( now rebooted away in the comics)

I am not a huge fan of Superman either.  I never have been one.  There have been a few Superman stories that I liked, though.  (One of those stories was "For Tomorrow" which Brian Azzarello wrote a few years ago.  Which might tell you something.)    For me, the 'darker' story is not a bad thing.  I don't even think it is going to be that 'dark' but rather more 'serious' in tone than the Donner films or Singer's fiasco. 

I've already see spoilers for the movie.  The one that Shogun mentioned was one of the first things that I heard earlier this week.  I was cool with it.  I am far more disappointed regarding something else that I heard about the movie. 

Spoiler

No after credits cameo by any other DC hero.

but I can see why given DC's track record of getting their heroes on film.

Regardless, I am looking forward to seeing this movie.  I'm going to see this with minimal expectations but that's been the case from the outset..  However, I won't be able to see it for a week or so.

Quote from: steamteck on June 14, 2013, 04:47:12 PM

Quote from: Shogunn2517 on June 14, 2013, 02:21:44 PM
Just got back from the first showing.  I gotta say I wasn't too much impressed.  It had its moments, but it didn't stick with me.

Spoiler

I'm not going to go through every bit that bothered me and such, but I'm really getting bothered by this recent trend of certain producers feeling a need to alter intrinsic parts of what makes some characters and book work for whatever reason.  I mean, I'm still having trouble finding a reason why

Spoiler

Lois had to discover Supeman's identity.  And then feel the need to blurt out his name whenever she felt the need.  I know it might just be me being picky, but the whole Lois/Superman/Clark triangle is an element that's almost as ingrained in the Superman mythos as him being the last son of Krypton.  But her finding out who he is, again, can't figure out what it accomplished.

More than that though, it seemed like they wanted to go out their way to make Superman a Superman for 2010 and what would Superman be like in the real world, but then dampen that idea by having these large-scale , massive holocaust like destruction, laying waste to entire cities cause them to be effective war zones.  I know a superpowered alien stretches by suspension of belief, but ain alien invasion by earth seemed to be taken fairly well by an entire population.  Especially after the death of thousands with skyscrapers being pulverized like dandilions.  Hard for me to take it too seriously when it does that.

It just seemed rushed or disjointed and it seemed to go out its way to make it more complicated than necessary.

I must have seen a different movie? Seemed pretty tight to me.

Your big spoiler issue is actually not a big deal for me. I actually prefer this approach  ( now rebooted away in the comics)

No, you were not seeing a different movie.  I can't fault you and how you see things.  I'm not saying it was poorly directed or acted.  It was a good movie.  It just tried to do to much and seemed to want to BE epic instead of just IS.  I don't want to dump on the movie.  It just didn't stick to me as much as I wanted it too.

Here's a collection of my random disjointed thoughts on the movie.

Spoiler

- my girlfriend put it best when she said, the movie was good, there just wasn't a climax.
- as an educator I really really loved the scenes of Clark growing up. It really came across as him being a child with special needs, especially after watching the TEDxTeen talk by 12 year old Jacob Barnett
- Kevin Costner was amazing as a father
- we finally got to see big massive fights in a Superman movie, but there did seem to be few consequences for the fights (ie loss of human life, damage taken by combatants)
- finally we have a Pulitzer prize winning journalist that could track down a story and figure out a mystery. One of the most well-written Lois Lanes I've seen.
- the whole terraforming plot is dumb, didn't they see how awesome it is to live with powers?
- Kryptonian culture was definitely alien here.  I loved it. The tech was better than random crystals and it referenced both silver age krypton and Geoff johns krypton
- no post-credits scene  :angry:
- only a passing reference to Lex Luthor, no Jimmy Olsen, lots of room for growth.

In all, I really liked it,  streets ahead of Superman Returns, and Green Lantern, not quite on par with Thor.
My thoughts and hopes for the future of the franchise:

Spoiler

- the next movie should be called "Man of Tomorrow"
- it should focus on the rebuilding of Metropolis into a futuristic city, Superman becomes a shining light for humanity
- introduce Jimmy Olsen and work on establishing Clark Kent as a secret identity at the Daily Planet
- introduce Lex Luthor as villain, with either Bizarro or Doomsday as the person to fight
- probably bizarro would be better, since Kal already holds the entirety of Kryptonian DNA in his blood.  A clone could be made.
- the main conflict is about the future of humanity, can we do it on our own (like what Luthor wants) or do we need a Superman
- Bizarro/Doomsday is used either as a result of mad science or extraterrestrial conflict, and it comes across as Superman's fault...almost Prometheus unbound like

- the third movie should be called "Last son of Krypton"
- following on the events of the last movie, Brainiac becomes interested in Earth
- the story of the Kryptonian codex is followed up, Brainiac is also interested in Kryptonian DNA
- Lex Luthor needs to resolve differences with Superman, or kind of back him up in a way against Brainiac
- a bottle city of Kandor(of a sort) is found on Brainiac's ship.  It's up to Superman to reinvigorate it wi life from his DNA.
- Superman has to bridge the gap between Earth and a new Krypton
- other fun stuff happens...

Those are some great ideas, detourne_me. Hopefully WB is as a creative as you are.

DM, you are a genius.

Spoiler

I'd love to see a Bizarro in film.  As I told my friends, I think of Luthor more as the side-villain/manipulator; not exactly the villain who Superman has to face the entire movie.  That doesn't mean that he can't play a large role, though

l seen it last night and honestly I don't know. I can seem to put my finger on a view point

It may sound like over analyzing it but this one may take some thinking about. my main problem with mos is simply,Mos just seemed off there was some amazingly spectacular parts but others just seemed to dumb and so random. It's a strange film that seems to really have polarised people. I honestly can't seem to make a final decision on it.

It's in no way a bad movie it just seem to be something that doesn't sit

One think that does stand out and I know it will not be popular especially on the hype but they really need to pull back on the Nolan filter as its being called online, it may work in some places but in others it seemed extremely jarring. it seem to be a great action movie but every low on heart in the characters


and as for the ending im not a fan or against it because of personal beliefs but this is simply going to really PO a lot of fans

The movie has some good things going for it. I just wish...

Spoiler

...Superman was better at saving people. We don't specifically see it, but given the widespread destruction -- Metropolis looks like a nuke hit it -- the death toll must be in the hundreds of thousands at least. And since the only reason Zod comes to Earth in the first place is because Superman's there, it makes Supes look more like a liability than a savior. One of the things I liked about the Avengers movie was that the heroes at least gave lip service to the idea of protecting civilians and limiting collateral damage. Superman doesn't seem to give a hoot.

I was generally ...im not sure displeased is appropriate.... just... not impressed i guess. It was ok. The casting was SPOT ON(Henry Cavil is my new favorite superman to be honest). But... it was... disjointed. Jumpy. FAR too angsty. UE basically said what ive been thinking. Id write a longer review, but i cant seem to figure out how to put a spoiler tag in here :P

Quote from: docdelorean88 on June 16, 2013, 06:33:10 PM
I was generally ...im not sure displeased is appropriate.... just... not impressed i guess. It was ok. The casting was SPOT ON(Henry Cavil is my new favorite superman to be honest). But... it was... disjointed. Jumpy. FAR too angsty. UE basically said what ive been thinking. Id write a longer review, but i cant seem to figure out how to put a spoiler tag in here :P

Disjointed?  Jumpy?  Not in a Nolan affiliated superhero flick!  Shock and disbelief! ;)

The spoiler tags are now the hazard symbol, next to the quote button.

I figured I wouldn't be the only person who felt the way I did about this movie. 

Again, no one(I don't even think the actual critics) is saying that this is a bad movie.  Snyder did a pretty fine job directing.  The acting was WELL done from just about everyone.  The thing is, something just seems off.  It's like they had in their minds these certain points, benchmarks or devices that they thought they had to hit to make an epic movie and that's what they did. 

"Bad arse heart pumping music? Check."
"Inevitable adopted son/father 'you're not my dad anyway' argument? Check"
"Hero not knowing what to do turns to random priest for advice? Check"
"Touching teachable flashback moments? Check"
"super big bad over the top superhero fight? Check."
"Heart jerking emotional farewell kiss? Check."
"Superman doing something Superman-zy? Check."
"Clark Kent reporting for duty with dorky specs readying for the sequel? Cha-Ching"

It's like they said, okay this is what we need to do to make an epic movie.  Now that we did it, this will be the most epic movie ever!  Well... No.  The movie was good.  I smiled at the end.  Smashed popcorn in my face googily eyed at the super fights.  Marveled at a Superman who finally looked like the Suoerman we all wanted to see.  It was a good movie, but like I said, it just didn't stick with me.  I see it much like I saw Thor or Captain America or Batman Begins.  It was a good start and entertaining... Just something's didn't sit well with me.  Heck if it's anything like Nolan Batman movies, I'll love the 2nd one because the remembrable villain and the character coming into his own and then I'll hate the 3rd one when Nolan changes the entire essences and trajectory of the character by like giving him a kid and sending him on a random five year trip when he's supposed to be earths protector.................

Wait you preferred the 2nd Batman movie to Begins or Thor or Captain America? Those didn't quite sit right. Wow! we really really are on a different wavelength. That's cool though everybody's different.


Well, I'm seeing again on Tuesday with the wife and maybe Wednesday. Its doing well so a sequel has been greenlighted. I'm happy.

I've been thinking a bit more about this new status quo for superman...

Spoiler

Lex Luthor should be able to salvage chunks of the Kryptonian scout ship and genesis chamber in order to make a Bizarro clone...
OR
The corrupted Jor-El AI from the scout ship could become Brainiac
OR
Brainiac could be another AI from one of the old outposts that returns to see Krypton destroyed.  It then goes into zealous archivist mode and begins scouring the universe for civilizations to record...finally coming upon Earth
OR
Obviously the 'Kryptonian Atmosphere' was a way to get around the Kryptonite problem, perhaps Brainiac's mothership includes 'bottling' facilities that would replicate the atmosphere, causing strife for supey.

Quote from: steamteck on June 17, 2013, 12:15:09 PM
Wait you preferred the 2nd Batman movie to Begins or Thor or Captain America? Those didn't quite sit right. Wow! we really really are on a different wavelength. That's cool though everybody's different.


Well, I'm seeing again on Tuesday with the wife and maybe Wednesday. Its doing well so a sequel has been greenlighted. I'm happy.

I thought The Dark Knight was universally seen as the greatest comic movie ever made...  Even arguably better than the Avengers because it was a more complete movie that could appeal to a broader audience. 

I mean, that notwithstanding, I like Batman Begins.  I definitely liked Thor and Captain America.  But the Dark Knight was on a whole other level.  So was The Avengers.  And that's not just with me.  Man of Steel is a good movie.  But there are problems with it.  Whether it's the script or the editing or character development, they stand out to a LOT of people.  Very much unlike The Avengers and The Dark Knight.  Despite that, this movie will make a lot of money, but it's Superman.  He's an American icon.  Even Superman Returns made a lot of money.

But wavelengths are wavelengths.  Not only do I NOT think The Green Lantern is the worst comic movie ever, but I thought Raimi's first two Spider-Man movies are among the greatest(like next to Avengers).  I didn't find out until recently that not only people prefer the last one(which agitates me greatly), but they didn't like Raimi's Spider-Man at all.  And that's even excluding the mess of the third one.

Yep , I'm one of those few who intensely disliked the Dark Knight and can tell you its flaws for hours. I disliked it so much that Nolan's involvement with Man of Steel really really worried me. Benton is a Dark Knight fan compared to me. I've tried watching it multiple times but nope. I know its not the popular stance but that's me ( and fortunately my wife and best friend have the same opinion. ). My son and older daughter  consider it OK at best
.
I however really liked Rami's first two Spider-Man films  and think Amazing was fine but not quite up to Rami's

Green lantern had lots of decent moments and elements but they never quite came together for me. Hector Hammond should have been ones movie and the league the next one IMO. Mark Strong was a great Sinestro. I doubt there will be a better one.

Quote from: Shogunn2517 on June 17, 2013, 05:06:21 PM
I thought The Dark Knight was universally seen as the greatest comic movie ever made...  Even arguably better than the Avengers because it was a more complete movie that could appeal to a broader audience. 

Ha...hahaha....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahaha...hooo...hehe....ha... :roll:

For me it's a question of hindsight... at the time Dark Knight came out, I absolutely loved it. It did justice to one of my all time favorite batman villains (Two-Face), it had a crazy new twist on the Joker, it had crazy new gadgets and a complex story I thought was brilliant at the time. But, in retrospect, I've started to see all the cracks and plot holes in the film... I still enjoy it as a movie, but I'd place it at the same level as Iron Man rather than at Avengers level.

Personally I love The Dark Knight, it's a thrill every time I watch. One of my favorite movies. Not saying it's perfect but there's nothing in it that bothers me.

Still haven't seen Man of Steel but I've heard some interesting things.

Quote from: BentonGrey on June 18, 2013, 03:33:18 AM

Quote from: Shogunn2517 on June 17, 2013, 05:06:21 PM
I thought The Dark Knight was universally seen as the greatest comic movie ever made...  Even arguably better than the Avengers because it was a more complete movie that could appeal to a broader audience. 

Ha...hahaha....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahaha...hooo...hehe....ha... :roll:

Sorry BG, that's the truth. Definitely popular opinion among film critics on sites like slashfilm

Wow this movie was  incredible,  finally a really great Superman movie. I  was expecting to like it but was still blown away. The action was. really  something awesome and new,  and Henry Cavill was perfect.  I didn't even mind Amy Adams in this movie, she played Lois very well.  The Kryptonian  technology and planet and everything really added a lot.  I'm so excited to see what happens next,  they could do great stuff with other DC characters,  possibly even Wonder Woman.  Anyway, DC  needs to throw as much Christopher Nolan as they can afford at every movie they make,  and the same goes for Zach Snyder. His style is perfect for superhero movies that aren't Watchmen.

Quote from: detourne_me on June 18, 2013, 06:52:43 AM

Quote from: BentonGrey on June 18, 2013, 03:33:18 AM

Quote from: Shogunn2517 on June 17, 2013, 05:06:21 PM
I thought The Dark Knight was universally seen as the greatest comic movie ever made...  Even arguably better than the Avengers because it was a more complete movie that could appeal to a broader audience. 

Ha...hahaha....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahaha...hooo...hehe....ha... :roll:

Sorry BG, that's the truth. Definitely popular opinion among film critics on sites like slashfilm

I'll give you its the popular opinion. It doesn't make our long time  criticisms go away though.  It just means folks ( I really pray this isn't true) don't see them or like everything so much they don't care. The Dark Knight terrified me when it was so popular because I thought its plot hole ridden darkness and villain victory ending would become the norm but then we had thw marvel movies and , for me , the Superhero genre was saved. man of Steel , anyway, met or exceeded all my frankly pretty high expectations.
My wife and I are going to see it again today.

Quote from: Tomato on June 18, 2013, 04:33:58 AM
For me it's a question of hindsight... at the time Dark Knight came out, I absolutely loved it. It did justice to one of my all time favorite batman villains (Two-Face), it had a crazy new twist on the Joker, it had crazy new gadgets and a complex story I thought was brilliant at the time. But, in retrospect, I've started to see all the cracks and plot holes in the film... I still enjoy it as a movie, but I'd place it at the same level as Iron Man rather than at Avengers level.

I actually envy you. it never wowed me and the plot holes and problems were evident from the first. I actually left the theater pretty angry. I try to watch it fresh every 6 to 9 months but it just seems to be worse than I remember each time while Batman begins has staying power with me. Obviously it spoke to lots of people though so it did something right.

TDK is the greatest movie of all time.  Was it perfect? Yes.  Were there plot holes? No.

I enjoyed the TDK, but felt it was a little too Dark (and no I'm not after a recreation of the Adam West version), as far as an overall great experience and a choice for my kids to see, I'd rate Avengers no.1 and Batman Begins number two.

Sadly we don't get Man of Steel till June 27 over here.

*Ignores BWPS*

Quote from: detourne_me on June 18, 2013, 06:52:43 AM

Quote from: BentonGrey on June 18, 2013, 03:33:18 AM

Quote from: Shogunn2517 on June 17, 2013, 05:06:21 PM
I thought The Dark Knight was universally seen as the greatest comic movie ever made...  Even arguably better than the Avengers because it was a more complete movie that could appeal to a broader audience. 

Ha...hahaha....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahaha...hooo...hehe....ha... :roll:

Sorry BG, that's the truth. Definitely popular opinion among film critics on sites like slashfilm

If that's true, it makes me very, very sad that professionals would be so bad at their jobs.  :P

TDK is not a bad movie, but it's, as I've always sad, a pretty cripplingly flawed one.  It's got pretty amazing parts and has a lot going for it, but it's also a mess under the hood.  It's nowhere NEAR the best superhero movie, and nowhere NEAR as good as The Avengers.  In fact, I'd stack most of the Marvel offerings against it in terms of polish and completeness, not to mention mass appeal, but The Avengers is on a whole other level.

As for Man of Steel, I've heard enough good stuff about it, including from one of my best friends who is a massive Superman fan, that I'm going to bite the bullet and see it tonight.  Here's hoping it lives up to the hype!

Man of Steel was pretty good, very good really - it's definitely the best Superman film (though IMO, that's a low bar to step over).  The major issue I had...

Spoiler

was in the brutally destructive final fight between Zod and Superman, there's almost no thought given to the human cost.  Are these buildings being destroyed left and right full of people?  You'd expect so, but there's no sign of it or mention, except for the folks at the Daily Planet, who we see escape, and the group of people at the end who Zod tries to incinerate.  All it would have taken is a line about the city being evacuated, or some apparent effort on Superman's part to take the fight out of the city.

Beyond that, I really like the Lois/Clark situation they've set up here.  It neatly curtails 2 of the biggest complaints I've heard over the years about Superman as a franchise - his glasses fooling Lois, who's supposed to be such a smart reporter, and the fact that this champion of truth and justice lies to everyone close to him constantly.  Lois being in on the deception reminds me of the best parts of them married in the comics, with her running interference for Clark to go off and be Superman.

Since we seem to be using thoughts on the Dark Knight as a taste barometer, my thoughts: TDK was a really good movie, and a pretty good Batman movie.  Is it the best superhero movie ever?  Debatable.  Maybe as a film, that happens to be about a superhero, but it's certainly not my favourite.  Is it the best movie of all time?  Certainly not.  Objectively not.

I'm of the same mind as you guys when it comes to TDK vs. Avengers too... Just pointing out popular opinion.
I think Talavar's analogy is pretty spot-on.... Low bar and all.
Although I'm thinking of revisiting the animated Superman movies again, particularly all-star and the Manchester Black one.  I really liked the Doomsday animated movie when I rewatched it recently too.

I liked Superman and the Elite quite a bit.  All-Star is very ambitious in story, but it's just so strange and full of oddness that I'm still not quite sure what I think about it, though I enjoyed it.  The movie actually smooths out some of the rough spots of the comic, in my opinion, since it is forced to move at a faster clip, you don't notice some of the more confusing bits as much.  I actually recently used both of those as examples of good treatments of Superman that show his viability as a solo character. :)

I really want to get my hands on the Timm Superman series.  It was great, but it's been ages since I saw it.

Folks may like TDK, but I think any attempt to elevate it to the status of the greatest superhero movie ever is laughable.  Maybe if it had come out in the 90s, but the field is crowded with far too many better and less flawed movies.

That's the thing.  In my opinion, Timm's Superman is STILL the best version of Superman I've seen.  Origin, villains, personality, everything.

But let me give some background on my earlier statement.  I loved The Dark Knight.  Not only did I think it was(at the time and in many ways still) the best movie about a comic book character there was, but because the movie was more of a crime drama than a "beat'em up" fest like the original Batman franchise or even the Man Of Steel was in a lot of respects, because of the near perfect job Heath Ledger did  with the Joker, the movie transcended simple acceptance of comic book geeks.  It appealed to greater audiences and correct me if I'm wrong, it had a higher sustainability in the box office than the Avenger did.  Trust me, as good as the Avengers was, and it is absolutely good.  It made a whole lot of money over the first two or three weeks. 

To be perfectly honest, I didn't have any REAL problems with The Dark Knight until The Dark Knight Rises came out and pretty much threw two whole movies out the window by retiring Batman and making him a killer(after we got nearly two movies of why Batman doesn't kill).  And the Dark Knight Rises, I probably feel the way about that as you Benton feel about The Dark Knight.

Quote from: Shogunn2517 on June 18, 2013, 05:22:15 PM
That's the thing.  In my opinion, Timm's Superman is STILL the best version of Superman I've seen.  Origin, villains, personality, everything.

But let me give some background on my earlier statement.  I loved The Dark Knight.  Not only did I think it was(at the time and in many ways still) the best movie about a comic book character there was, but because the movie was more of a crime drama than a "beat'em up" fest like the original Batman franchise or even the Man Of Steel was in a lot of respects, because of the near perfect job Heath Ledger did  with the Joker, the movie transcended simple acceptance of comic book geeks.  It appealed to greater audiences and correct me if I'm wrong, it had a higher sustainability in the box office than the Avenger did.  Trust me, as good as the Avengers was, and it is absolutely good.  It made a whole lot of money over the first two or three weeks. 

To be perfectly honest, I didn't have any REAL problems with The Dark Knight until The Dark Knight Rises came out and pretty much threw two whole movies out the window by retiring Batman and making him a killer(after we got nearly two movies of why Batman doesn't kill).  And the Dark Knight Rises, I probably feel the way about that as you Benton feel about The Dark Knight.

Re: the Dark Knight' vs the Avengers at the box office - I disagree.  The Avengers made more money than the Dark Knight both domestically and worldwide, by nearly 100 and 500 million dollars respectively.  The Dark Knight may have seemed to do better over a longer time, but I put that down to timing more than anything.  The summer movie season is always front loaded - the Avengers came out the first weekend in May, with major releases coming out every following weekend.  TDK on the other hand, was the last big movie of its summer, and competed for the following weekends with the dregs of the summer movie season, so it remained the "big movie" in the media for a longer time.  Despite that, the Avengers had a financially bigger 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th & 7th weekends than TDK.  Beyond that, their trajectories were very similar.  The Avengers is still the leader when you correct for rising ticket sale prices in the intervening 4 years.

Also: Timm's Superman, like Timm's Batman, is still the best interpretation of the character.

Yep, Timm created the best of all superhero worlds. ^_^  I love what his Superman did with Brainiac, Metallo, Bizarro, and many others, though not quite as much with Darkseid, since Supes was able to go toe-to-toe with him, but that's still a very minor quibble.  His Clark was believable, his Superman interesting and exciting, the action was great, his Lois was absolutely PERFECT, and his Lex, as we all know from Superman and JLU, became the perfect version of the character, just as his Joker, Riddler, and Mr. Freeze in Batman.

Quote from: Talavar on June 18, 2013, 06:04:25 PM

Quote from: Shogunn2517 on June 18, 2013, 05:22:15 PM
That's the thing.  In my opinion, Timm's Superman is STILL the best version of Superman I've seen.  Origin, villains, personality, everything.

But let me give some background on my earlier statement.  I loved The Dark Knight.  Not only did I think it was(at the time and in many ways still) the best movie about a comic book character there was, but because the movie was more of a crime drama than a "beat'em up" fest like the original Batman franchise or even the Man Of Steel was in a lot of respects, because of the near perfect job Heath Ledger did  with the Joker, the movie transcended simple acceptance of comic book geeks.  It appealed to greater audiences and correct me if I'm wrong, it had a higher sustainability in the box office than the Avenger did.  Trust me, as good as the Avengers was, and it is absolutely good.  It made a whole lot of money over the first two or three weeks. 

To be perfectly honest, I didn't have any REAL problems with The Dark Knight until The Dark Knight Rises came out and pretty much threw two whole movies out the window by retiring Batman and making him a killer(after we got nearly two movies of why Batman doesn't kill).  And the Dark Knight Rises, I probably feel the way about that as you Benton feel about The Dark Knight.

Re: the Dark Knight' vs the Avengers at the box office - I disagree.  The Avengers made more money than the Dark Knight both domestically and worldwide, by nearly 100 and 500 million dollars respectively.  The Dark Knight may have seemed to do better over a longer time, but I put that down to timing more than anything.  The summer movie season is always front loaded - the Avengers came out the first weekend in May, with major releases coming out every following weekend.  TDK on the other hand, was the last big movie of its summer, and competed for the following weekends with the dregs of the summer movie season, so it remained the "big movie" in the media for a longer time.  Despite that, the Avengers had a financially bigger 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th & 7th weekends than TDK.  Beyond that, their trajectories were very similar.  The Avengers is still the leader when you correct for rising ticket sale prices in the intervening 4 years.

Also: Timm's Superman, like Timm's Batman, is still the best interpretation of the character.

Not to be argumentative(because I probably ultimately liked the Avengers more anyway), I think what I was talking about can be illustrated here:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekly&id=avengers11.htm
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekly&id=darkknight.htm

Obviously, I know the Avengers made more money domestically and worldwide than The Dark Knight.  However, The Dark Knight not only was in the top 10 longer than The Avengers, but it also had a long box office run than the Avengers.  I know we're effectively splitting hairs at this point.  And you may be absolutely right about the timing of the releases(The Avengers had to compete with The Dark Knight's sequel to boot).  What you're attributing The Dark Knight's longevity to there being nothing else to see, I attribute it to being more appealing to more audiences than general summer movie fans or comic fans.  You might be right, so I'm not prepared to argue this.

Benton, I agree with a lot of what you said, but in regards of the Superman/Darkseid fights(which were wildly entertaining), Darkseid set the bar by absolutely punking Superman in "Apokalips Now" but throughout it, I agree with you.  Dana Delaney doesn't get enough credit.  Actually all of this Timm talk is making me want to rewatch all three(or five depending on how you see it) series Batman(Batman and Robin), Superman, Justice League(Justice League Unlimited).

Shogunn, I may be misremembering the Darkseid episodes a bit, so that may be.  I just seem to remember Superman showing a bit too well against Darkseid, throughout the Timmverse...but then again, Darkseid's power levels have fluctuated since Kirby created him.  Either way, I definitely agree that the fights and appearances with Darkseid in both series were fantastically entertaining!

In the Timmverse, Superman was definitely the underdog vs Darksied until the final episode and the "world of cardboard" speech moment. I'm not opposed the Superman winning but he should feel he barely scraped by and the next time could easily go to Darksied and he should not defeat him regularly. I made the big sacrifice and rewatched the Darkseid  battles in Justice league and Superman TAS.

Quote from: Shogunn2517 on June 18, 2013, 05:22:15 PM
That's the thing.  In my opinion, Timm's Superman is STILL the best version of Superman I've seen.  Origin, villains, personality, everything.

I can behind that. The time he had to develop and get more complex ( pretty amazing in a cartoon) and his interactions with the rest of the cast and the league were amazing.

Hey, folks, just call me a Johnny-Come-Lately to the Man of Steel after party.

I liked the movie, but I didn't love it as I hoped I might.  I'll confess I'm a big fan of the Nolan Batman movies (especially Dark Knight), but I don't necessarily want to see all DC movies forced into that mold.

I'm actually polishing off my own blog post critique of Man of Steel, so I'll share it here for the sake of opening myself up to criticisms from more seasoned comic book aficionados:

Spoiler

Snyder's Man of Steel takes place on an ambitious scale; there's epic battles that take place in the glistening skyline of Metropolis, a little farm in Kansas, the frigid wasteland of the Arctic, and a galaxy far, far away.  But for what feels like an hour, all the locales kind of blend into one another as Superman's various super-battles seem to take place simultaneously.  At one point, I was confused on where exactly Superman was supposed to be while all the action was going on someplace else.  He was off risking his life trying to destroy some death machine in a remote spot over the Indian Ocean while a building almost fell on some key staff members of the Daily Planet.  But suddenly, he was conveniently back in Metropolis in time to catch Lois Lane who just so happened to be falling out of an airplane.

The plot featured some fantastic moral dilemmas for Superman such as whether he ought to secure the survival of his Kryptonian race or else doom them to extinction because such a fate might be in the best interests of the the Earthlings.  That's some pathos almost worthy of Shakespeare!  Regrettably, all the emotional weight of that decision was thrown by the wayside in the name of packing the movie with seemingly endless fight scenes and "disaster porn" (that was legendary DC scribe Mark Waid's term).  We never really had time to worry about how Superman would solve his no-win situation; there was always another building toppling over to distract us from feeling any anxiety.

This movie had the right idea on how to do Superman "different but good" in the year 2013. However, I can't help but think that Snyder may have decided to quit work early on this flick and just entrusted the CGI wizards to finish out the 2.5 hour run-time with oodles of action that doesn't necessarily have any point to it.  That mentality has become the industry standard for most big-budget action movies in the last couple of decades, and that's too bad since Superman deserves better.  Christopher Reeve and Richard Donner famously made us believe that a man can fly way back in 1978, while Snyder and crew apparently wanted to convince us that a flying man can single-handedly fight off an alien invasion and devastate a major American city in the process.  Truth be told, Joss Whedon and those plucky Avengers did a much better job at damage control and collateral damage than Superman (and given all their wisecrackin' antics, they probably had more fun doing it too).  And with despite all the flurries of furious fisticuffs exchanged between Superman and Zod, sometimes it seems the characters (and we the audience) tend to forget why exactly they hate each other so much.

Man of Steel is an enjoyable film to sit through once, but I don't really have any compelling reason to sit through it again. It's a movie that hits you in the face with everything on the first ride, and I didn't sense enough subtlety to warrant a closer inspection.  Even though this movie wasn't the film I hoped it would be, I hope it continues succeeding in the box office to lay a sustainable foundation for sequels and the off-chance of a good Justice League movie. Lukewarm "critical" reviews notwithstanding, most people I know who have seen the movie say they like it.

Quoteoodles of action that doesn't necessarily have any point to it.

I can accept that that's your opinion and the rest of my opinion isn't directed at your review but for me, that's what made this such a great movie.

I compare MoS to the widely-panned box office flop/film masterpiece Speed Racer where the action and visuals are their own reward. Critics said that movie was bad because it didn't develop a good plot? Yeah, and the Mach 6 wasn't a good car because it got terrible gas mileage? Similarly, the nonstop action in this movie is literally the best thing about Superman. I really really wanted to see Superman fight and holy crap did this deliver.

Critics are judging a movie on some action movie Rubik that only exists because of Star Wars. They decide what the movie should be beforehand and tick the boxes, nevermind that it had enough of the first column to make your brain explode and a new category that you haven't seen. It has to have the balance of a rugged wisecracking character, it has to have a twist, it has to have someone have some kind of redemption and blah blah yadda etc. Those things are great and all, but different kinds of movies actually exist.

The other critique that I hear all the time is that Superman isn't human or that he isn't interesting or (basically) that he isn't Batman. This really makes my nuts ache. Superman is a good guy, and good guys are awesome. I was worried that the tone of the movie would be reflected in the character, changing part of what makes Superman so awesome. Thankfully, that wasn't the case. Supes was perfect in this movie at being such a handsome and strong fighter and a really nice guy who just wants to help people with his laser eyes and head-punching skills. Batman is awesome, but Superman is a different character. Martian Manhunter is ridiculous and will never get a movie. Once again, if you don't like Superman, or over-the-top action, or not having a [Han Solo/Indiana Jones/John McClane/Tony Stark]-type character to root for, that's okay. But it doesn't make it a bad movie and critics shouldn't have such a narrow-minded approach to action movies.

Wow I am so smart about movies, you guys are welcome for the treasure that is made in my brain.

Heh, fair enough, BWPS.

I did LIKE the movie for all its special effects craziness, but I simply couldn't love it.

And when it comes to my ideal movie template for a sci-fi "Revenge!" movie, I actually had Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan in my mind a little more so than Star Wars.   :thumbup:

Quote from: BentonGrey on June 18, 2013, 04:05:07 PM
I liked Superman and the Elite quite a bit.  All-Star is very ambitious in story, but it's just so strange and full of oddness that I'm still not quite sure what I think about it, though I enjoyed it.  The movie actually smooths out some of the rough spots of the comic, in my opinion, since it is forced to move at a faster clip, you don't notice some of the more confusing bits as much.  I actually recently used both of those as examples of good treatments of Superman that show his viability as a solo character. :)

Hey, I recently saw Superman Vs. the Elite for the first time and really appreciated it!  Now I really want to track down Action Comics #775 which inspired the adaptation!

And I really like All-Star Superman; I think DC was bold to adapt the story into film, and it's probably my favorite of the DCU Animated movies.

I watched again  it tonight with the wife and two younger girls everybody loved it. The theater was packed and the audience was very reactive. Everyone actually clapped at the end of the film.
on the Superman isn't human thing. He may of been like a god physically but he seemed very human to me.

Quote from: steamteck on June 19, 2013, 02:34:02 AM

on the Superman isn't human thing. He may of been like a god physically but he seemed very human to me.

Hey, the guy grew up in Kansas!  You can't get much more American than that!

Alright, I just got back from seeing this.  Until the end I was prepared to say that this was the best Superman movie we've gotten so far, though that is, as others have mentioned, a piteously low mark to shoot at.  However, the climax left me furious.  How dare they.

Quick thoughts:

Spoiler

-Superman a killer, it's not like that violates the very core of the character or anything, but no, we have to show how hardcore he is!  To say I'm disgusted with Nolan and Snyder is a gross understatement.  I have a hard time putting into words how sad and angry this made me.
-They once again managed to produce a Superman movie that was boring in spots.  That's impressive.  Lots of action in the beginning doesn't make up for pointless and aimless meandering in the middle.
-What the heck was Clark doing before he discovered the spaceship?  Was he looking for it?  Great luck that he just HAPPENS to be in the bar with the Airforce guys talking about their secret discovery, isn't it?
-This was spectacle on a huge level, and it looked pretty fantastic.  The action was amazing and visually impressive...what we could see of it.  Hollywood: Shakey-cam has had its day.  There are other ways to shoot movies.  I'm really sick of seeing that SOMETHING is sprawled across the screen, but not being able to tell what the heck it is.  Also, there is NO FREAKING REASON to shake the camera when it is pointed at non-moving characters in a static conversation.
-We get very little idea of who Superman actually is or how he becomes a paragon of virtue.  If they had let Pa Kent spend a little less time on his paranoid rants about "don't let them find you!" and a bit more time on character and morality, we might have actually had a story arc here.
-Zod was impressive, though he had a weird slur in his speech.  I would have liked to get more of who he was, instead of his little soliloquy at the end, it might have been nice to have some of that motivation early on to explain his zealotry and drive.
-The dialog for this movie was apparently punched up by a 7th grader who was flunking creative writing.  My friends and I definitely cringed several times at how corny or ridiculous some of it was.
-Amy Adams is and was a terrible, terrible choice for Lois Lane.  I'm sensing a trend for female leads in Nolan-related movies. *looks at Anne Hathaway*
-On a related note, the Clark/Lois romance is as foundationless, inexplicable, and instant, if not more so, than the one my wife hated so much from Thor.  They didn't even TRY to build any kind of relationship between the two.  They just put them both in the frame and hoped people would forget about the story they were telling and just remember that they were Lois and Clark.
-Folks are right, Crowe does a really nice job as Jor-el.  Too bad when he had complete control over the ship he didn't just crash it into the Moon or something.  A line of dialog explaining why he didn't/couldn't would have been nice.
-Why does Hollywood hate secret identities?  Lois tracking Superman, okay.  Lois IMMEDIATELY figuring out his identity?  Come on.
-Cavill looks the part as Superman.  Too bad he forgot part of his costume.
-A corollary, Supermen needs his freaking trunks!  He looks great on screen, but it just doesn't look right.  For that matter, I wish they hadn't felt the need to make all the colors so dark as well, but that's a minor quibble, I suppose.
-Ohh, as many of y'all have noted, the scale of the destruction was really rather horrifying, especially when taken in the context of its complete lack of comment within the film.
-Ohh!  And Clark just letting his father die, it lost me there.  That was asinine.  It was incredibly stupid.  There was no pathos for me, because I was just horrified that, whatever his father would say, Clark would just sit there and watch him die.  Save his life, then deal with the consequences.

Overall, I would be mildly disappointed, though hopeful for a sequel, if not for the unforgivable ending.

Thanks Benton.  I figured you'd see some of the same problems I did.

However, I will say this:

Spoiler

Clark not saving his dad, I think, was essential to his persona.  He was so dead set on keeping his identity secret and being so unSuperman he'd even let his own father die to protect his identity.

So why were they so cavalier with the secret identity through the movie?

Spoiler

What can I say? People really love those grim and gritty versions of heroes.

To me, it just does not work so well with DC's paragons.  The Batman movies, I could kind of see the general level o grittiness in the films due to Batman's character and the very attitude that Gotham is, but Man of Steel? No.

While I do appreciate them trying to delve into the character of Superman, many of the very same points about Clark's family's history was far too unbelievable (even more so that Superman's limits).  Sad fact is that this isn't the Superman of the comics; far from it.  Just like I do not see Batman as the Batman I know and love, I don't see this as Superman.  Rather, these characters are a universe of their own, so I try and open my mind and heart to them.

The whole Superman killing Zod and not saving his father bugs me just as much as Batman taking leave in between the Dark Knight and the Dark Knight rises.  Batman would never leave his role willingly, just as Superman wouldn't ever kill anybody, no matter how evil they seem to be (save for Doomsday, but that's a whole other story), let alone somebody die in something that he could have easily stopped.  I argue with myself that it was out of respect of his father's wishes, but Clark could have easily rescued the family dog himself rather than allowing his father to do so.

Overall, though, I thought it was a pretty good movie.  Not the best movie, but definitely not bad.

Quote from: Shogunn2517 on June 19, 2013, 06:01:04 AM
Thanks Benton.  I figured you'd see some of the same problems I did.

However, I will say this:

Spoiler

Clark not saving his dad, I think, was essential to his persona.  He was so dead set on keeping his identity secret and being so unSuperman he'd even let his own father die to protect his identity.

So why were they so cavalier with the secret identity through the movie?

That's true, Shogunn, it just also happens to be stupid.

Spoiler

On my primary criticism, Superman as killer is tantamount to Batman pulling out a gun and just mowing people down.

He pretty much did that purposely throwing Two-Face off of a five story building... #damnyounolan

It sounds like they are trying to make Superman, the epitome of a Cape into more of a Cowl.

To explain TV Tropes categorizes superheroes into Capes and Cowls.  Capes are the paragons of the virtue, the shining examples who others look up to.  The Cowls, while not any less good, as the terror of the underworld, stalking evil and punishing wrongdoers.

Capes inspire the people.  Cowls terrorize criminals.  Capes do what is right.  Cowls do what they have to do.

Batman's a Cowl.  Grim and gritty works well for him.  Superman's a cape.  He should never be forced into those types of decisions because Capes always find another way.  Cowls can get forced to choose between the lesser of two evils, but Capes should always be able to find a third option.

See here's the thing that's bothering me the most about Nolan(or Goyer or whoever the eff is responsible for these movies) and their vision.  He's changing the essential being of what makes these characters who they are.  Spydermann touched on it for Batman.  His world, a world that creates a Batman is pitify, chaotic, evil and grim.  That's how he sees humanity.  He knows he can't fix the world just him by himself.  The world is what it is.  He can't quite.  He doesn't retire.  He can't be bargained with.  He can't be reasoned with.  He does not feel pity, remorse or fear...(sorry, wrong character).  But Batman would not stop.  He would if the world was perfect, but it ain't.

As far as Man of Steel goes, I actually wrote this on another site and thought it was pretty good and reason why Superman works and has worked and what the Man of Steel did wrong:

Spoiler

That's the dynamic of Superman.  Lois isn't the only one, but with her it makes the most sense.  Superman was originally written and still tells the story of literal divine being who can do the impossible.  Every issue, every episode, every story written is a what if of this super being living among the rest of humanity.  A suspension of disbelief is not only assumed but REQUIRED.  There' s no such thing as a "real world" Superman.  It's effin SUPERMAN.

The idea of a man having all of these extraordinary abilities, NO ONE would think that he WANTS to be ordinary.  Everyone assumes, if you're Superman, who can do all of these wonderful things, you're Superman 24/7.  It's like Lebron James all of sudden not wanting to get paid for being the best basketball player in the world but electing to play polo.  Why would you even waste your time doing anything else?  The idea of Clark being the real identity is a flip on the who "Godly" image.  God was never meant to be ordinary.  All God knows is to be extraordinary.  Clark is different.  Clark wants to be ordinary.  He grew up ordinary.  What's worse because of his desire to be ordinary and to deflect attention from his extraordinary self, he goes out his way to be even less than ordinary.  Not fighting back, being a pushover, slouching, falling over himself, being a dork, letting his dad die in front of his eyes.  That's who Clark is.

Again, with Lois, it's intensified.  She's infatuated with the extraordinary being.  So completely she blinds her self from noticing the less than ordinary.  People are looking at 70 years of the Lois/Superman/Clark dynamic and her not knowing and Man of Steel where she figures it out like a Tim Tebow passing game.  What they are missing is the idea that a super powered alien is on the earth.  The story when he was first found is "A Super Powered Alien is On The Earth", not a who he is.  If aliens were found on Earth tomorrow, no paper on the planet would be wondering "well what do they do on their spare time?  What's their favorite color? Who do they like in the NBA Finals?"  But more than that, after aliens have invaded the planet, and he can do all of these wonderful things day in day out, the story is on all of the stuff he can do.  On Superman, the story with Lois Lane is how extraordinary he is, not who he is.  On Clark, Lois doesn't even notice long enough to care that the extraordinary being is just wearing glasses.  I, again, vividly point to a scene in the Animated Series where Superman is off doing something extraordinary and Clark is noticeably missing and what is Lois' thoughts on Clark's whereabouts?  "He's probably out husking corn!"  That's what she knows about Clark.  That's what she sees from Clark.  He's so unSuperman why bother asking?  Especially when you've assumed Superman is always Superman.

It's the suspension of disbelief that is ESSENTIAL to a Superman story.  Not just a disbelief that aliens have been living among us or that they can do all of these extraordinary feats.  But also a disbelief that a pair of glasses can fool everyone.  We all know it's bullchips.  But so is a flying strong man.

Who are we kidding?

Quote from: BentonGrey on June 19, 2013, 05:35:25 AM

Spoiler

-Amy Adams is and was a terrible, terrible choice for Lois Lane.  I'm sensing a trend for female leads in Nolan-related movies. *looks at Anne Hathaway*

Benton... No. Just... no. I will grant you a lot when it comes to hating on dark knight rises (it's by far my least favorite of the three) but Anne Hathaway did a damn good job with that role. The films interpretation of Catwoman as a thief and con-artist praying on the social elite is the closest to her origins as any adaptation has ever come (even closer then some comics *glares at Batman Year One*) and Hathaway's performance sold the character as something more complex then a walking sex-magnet with no other purpose then for single fan boys to get their rocks off. Her performance was just about the only thing that made the movie watchable for me on multiple viewings.

I'm sorry, but this is probably the only live action Catwoman for whom boobs took a back seat to development and strength, and for you of all people to be dismissing it offhand truly saddens me. I expected better.

Funny, Anne Hathaway made TDKR much more unwatchable for me...

Probably because she's a near dead ringer for my ex that went all Hank Aaron on my beating heart...  :unsure: :thumbdown:

I wrote a review of Benton's review.

Spoiler

-Superman a killer, it's not like that violates the very core of the character or anything, but no, we have to show how hardcore he is!  To say I'm disgusted with Nolan and Snyder is a gross understatement.  I have a hard time putting into words how sad and angry this made me.
He did the right thing, he clearly wasn't happy about it but what's he going to do, let him laser those kids?

-What the heck was Clark doing before he discovered the spaceship?  Was he looking for it?  Great luck that he just HAPPENS to be in the bar with the Airforce guys talking about their secret discovery, isn't it?
He was saving people, they even showed him doing it a few times. They didn't show all the days in the bar where he didn't overhear that conversation.

-This was spectacle on a huge level, and it looked pretty fantastic.  The action was amazing and visually impressive...what we could see of it.  Hollywood: Shakey-cam has had its day.  There are other ways to shoot movies.  I'm really sick of seeing that SOMETHING is sprawled across the screen, but not being able to tell what the heck it is.  Also, there is NO FREAKING REASON to shake the camera when it is pointed at non-moving characters in a static conversation.
That's used to imply someone is watching the conversation, in this case Zod and his posse. That zoom cam thing was pretty new!

-We get very little idea of who Superman actually is or how he becomes a paragon of virtue.  If they had let Pa Kent spend a little less time on his paranoid rants about "don't let them find you!" and a bit more time on character and morality, we might have actually had a story arc here.
We know who Superman is, and people are sick of redoing origin stories.

-Zod was impressive, though he had a weird slur in his speech.  I would have liked to get more of who he was, instead of his little soliloquy at the end, it might have been nice to have some of that motivation early on to explain his zealotry and drive.
Some people talk different. Even Kryptonians.

-The dialog for this movie was apparently punched up by a 7th grader who was flunking creative writing.  My friends and I definitely cringed several times at how corny or ridiculous some of it was.
I thought it was hot.

-Amy Adams is and was a terrible, terrible choice for Lois Lane.  I'm sensing a trend for female leads in Nolan-related movies. *looks at Anne Hathaway*
I hate Amy Adams everywhere else and agree she was a bad choice, but I thought she did quite well. Streets ahead of Kate Bosworth, Adams was closer to TAS Lois in her brassiness and refusal to back down.


-On a related note, the Clark/Lois romance is as foundationless, inexplicable, and instant, if not more so, than the one my wife hated so much from Thor.  They didn't even TRY to build any kind of relationship between the two.  They just put them both in the frame and hoped people would forget about the story they were telling and just remember that they were Lois and Clark.
I fell in love with him in the first half hour and he didn't even save my life. The media illuminati conglomerate is pushing this idea that the world has gone to hell and will end any day (it's actually the best it's ever been and getting better) and will probably end soon so they can sell simple concepts a popular one of which is falling in love quickly without it being serious (which is probably a better message to send kids but I think it's just a marketing gimmick). It's easiest to see in recent pop music lyrics, compare any Savage Garden lyrics to any Kesha lyrics for example, and the same goes for most other pop songs of the respective eras.

-Folks are right, Crowe does a really nice job as Jor-el.  Too bad when he had complete control over the ship he didn't just crash it into the Moon or something.  A line of dialog explaining why he didn't/couldn't would have been nice.
Hey if it'd been your "ghost in the machine", this would've been a way shorter movie.

-Why does Hollywood hate secret identities?  Lois tracking Superman, okay.  Lois IMMEDIATELY figuring out his identity?  Come on.
I knew he was Superman as soon as I saw him. Even with the glasses.

-Cavill looks the part as Superman.  Too bad he forgot part of his costume.
-A corollary, Supermen needs his freaking trunks!  He looks great on screen, but it just doesn't look right.  For that matter, I wish they hadn't felt the need to make all the colors so dark as well, but that's a minor quibble, I suppose.
The suit fit the movie, I liked it.

-Ohh, as many of y'all have noted, the scale of the destruction was really rather horrifying, especially when taken in the context of its complete lack of comment within the film.
Definitely agree here. It was like 50 9/11s. Hard to shrug off even though it looked cool.

-Ohh!  And Clark just letting his father die, it lost me there.  That was asinine.  It was incredibly stupid.  There was no pathos for me, because I was just horrified that, whatever his father would say, Clark would just sit there and watch him die.  Save his life, then deal with the consequences.
I was mad at the father. He was not a good character at all.

Quote from: Tomato on June 19, 2013, 07:53:04 AM

Quote from: BentonGrey on June 19, 2013, 05:35:25 AM

Spoiler

-Amy Adams is and was a terrible, terrible choice for Lois Lane.  I'm sensing a trend for female leads in Nolan-related movies. *looks at Anne Hathaway*

Benton... No. Just... no. I will grant you a lot when it comes to hating on dark knight rises (it's by far my least favorite of the three) but Anne Hathaway did a damn good job with that role. The films interpretation of Catwoman as a thief and con-artist praying on the social elite is the closest to her origins as any adaptation has ever come (even closer then some comics *glares at Batman Year One*) and Hathaway's performance sold the character as something more complex then a walking sex-magnet with no other purpose then for single fan boys to get their rocks off. Her performance was just about the only thing that made the movie watchable for me on multiple viewings.

I'm sorry, but this is probably the only live action Catwoman for whom boobs took a back seat to development and strength, and for you of all people to be dismissing it offhand truly saddens me. I expected better.

Agreed Tomato - I think Anne Hathaway was probably the best part of the Dark Knight Rises, and that Amy Adams was great as Lois.  But they didn't dye her hair black, so I guess that ruins it... :rolleyes:

Quote from: Shogunn2517 on June 19, 2013, 08:06:09 AM
Funny, Anne Hathaway made TDKR much more unwatchable for me...

Probably because she's a near dead ringer for my ex that went all Hank Aaron on my beating heart...  :unsure: :thumbdown:

Which is still no reason to criticize the actress or the performance.  "Looks like" =/= "is like."

Quote from: Talavar on June 19, 2013, 02:35:06 PM
Agreed Tomato - I think Anne Hathaway was probably the best part of the Dark Knight Rises, and that Amy Adams was great as Lois.  But they didn't dye her hair black, so I guess that ruins it... :rolleyes:

Nope, but her being Amy Adams rather did.

I like Amy Adams.  She's a delightful actress, and by all accounts rather a nice person, but as the ideal girl next store-type, she's really not right for the fierce, independent, and utterly fearless Lois Lane.  She did a fair job with what she had (horrible dialog didn't help matters), but she was jarring to me more often than not.  She just didn't fit.

'Mato, I think you're making some rather unflattering assumptions about my reasoning there, my friend.  She really didn't look the part, but I could have gotten past that if I had bought her performance.  To be fair, I think the largest problem with her Catwoman is the fact that the character made no freaking sense, but either way, the end result was nothing admirable or remarkable for me.

Shogunn, you've got some good points.  I'll respond to them in a bit.

Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on June 19, 2013, 07:15:10 AM
Cowls can get forced to choose between the lesser of two evils, but Capes should always be able to find a third option.

Precisely, Cat, precisely.

I wrote a review of BWPS' review of my review.  Say that ten times fast!

Quote from: BWPS on June 19, 2013, 11:15:38 AM
I wrote a review of Benton's review.

Spoiler

-Superman a killer, it's not like that violates the very core of the character or anything, but no, we have to show how hardcore he is!  To say I'm disgusted with Nolan and Snyder is a gross understatement.  I have a hard time putting into words how sad and angry this made me.
He did the right thing, he clearly wasn't happy about it but what's he going to do, let him laser those kids?
That's precisely the point, BWPS.  It isn't a matter of the act not being justified in the film itself, it's a matter of Superman never being so limited that he couldn't find another way.  He NEVER kills, and he always finds another way, as Cat said.  That's absolutely integral to who he is, and the fact that he's more than a bruiser, he's the Man of Tomorrow!  Taking a life is absolutely anathema to who Superman is, at the utter core of the character.  He represents idealism and human potential.

-What the heck was Clark doing before he discovered the spaceship?  Was he looking for it?  Great luck that he just HAPPENS to be in the bar with the Airforce guys talking about their secret discovery, isn't it?
He was saving people, they even showed him doing it a few times. They didn't show all the days in the bar where he didn't overhear that conversation.
No, he was working in bars and on fishing boats, and he occasionally saved people.  Did anyone else not feel like he was wasting his freaking time?  The comics that have Clark traveling the world as a crusading reporter make a certain amount of sense.  This guy didn't feel like a nascent Superman.  As a matter of fact, it felt more like a young Aquaman.  By the way, did anyone else think of Aquaman during the oil rig rescue? ;)  As for the convenience factor, that doesn't account for the fact that those guys just happened to stumble into that bar.  The entire plot of the movie was predicated on a ridiculous coincidence.

-This was spectacle on a huge level, and it looked pretty fantastic.  The action was amazing and visually impressive...what we could see of it.  Hollywood: Shakey-cam has had its day.  There are other ways to shoot movies.  I'm really sick of seeing that SOMETHING is sprawled across the screen, but not being able to tell what the heck it is.  Also, there is NO FREAKING REASON to shake the camera when it is pointed at non-moving characters in a static conversation.
That's used to imply someone is watching the conversation, in this case Zod and his posse. That zoom cam thing was pretty new!
I don't' think that follows at all.  I think that you're reaching there, quite a bit.  It was just hacky filmmaking.  There is no indication that Zod is monitoring Earth, though that would explain the plot hole of his asking for Lois  HOW THE HECK DID HE KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT LOIS?

-We get very little idea of who Superman actually is or how he becomes a paragon of virtue.  If they had let Pa Kent spend a little less time on his paranoid rants about "don't let them find you!" and a bit more time on character and morality, we might have actually had a story arc here.
We know who Superman is, and people are sick of redoing origin stories.
And yet they did precisely that, and failed to accomplish the full purpose of an origin.  The movie makes efforts to talk about Clark's morality, without really doing much to show us that he has a particularly strong or well-developed moral compass.  To be fair, we see him risking himself to save soldiers, but I wanted to see something of this in his origins.

-Zod was impressive, though he had a weird slur in his speech.  I would have liked to get more of who he was, instead of his little soliloquy at the end, it might have been nice to have some of that motivation early on to explain his zealotry and drive.
Some people talk different. Even Kryptonians.
True, but I found it slightly distracting, which was a shame, because, other than that, I really liked this Zod.

-The dialog for this movie was apparently punched up by a 7th grader who was flunking creative writing.  My friends and I definitely cringed several times at how corny or ridiculous some of it was.
I thought it was hot.
Well, there you go. :P

-Amy Adams is and was a terrible, terrible choice for Lois Lane.  I'm sensing a trend for female leads in Nolan-related movies. *looks at Anne Hathaway*
I hate Amy Adams everywhere else and agree she was a bad choice, but I thought she did quite well. Streets ahead of Kate Bosworth, Adams was closer to TAS Lois in her brassiness and refusal to back down.
Well, in comparison to Bosworth, I'll give you that.


-On a related note, the Clark/Lois romance is as foundationless, inexplicable, and instant, if not more so, than the one my wife hated so much from Thor.  They didn't even TRY to build any kind of relationship between the two.  They just put them both in the frame and hoped people would forget about the story they were telling and just remember that they were Lois and Clark.
I fell in love with him in the first half hour and he didn't even save my life. The media illuminati conglomerate is pushing this idea that the world has gone to hell and will end any day (it's actually the best it's ever been and getting better) and will probably end soon so they can sell simple concepts a popular one of which is falling in love quickly without it being serious (which is probably a better message to send kids but I think it's just a marketing gimmick). It's easiest to see in recent pop music lyrics, compare any Savage Garden lyrics to any Kesha lyrics for example, and the same goes for most other pop songs of the respective eras.
I'll take your word for the pop lyrics.  I'd rather drive railroad spikes into my ears....urg....ha, anyway, I can see her being infatuated with him as she traced the story of the nameless good Samaritan. (and if they were going to do that, they should have done a better job of it), but there's no particular reasons for Supes to feel anything for her.  There is just no real romantic arc for them.  They are simply automatically in love, because, hey, they're supposed to be, don't question it!

-Folks are right, Crowe does a really nice job as Jor-el.  Too bad when he had complete control over the ship he didn't just crash it into the Moon or something.  A line of dialog explaining why he didn't/couldn't would have been nice.
Hey if it'd been your "ghost in the machine", this would've been a way shorter movie.
I hate this excuse.  It is not a reason to pardon bad writing and plot holes.  If you fall back on this, the movie has failed in its job.

-Why does Hollywood hate secret identities?  Lois tracking Superman, okay.  Lois IMMEDIATELY figuring out his identity?  Come on.
I knew he was Superman as soon as I saw him. Even with the glasses.
Really?  Well, that makes everything okay, then. :P

-Cavill looks the part as Superman.  Too bad he forgot part of his costume.
-A corollary, Supermen needs his freaking trunks!  He looks great on screen, but it just doesn't look right.  For that matter, I wish they hadn't felt the need to make all the colors so dark as well, but that's a minor quibble, I suppose.
The suit fit the movie, I liked it.
He still didn't look quite right.

-Ohh, as many of y'all have noted, the scale of the destruction was really rather horrifying, especially when taken in the context of its complete lack of comment within the film.
Definitely agree here. It was like 50 9/11s. Hard to shrug off even though it looked cool.
Yeah, the gravity drive throwing people up into the air and the film all but showing hundreds dying horribly...not really very superheroic in tone, methinks.

-Ohh!  And Clark just letting his father die, it lost me there.  That was asinine.  It was incredibly stupid.  There was no pathos for me, because I was just horrified that, whatever his father would say, Clark would just sit there and watch him die.  Save his life, then deal with the consequences.
I was mad at the father. He was not a good character at all.
As someone on Major Spoilers said, they turned Pa Kent, the man of quiet and powerful character into a weak man ruled by fear.  When he told Clark that he should have let the bus full of children die, they lost me and my friends.  We all found that pretty reprehensible.

Benton, I'm sorry, I understand that your dismissal is just you being dismissive of TDKR in general. But my problem is that fans dismiss Hathaway's Catwoman because she wasn't just a pair of walking boobs, and that is a very, VERY sore subject for me. She was just about as awesome as Black Widow in Avengers, and I find it annoying and downright sexist that people somehow prefer Pfeiffer's Catwoman (who existed as little more then fetish bait). As I said, I'm not a fan of TDKR, but I commend them for at least making their version of Catwoman kick arse rather than just show it off.

Quote from: Talavar on June 19, 2013, 02:35:06 PM

Quote from: Shogunn2517 on June 19, 2013, 08:06:09 AM
Funny, Anne Hathaway made TDKR much more unwatchable for me...

Probably because she's a near dead ringer for my ex that went all Hank Aaron on my beating heart...  :unsure: :thumbdown:

Which is still no reason to criticize the actress or the performance.  "Looks like" =/= "is like."

Beside the fact that I didn't criticize her or her performance....

Are you really taking that comment THAT seriously?

Spoiler

- Zod didn't actually bother me. Kal  obviously was devastated by what he hade to do. He felt he had to choose between the innocent family and Zod and he made the hard but right choice. Maybe veteran Superman could have figured something out but Superman for barely two day couldn't. This could even lead to his famous code vs killing. I feel a reverence for lif ris essential but I also feel he isn't forever tainted by his decision. It struck me more like Tony Stark having to face he couldn't always "cut the wire".



Amy Adams Lois is the first film Lois I actually understood why there was a connection between them and it seemed right. She actually figured him out and believed in him. With Margo Kidder we had a not especially hot co worker who wasn't even good at her job with obnoxious personality disorder. Kate Bosworth was just forgettable or like prettier Margo lite depending.

Adams Lois really worked for me and was also the first Lois pretty much ever my wife actually liked. She could never understand why Superman would be attracted to Lois at all before this.

I don't get the dialogue complaints.  maybe I'm dense but I don't even know what dialogue was the problem.

Sorry Benton, We're usually the soul mates but I pretty much agree with BWPS here except I even liked Amy Adams ( see above).

I also see no reason a Superman  cannot exist  just fine in the environment mentioned. A relatively plausible SF world still has room for a Superman. Then again I always preferred a Superman like TAS who didn't have all the solutions.

Superman plausible?  Eh no.  There's no way that a character in any way similar to Superman and anywhere close to his league in power level could ever be considered plausable.  These super duper characters exist and are taken seriously solely because of the Rule of Cool (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfCool) and for no other reason.

Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on June 19, 2013, 11:55:33 PM
Superman plausible?  Eh no.  There's no way that a character in any way similar to Superman and anywhere close to his league in power level could ever be considered plausable.  These super duper characters exist and are taken seriously solely because of the Rule of Cool (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfCool) and for no other reason.

Maybe I didn't express myself correctly. I'm talking science fiction 101 make the rest of the world make sense following the fantastic elements you've established it will be far more believable. It the reason prefer  the Flash who moves around the speed of sound and has to eat tons but actually has the reflexes he would need to pull it off as opposed to the speed force which just hand waves everything away.

I gotta say, you folks are offering up some really great insights into the character and the movie.

I think catwhowalksbyhimself has forever given me some special new insights with these observations:

Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on June 19, 2013, 07:15:10 AM
It sounds like they are trying to make Superman, the epitome of a Cape into more of a Cowl.

Capes inspire the people.  Cowls terrorize criminals.  Capes do what is right.  Cowls do what they have to do.

Batman's a Cowl.  Grim and gritty works well for him.  Superman's a cape.  He should never be forced into those types of decisions because Capes always find another way.  Cowls can get forced to choose between the lesser of two evils, but Capes should always be able to find a third option.

Superman is the best there is at finding that unexpected "third option."  Thanks for putting it so eloquently!

EDIT: I finally bought and read Kingdom Come for the first time last week.  In that story, Superman had reached the end of his wisdom and had to allow Captain Marvel to make the elusive "third choice."  The wisdom of Solomon, indeed!

Quote from: oldmanwinters on June 20, 2013, 02:30:03 AM
I gotta say, you folks are offering up some really great insights into the character and the movie.

I think catwhowalksbyhimself has forever given me some special new insights with these observations:

Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on June 19, 2013, 07:15:10 AM
It sounds like they are trying to make Superman, the epitome of a Cape into more of a Cowl.

Capes inspire the people.  Cowls terrorize criminals.  Capes do what is right.  Cowls do what they have to do.

Batman's a Cowl.  Grim and gritty works well for him.  Superman's a cape.  He should never be forced into those types of decisions because Capes always find another way.  Cowls can get forced to choose between the lesser of two evils, but Capes should always be able to find a third option.

Superman is the best there is at finding that unexpected "third option."  Thanks for putting it so eloquently!

EDIT: I finally bought and read Kingdom Come for the first time last week.  In that story, Superman had reached the end of his wisdom and had to allow Captain Marvel to make the elusive "third choice."  The wisdom of Solomon, indeed!

And this is why the tropes as seen on TV Tropes are generally way too reductive.  Nothing about Superman in Man of Steel is "Cowl-ish," except the decision he is forced to make at the very end.  Does that mean the movie is trying to turn him into a Cowl?  No.  No, or they're terrible at it. 

Spoiler

All of Jor-el's speeches about inspiring humanity, the talk about hope, his winning over Lois, and the military who see him in action - nothing about any of that is Cowl-like.  But, he is put in a position to make a choice between killing Zod, or letting him incinerate innocents, and he made the right choice.

Zod, and evil Kryptonians, have always been problematic in this way - what do you do with such unrepentant, powerful enemies?  The Phantom Zone is the typical answer, which I find in no way better.  A Superman who will consign an enemy to an eternity of endless torment is not morally superior to one who will, in the utmost extremity, kill in the defence of others.  Both are moral compromises forced by necessity.

Ehh, let's see about the dialog:

Spoiler

What follows are, for the most part, paraphrases, but you should get the idea.
Zod's lady friend: 'You are weak because you have a code of morality, but we don't!  This gives us an evolutionary advantage'
-Except that, they totally do have a moral compass.  Their every action was dictated by the very real conviction that they were going to save their people.  Also, the quote was really out of no-where, since the Kryptonians don't really have a whole lot of basis to say that Supes has a moral code at this point.  All he's done is defend his world in more or less the same manner they would defend theirs.
Fighter Pilot: "I lost my wing-man!" (in the dumbest voice possible) 
-You aren't the only one bub, everyone just died horribly.  Pay attention.
Lois to officer: "Now, if we're done measuring NAUGHTY...", "I get writers block if I'm not wearing a flack-jacket," etc.
-Ohh, yes, Lois is very tough.  We get it.  It's a shame that Adams' delivery can't sell those lines, and its a shame that the former really feels out of place with the tone of the rest of the movie.  All of us sitting there cringed at that one, because it just felt off.
Perry White to staff: 'We're leaving!' (AFTER the Kryptonians have murdered thousands of people and flattened several square blocks.  NOW you're leaving?  It's a good thing you've got such a decisive leader or you might have been in danger of the HORRIBLE APOCALYPSE happening outside your door.)

There were lots more, though those bits stuck in our minds.

As for arguments about why the ending isn't a problem, I don't buy them.  It's weak and an utter violation of who he is.  I agree that Kryptonian villains or the like pose a problem, but I don't agree that the other option is tantamount to the same fate.  Also, that's the entire point of Superman, he finds a third option.  New Superman or not, he's better than that.  If not, there isn't much of a point.  In addition, the ridiculously overt parallels they were drawing between Superman and a certain center of my faith (look at the church scene) made the ending weird in whole other way.  I wonder what it says about our culture that:

Spoiler

the messiah figure resolves matters, not with his own sacrifice, but by killing his enemy.  I've been thinking about writing a paper on the move towards killing heroes in the last few years, but this one really takes it to new levels.  I'm not saying that it's necessarily a big deal, but I do wonder about the implications.

Ohh, and on the subject of Amy Adams as Lois, I will agree that the movies haven't given us great Lois...es...but that doesn't mean she's actually a good one either.  I compare her to the TAS Lois, who was pitch-perfect, and she just really falls short.  Her voice, her carriage, her dialog (not her fault, I know), in every way I wondered when the real Lois would show up and tell this intern to stop impersonating her.  She's closer to Jimmy Olsen than the tough-as-nails gal reporter we know and love.

I think this is the BEST way the movie is seen by folks like me.  Prepare to be entertained.

http://io9.com/the-most-important-scenes-from-man-of-steel-as-i-remem-516405346

Ohh man!  That is amazingly hilarious and COMPLETELY accurate.  "MARTHA, GET ME MY BOWIE KNIFE. I HAVE TO VISIT SOME CHILDREN!"  That is going to keep me laughing for days and days.   :roll:

Spoiler

About the part where he killed Zod, couldn't he have just thrown him up into the air or fly up into the air while holding him?

Yes, Spyder, he could have.  Thus, the "elusive" third option.

Quote from: Talavar on June 20, 2013, 02:03:19 PM
And this is why the tropes as seen on TV Tropes are generally way too reductive.  Nothing about Superman in Man of Steel is "Cowl-ish," except the decision he is forced to make at the very end.  Does that mean the movie is trying to turn him into a Cowl?  No.  No, or they're terrible at it. 

Spoiler

All of Jor-el's speeches about inspiring humanity, the talk about hope, his winning over Lois, and the military who see him in action - nothing about any of that is Cowl-like.  But, he is put in a position to make a choice between killing Zod, or letting him incinerate innocents, and he made the right choice.

TvTropes didn't say he was a Cowl in this movie, I did.  I merely got the classification from TVTropes, because I happen to like the Cape vs Cowl way of looking at superheroes.  That doesn't mean that some aren't somewhere in the middle.

http://screenrant.com/man-steel-ending-superman-kills-zod-death-discussion/

Quote from: BentonGrey on June 20, 2013, 04:24:56 PM
In addition, the ridiculously overt parallels they were drawing between Superman and a certain center of my faith (look at the church scene) made the ending weird in whole other way.  I wonder what it says about our culture that:

Spoiler

the messiah figure resolves matters, not with his own sacrifice, but by killing his enemy.  I've been thinking about writing a paper on the move towards killing heroes in the last few years, but this one really takes it to new levels.  I'm not saying that it's necessarily a big deal, but I do wonder about the implications.

Oh, man, I hate the obsession people have equating Superman with the Messiah.  I'm not saying there isn't a comparison there, but ever since the Singer movie, I just feel like all the publicity keeps hitting us in the face (faith?) with the religious symbolism that never really goes any deeper than a few overly dramatic lines of dialogue and the occasional crucifix pose.  Give me a break, DC Warner Brothers! :doh:

Quote from: BentonGrey on June 20, 2013, 04:24:56 PM
Ehh, let's see about the dialog:

Spoiler

What follows are, for the most part, paraphrases, but you should get the idea.
Zod's lady friend: 'You are weak because you have a code of morality, but we don't!  This gives us an evolutionary advantage'
-Except that, they totally do have a moral compass.  Their every action was dictated by the very real conviction that they were going to save their people.  Also, the quote was really out of no-where, since the Kryptonians don't really have a whole lot of basis to say that Supes has a moral code at this point.  All he's done is defend his world in more or less the same manner they would defend theirs.
Fighter Pilot: "I lost my wing-man!" (in the dumbest voice possible) 
-You aren't the only one bub, everyone just died horribly.  Pay attention.
Lois to officer: "Now, if we're done measuring NAUGHTY...", "I get writers block if I'm not wearing a flack-jacket," etc.
-Ohh, yes, Lois is very tough.  We get it.  It's a shame that Adams' delivery can't sell those lines, and its a shame that the former really feels out of place with the tone of the rest of the movie.  All of us sitting there cringed at that one, because it just felt off.
Perry White to staff: 'We're leaving!' (AFTER the Kryptonians have murdered thousands of people and flattened several square blocks.  NOW you're leaving?  It's a good thing you've got such a decisive leader or you might have been in danger of the HORRIBLE APOCALYPSE happening outside your door.)

There were lots more, though those bits stuck in our minds.

As for arguments about why the ending isn't a problem, I don't buy them.  It's weak and an utter violation of who he is.  I agree that Kryptonian villains or the like pose a problem, but I don't agree that the other option is tantamount to the same fate.  Also, that's the entire point of Superman, he finds a third option.  New Superman or not, he's better than that.  If not, there isn't much of a point.  In addition, the ridiculously overt parallels they were drawing between Superman and a certain center of my faith (look at the church scene) made the ending weird in whole other way.  I wonder what it says about our culture that:

Spoiler

the messiah figure resolves matters, not with his own sacrifice, but by killing his enemy.  I've been thinking about writing a paper on the move towards killing heroes in the last few years, but this one really takes it to new levels.  I'm not saying that it's necessarily a big deal, but I do wonder about the implications.

The evil Kryptonians have a goal, not a moral compass.  They'd do anything to accomplish that goal, without hesitation or doubt.  Ethics don't enter into it.  Superman's moral compass can be inferred - he goes out of his way to protect soldiers during that fight, rather than just counter-attack the evil Kryptonians.

If by the "other option" you mean the Phantom Zone, I don't just think it amounts to the same as death, but is degrees worse than it.  It was a superficially non-violent out thought up during the height of the Comic Code years, with highly disturbing ramifications.

The "move towards killing heroes in the last few years," which I take to mean heroes who kill, started some time at the dawn of human mythology & literature.  I'm not saying all heroes should kill their enemies indiscriminately, but it's hardly a new trend.  The completely death-free years of the Comic Code are the real anomaly.

Talavar, I think you've misunderstood me quite a bit.  I was talking about the transformation in the movies from the fairly comic-like heroes, in terms of their treatment of villains, (Spider-Man, Batman, etc) to films featuring characters that, while strictly no-kill in the comics, are willing to kill in the movies (Iron Man).  We're seeing what looks like a move in that direction.  Obviously characters like Captain America and Thor make this situation a bit hazy, as they are both warriors and have implicitly if not explicitly killed in the comics.  Also, I suppose Spider-Man kills Venom in the 3rd movie, so that further complicates my thesis.  Anyway, there has been a fairly definitive shift from the beginning of the superhero movie explosion to the current day in terms of attitudes towards lethal force.

Also, the Comics Code didn't usher in the no-killing all by itself.  As early as 1933 the pulp publishers were thinking about creating more morally superior characters.  Doc Savage specifically was imagined as a less lethal hero who would often find that "third option."  He did kill occasionally, but there were efforts being made to create heroes who really went to superhuman efforts to avoid taking lives.  The idea of a non-lethal hero is a very interesting one, and it is fairly specific, though as I illustrated, not limited to, superheroes.  It's a very American idea, and its popularity and acceptance has waxed and waned, but it is still part of the zeitgeist of our culture.  The fact that this conversation is being repeated throughout the country at the moment is testament to that.  After all, who more embodies the concept of the American superhero than Superman? 

The meaning you attach to the Phantom Zone is going a bit beyond the source material, isn't it?  It may be a somewhat terrible prison, but a prison it still is, and thus more humane than execution.  In addition to this we have the fact that the PZ reflects the original sentences levied upon Zod and Co. by the powers of Krypton, thus consigning them to the Phantom Zone is carrying out the impartial justice of a larger authority, which is another idea intrinsic to the superhero genre at large and Superman specifically.  He may capture Lex Luthor, but he leaves it to the courts to decide his fate.

'Mato, that article is fair...for those comparing this movie to the Donner films with rose colored glasses, but I think a lot of folks aren't terribly fond of the Donner films and still have problems with this movie.  Just because a terrible decision was made in one story or medium doesn't make it right for the rest. :P  Also, good for Mark Waid.  I like him even more now.

Winters: It's understandable, given the fact that Superman began as a messiah figure as imagined by a Jewish comic book team, but yeah, it seems a bit of an awkward fit the way Hollywood goes about it.  This is no The Day the Earth Stood Still, that's for sure.

Ok, I haven't seen the movie yet so I've tried to avoid going into the discussions about MoS specifically... but since I've already been spoiled on it, I do want to discuss this specific point.

Spoiler

*deep intake of breath* Ok, so. While I personally do agree that a Superman who kills is wrong and I would echo the hate expressed by Benton and others if it happened again, I have no issue whatsoever with Superman killing Zod if what I understand about the scene itself is accurate. Heck, I came up with a practically identical scene with my own characters.

Without belaboring it too much, at about the midpoint of the Influx series, Tomato is put in a situation where he has to decide whether to kill a villain, Sai, who has already slaughtered an entire city, before he can kill the remaining members of Influx. Beaten down and unable to think of any other option, Tomato kills his foe in a manner that is as gruesome and violent as I personally can come up with given the nature of his powers. It is intended to be an absolutely horrific scene, and when the deed is done, Tomato is so broken, so demoralized, and so conflicted about what he did that he sinks into an extreme case of depression.

But when he finally pulls himself out it, he's much stronger for it. He vows that he will NEVER kill again, and to find the "third option" in any situation. Because he understands firsthand that killing is NOT an acceptable option.

THAT is why I don't have an issue with this "controversy." Because given my understanding of how Superman reacts to Zod's death, this is not something he's going to start just casually doing to every villain he comes up against. If I understand the situation correctly, this is a Superman who will do everything, EVERYTHING, in his power to keep from having to kill ever again. If anything, I have greater hope for this franchise BECAUSE this is a Superman who has a very personal reason not to kill his enemies.

And I'm sorry, but that beats the hell out of grinning openly after breaking his foe's hand and then shoving him into a bottomless pit to die.

Quote from: BentonGrey on June 21, 2013, 04:40:53 AM
Talavar, I think you've misunderstood me quite a bit.  I was talking about the transformation in the movies from the fairly comic-like heroes, in terms of their treatment of villains, (Spider-Man, Batman, etc) to films featuring characters that, while strictly no-kill in the comics, are willing to kill in the movies (Iron Man).  We're seeing what looks like a move in that direction.  Obviously characters like Captain America and Thor make this situation a bit hazy, as they are both warriors and have implicitly if not explicitly killed in the comics.  Also, I suppose Spider-Man kills Venom in the 3rd movie, so that further complicates my thesis.  Anyway, there has been a fairly definitive shift from the beginning of the superhero movie explosion to the current day in terms of attitudes towards lethal force.

Also, the Comics Code didn't usher in the no-killing all by itself.  As early as 1933 the pulp publishers were thinking about creating more morally superior characters.  Doc Savage specifically was imagined as a less lethal hero who would often find that "third option."  He did kill occasionally, but there were efforts being made to create heroes who really went to superhuman efforts to avoid taking lives.  The idea of a non-lethal hero is a very interesting one, and it is fairly specific, though as I illustrated, not limited to, superheroes.  It's a very American idea, and its popularity and acceptance has waxed and waned, but it is still part of the zeitgeist of our culture.  The fact that this conversation is being repeated throughout the country at the moment is testament to that.  After all, who more embodies the concept of the American superhero than Superman? 

The meaning you attach to the Phantom Zone is going a bit beyond the source material, isn't it?  It may be a somewhat terrible prison, but a prison it still is, and thus more humane than execution.  In addition to this we have the fact that the PZ reflects the original sentences levied upon Zod and Co. by the powers of Krypton, thus consigning them to the Phantom Zone is carrying out the impartial justice of a larger authority, which is another idea intrinsic to the superhero genre at large and Superman specifically.  He may capture Lex Luthor, but he leaves it to the courts to decide his fate.

'Mato, that article is fair...for those comparing this movie to the Donner films with rose colored glasses, but I think a lot of folks aren't terribly fond of the Donner films and still have problems with this movie.  Just because a terrible decision was made in one story or medium doesn't make it right for the rest. :P  Also, good for Mark Waid.  I like him even more now.

Winters: It's understandable, given the fact that Superman began as a messiah figure as imagined by a Jewish comic book team, but yeah, it seems a bit of an awkward fit the way Hollywood goes about it.  This is no The Day the Earth Stood Still, that's for sure.

I'm just going to put my whole response in spoilers, Benton - it's easier than just trying to get the actual spoilerific parts.

Spoiler

While some pulp and comics characters tried their best not to kill, it wasn't until the Code, and the media uproar that led up to the Code, that the strict no-kill ever for any reason heroes started to assume that mantra.  That said, I don't want a Superman who kills cavalierly.  Killing in the utmost extremity in the defence of others, I can accept that in Superman.  Zod at the end of Man of Steel has no driving force but killing as many people as possible, and how do you stop someone who can kill with a look?  He can't turn him over to the police, there's no prison that could hold him, no human method for them to negate his powers.  In this story, even the Phantom Zone isn't an option - they missed Zod with their one-shot portal.

Still, I don't think I'm reading that much into the Phantom Zone - a dimension without form where you can be trapped bodiless for eternity.  That sounds like cruel or unusual punishment to me.  While Zod & Co. were sentenced to the Phantom Zone by Krypton's authorities, it wasn't supposed to be forever.  In the Superman TAS version of this story, that was a major plot point - their versions of Zod & friend were crying out that their sentences had gone on much longer than intended (and even here, get pulled into a convenient black hole after being freed from the Zone a second time).  In Man of Steel, Superman doesn't have easy access to the Phantom Zone - once they're in it, it's for good.  Even if he did, however, is he going to check in every so often, see if endless torment has reformed them?  Parole them back out among the human population?  What should be the minimum sentence on numerous counts of murder and attempted genocide?  Lex Luthor, on the other hand, can be stripped of his plots, devices and henchmen, then be restrained and incarcerated in a prison that is answerable to charges of human rights violations.

Quote from: BentonGrey on June 21, 2013, 04:40:53 AM
This is no The Day the Earth Stood Still, that's for sure.

You thinking of the 1951 or 2008 version?   :D

There's is no 2008 version.  It doesn't exist.

Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on June 21, 2013, 08:44:09 PM
There's is no 2008 version.  It doesn't exist.

Precisely.

I do. however, recall Will Smith's second unsuccessful attempt to make his son a star around that time.  He's on attempt number four at the moment.

Would you all believe I've never seen either one?  I really gotta track down that 1951 original!

Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on June 21, 2013, 11:35:10 PM
I do. however, recall Will Smith's second unsuccessful attempt to make his son a star around that time.  He's on attempt number four at the moment.

To be fair... I liked The Kung Fu Karate Kid.  Not near as worthwhile to watch as the hokey but awesome original, but a legitimate homage all things considered.

I've never seen that one either.  I have to say, while I like Jackie Chan quite a bit, the idea of him replacing Mr. Miyagi was sort of hard to take.  The original is just such a classic, hokey-ness and all.

Ohh man, Winters, you've definitely got to track down the one and only Day the Earth Stood Still.  It's an absolute classic, and the first of the great sci-fi films, really.

Talavar, I'll say this much, this is a situation created by the movie's writers, and they have backed the character into an apparent corner.  However, it is a trap that they've created, and for tawdry sensationalism, apparently.  It's not like this was an inevitable set of circumstances.  There's no compelling story reasons why things couldn't have ended up differently.

Spoiler

There's no reason Superman COULDN'T have stopped Zod through other means, namely the Phantom Zone, just as there is no reason that the Phantom Zone couldn't have been more accessible or Zod's position different at the end of the movie.  It's not like these things were set in stone.  You say that the Phantom Zone is so terrible, but I disagree.  I really think you're way over-stressing this.  There are several stories in the comics where characters choose Phantom Zone exile over death.  Take Mon-El, for instance.  It is hardly as if this is consignment to Hell.  It's a prison, an inescapable one, and perhaps not very nice, but a prison nonetheless.  I point out again that it is the result of Kryptonain justice, and therefore allows the removal of moral responsibility from Superman himself.  In TAS, ONLY Mala's sentence was served, and she basically committed the same crimes again.  We don't have a Kryptonian court to sentence them, but the precedent is there.  I simply don't buy your argument at all.

You know this line of discussion has me thinking about the Justice Lords episode of The Justice League.

If you remember, the Justice Lords were started when Lex Luthor goaded Superman, taunting him that even if he were to stop him, he'd just get free and eventually go back to crime.  Superman, who at this point lost his moral grounding, lost the reasoning for allowing Lex to get away again.  So he took matters in his own hands and killed him.  From there, Superman and the rest of the Justice League decided their brand of justice was the best way to keep society safe.

While this authoritarian utopia is really Batman's wetdream, as has been pointed out several times, Batman and Superman are on complete opposite sides of the pendulum.  While Batman is the form that assumes the worst of humanity, Superman sees the best.  Batman's world was shaped by the chaotic incident of a little boy's parents being killed in front of his eyes.  Superman's world was shaped by the work ethic and moral grounding of being raised on a farm.  It makes sense for Batman to view humanity as unrepentant and selfish and naturally evil.  It doesn't for Superman.  No matter how bad Lex Luther is, Superman not only believes redemption is possible, but he VERY much beliefs and the societal structure and body of laws that can protect humanity.  He cannot give up on humanity no more than he can usurp the laws that we live by.

What does all of that have to do with "Man of Steel"?
I dunno.  But it felt good writing.

Spoiler

Again, it's been said that Batman is the one who specifically does not kill.   Superman is a little different.  Because he is Superman and has the ability to kill VERY easy, that makes him even more reluctant to not.  Could Superman kill Lex? Yeah, but it's not his place to.  Could he kill Toyman or Silver Banshee or Parasite?  He could but he truly feels that not a choice he should be making.  Because if he starts making that choice then that gives humanity less reason to trust him.  He needs them to trust him so he can save them.  Without their faith he's nothing.

Going back to the Justice League, in one of my favorite lessons  learned is the episode with Captain Marvel and Superman.  Captain Marvel who's every bit of an idealist that Superman would be, noted at the end that when he'd fight bad guys, he'd say "what would Superman do?"  That he'd always find a BETTER WAY.  He went on to say that the thing that's the difference between them and those they fight is that he would never have to act like they do to win a fight.  That's what makes them bad guys and what makes the good guys good guys.

You know, with great power comes even greater responsibility of not abusing that power. Superman CANNOT cross that line.

Well said Shogunn, and that the Justice Lords episode is actually one I've come back to many times during all of this.

Spoiler

In pretty much every good story I've read where Superman kills, and there haven't been all that many in my experience, it's taken him down that road.  That's sort of one of the points.  Superman is afraid, or at least cautious, of his own power and potential, which is an excellent element of the friendship between Superman and Batman when that particular dynamic is written well.  When he takes the ultimate penalty into his own hands, he's effectively truly setting himself up as a god, the decider of fates, the arbiter of destiny, and he takes the freedom of the human race out of their hands in a fairly grand way, which is precisely the opposite of his raison d'etre.  He exists to inspire; that's one thing the movie got right, at least in the abstract, though they pretty horribly failed to actually follow up on it.  The line they paraphrased from All-Star Superman is the very core of Superman:

QuoteYou have given them an ideal to aspire to, embodied their highest aspirations. They will race, and stumble, and fall, and crawl and curse and finally they will join you in the sun, Kal-El

-Morrison

That really is quintessentially Superman.

By the way, a bit of an aside, does it strike anyone else as funny that All-Star Superman ended up being ridiculously good, while All-Star Batman was utterly horrendous? :P

All of this discussion of Superman (and a great deal of Superman media I've consumed over the last week, especially Superman: TAS) has given me an itch to create a Superman campaign for the DCUG...

Quote from: BentonGrey on June 22, 2013, 12:26:59 AM
I've never seen that one either.  I have to say, while I like Jackie Chan quite a bit, the idea of him replacing Mr. Miyagi was sort of hard to take.  The original is just such a classic, hokey-ness and all.

Ohh man, Winters, you've definitely got to track down the one and only Day the Earth Stood Still.  It's an absolute classic, and the first of the great sci-fi films, really.

Talavar, I'll say this much, this is a situation created by the movie's writers, and they have backed the character into an apparent corner.  However, it is a trap that they've created, and for tawdry sensationalism, apparently.  It's not like this was an inevitable set of circumstances.  There's no compelling story reasons why things couldn't have ended up differently.

Spoiler

There's no reason Superman COULDN'T have stopped Zod through other means, namely the Phantom Zone, just as there is no reason that the Phantom Zone couldn't have been more accessible or Zod's position different at the end of the movie.  It's not like these things were set in stone.  You say that the Phantom Zone is so terrible, but I disagree.  I really think you're way over-stressing this.  There are several stories in the comics where characters choose Phantom Zone exile over death.  Take Mon-El, for instance.  It is hardly as if this is consignment to Hell.  It's a prison, an inescapable one, and perhaps not very nice, but a prison nonetheless.  I point out again that it is the result of Kryptonain justice, and therefore allows the removal of moral responsibility from Superman himself.  In TAS, ONLY Mala's sentence was served, and she basically committed the same crimes again.  We don't have a Kryptonian court to sentence them, but the precedent is there.  I simply don't buy your argument at all.

Yes, the writers created the situation where access to the Phantom Zone is limited.  Writers also wrote those comics where characters chose the Phantom Zone over death (in many of them because they wouldn't have been allowed to write a story involving death) and in my opinion, the Phantom Zone is a moral cop out.  It's all the effectiveness of killing a villain without getting anyone's hands dirty.  And while it may not be a consignment to Hell, it's the next best thing: Purgatory or Limbo.  For Mon El, choosing the Zone is one thing - he's going to be let out when a cure can be found.  It has a limit, even if an undefined one.  For villains like Zod, that limit is the heat-death of the universe.  Death would be a mercy compared to 50 or a 100 thousand years in limbo, and in that amount of time his stay in the Zone would just be getting started. 

As to Kryptonian justice removing moral responsibility from Superman, I think that's the worst of all.  Superman is supposed to be a highly moral character.  Cutting out his responsibility for the fate of the Kryptonians he sent back into the Phantom Zone simply because a court ordered it reduces him to the level of a stooge following orders.  If the Kryptonian court had ordered them to be executed, and Superman carried out that sentence, would he still be morally excused?  Of course not - by agreeing and carrying out the sentence, he's as culpable as the court.  Substituting an eternity in the Phantom Zone for an execution doesn't change that; both are simply extreme - but necessary - measures to protect humanity from an evil being as powerful as Zod.  Using the Phantom Zone is just a cheat to dodge that moral issue (and of course originally, first appearing in the 60s, to comply with the Comic Code).  Its use is just as morally compromised as killing, which is to say, dependant on the circumstances. 

Spoiler

In Man of Steel, Superman doesn't defeat Zod and then kill him as a penalty or punishment.  He's not sitting in judgement of him.  He kills him to save lives - at the utmost extreme.  This wasn't a case of "I must kill him to protect hypothetical others in the future," as is the case in most of those sorts of "What If?" stories, but "I must kill him to protect these specific others who he is about to murder."  Ethically (and legally) there is a huge gulf between those two.  With other Superman villains it seems highly unlikely that would be able to put him in such a position, because the power disparity is so great.  Zod is a physical equal.  Doomsday (who Superman also initially killed), Darkseid, Mongul - those sorts of characters with Superman-level power, who can and will kill millions if unstopped; these are situations in which it is perfectly ethical for Superman to use lethal or near-lethal force to stop them.  A Superman who could have stopped a rampage by Doomsday but wouldn't due to a moral refusal to use lethal force has ethically failed more so than one who would use lethal force as the last line of defence.

Good heavens man!  You're dealing with a universe wherein yellow sunlight can give an alien godlike power, tragedy can drive a man to dress up as a bat, dwarf star matter can allow another to shrink to subatomic size, and alien police officers patrol the streets armed with medieval weaponry!  This is a world of unlimited imagination and fantastic potential!  It is a place that is brighter and more extraordinary than ours; of COURSE they would have something like the Phantom Zone projector.  It fits perfectly!  The device's existence may or may not be attributable to the Comics Code, but it is still a fantastic way to give Superman an available third option in extreme cases.  You're attaching all kinds of meaning to an extra-dimensional prison that isn't necessary and certainly doesn't follow in a universe where such amazing things are common place. 

Spoiler

You point out the origins of the PZ Projector within the era of the Comics Code as if this is some form of literary leprosy, but that era gave us most of the enduring story elements of comics.  Simply because the Code existed doesn't negate the value of all of the ideas produced during its tenure.  The Silver Age is the real foundation of modern superhero comics, and it's the period that saw most characters and their narrative trappings defined.  There are good ideas and bad, but simply originating during this time is no real foul mark.  Personally, I'm 100% behind a moral compass for superheroes that treats killing as anathema.  That isn't to say that I think we should be censoring everything, but I hardly think that holding our heroes to higher standards is a bad thing, especially given the philosophical weight of Superman taking life.

The practice that you deride as reducing Superman to the level of a stooge, namely submitting criminals to higher authority, is the entire basis of the modern superhero genre.  I still say there is no logical equality between the Phantom Zone and execution.  I just don't buy your logic.  You see the Phantom Zone as such a terrible fate, but that doesn't make it so.  If I were a godless Kryptonian megalomaniac, I'd rather cling to the thin hope of escaping my fate one day rather than face oblivion immediately. :P  An element that hasn't been addressed in this discussion is Superman's hopeful nature.  He believes in the possibility of redemption for even the worst of the worst (Lex!).  In the comics, he's returned to the Phantom Zone more than once to attempt to rehabilitate its inhabitants.  Imprisonment within is not necessarily eternal, and when reflecting of all of this, I can't help but think of Morrison's Superman/DC One Million.  I wonder what the great hero at the zenith of his abilities might do with the Phantom Zone's inhabitants.  I imagine that the being who chained the Tyrant Sun to bring life to the Solar System could find a way to reform Zod and company, but that's really neither here nor there.

I wouldn't use Doomsday as an example of a justified kill on Superman's part, at least not with me.  That's not exactly quality writing right there. :P  Superman is better than that, and just because it's been written doesn't make it worthwhile.  That story was followed by our hero's inexplicable shift to mullets and electric blue boogaloo-ing.  Not exactly the high water mark for Superman.


This is a world where better things are possible, and Superman is the prime example of that.  To bring him down to our level like this is to cheapen what he is and what he stands for.

You know, one thing that has really bothered me about all this?

Spoiler

What's the point of being super invulnerable if some dude can separate your brain stem from your vertebra?  If a Kryptonian's cellular structure is supposed to be to the extent it can withstand a star going nova, shouldn't it be dense enough to withstand the force of a typical push/pull motion?

If not, then why didn't Clark literally knock his head off when he was busy punching him away five miles with a single hit?

I enjoyed the movie. I will probably own the blu-ray at some point, though I am not as psyched to get it as I was The Avengers. It did many things quite well. It had many flaws. I don't have BWPS' talent for poking fun at the extremes by parodying them, so I will just come out and say I think it's very difficult to justify either the extreme position that this was a terrible movie or the extreme position that it was a fantastic movie, or at least it's difficult on any but very subjective grounds.

Some random thoughts, some positive and some negative, though I stand by what I said above and am not trying to keep the numbers balanced.

Spoiler

There was lots of excellent action in the movie. It felt like a modern comic movie and it dealt with a story on a scale that was appropriate for Superman.

Spoiler

Pa Kent was a real disappointment, in the end. It's totally understandable that a father would be worried that his son with special powers should keep them secret as long as possible. In the real world, the government would have kidnapped him and tried to take him apart cell by cell in order to duplicate his powers for its own use. And, when that failed, they would have held his family hostage until he agreed to be their weapon. I can see where a father would want to protect his son from those situations as long as possible. On the other hand, Jonathan Kent isn't a coward and wouldn't raise his son to be afraid to take his place in the world. I know it seems weak to say that the problem with Pa Kent is that he wasn't able to let Clark embrace his destiny and trust him to deal with the consequences, but I really think that was my problem with him.

Spoiler

Zod was generally an excellent villain. He wasn't a mustache-twirler who had no justification for what he was doing. Like most all monsters, he believes his ends justify his means.

Spoiler

I like Amy Adams. She is a skilled actor. I was not impressed with her as Lois Lane. She doesn't have the right presence for the part. Lois Lane is a hard-edged reporter and Amy Adams is the girl next door.

Spoiler

BTW, does it bother anyone else that Lois Lane is able to trace Superman back to Clark Kent with a few days research, but the Feds (who apparently have at least a multimillion dollar budget for the project) can't do it with all their resources? I understand that governments are generally incompetent, but this is a bit of a stretch. And, it's one that could have been avoided if Lois hadn't been able to track Clark so easily.

Spoiler

I was glad to find out that the random office drone Jenny is not supposed to be Jimmy Olsen. Frankly, I wouldn't care if Olsen were female, but I find change for change's sake to be as much an annoying signal of low creativity as anything else. At least Jenny's non-Jimmy presence was consistent with the fact that none of the Daily Planet staff (besides Lois) were even vaguely interesting in the movie. It would have been no loss to leave them out entirely.

Spoiler

The scene in the church was... odd. My girlfriend pretty much nailed it for me when she said, "That was bizarre. If Superman needed a 'You need to have faith that humanity will accept you when the time comes' pep talk, it would have been far better to have gotten that from Ma Kent."

Spoiler

The high level of destruction in the battle scenes was unnerving. Particularly back in Metropolis, would it have been that hard to show the news channel explaining that the city was evacuated when a giant alien gravity machine started wreaking havoc? I mean, wouldn't that have been better than us wondering "Did a couple hundred people die right there?" every time Kal or Zod destroyed a huge building?

Spoiler

Jor El was pretty good. I certainly enjoyed Russel Crowe's performance in the role. That said, I wasn't especially clear on just what he was doing at several point in the movie. There is more to be said about those poorly explained plot holes, but I think others have hit most of them.

Spoiler

The killing scene was weak. I am among those who would have been forgiving had it delivered the emotional impact to convince us that Superman had decided to never kill again. I am not opposed to there being a historical (as well as philosophical) reason for the code against killing. The grey beards among us may recall the "Superman: Exile" arc from the late 80s. But, that emotional impact wasn't compelling in this movie. Yes, he was upset, but there is little on-screen indication that the code against killing was forged in that moment. And, without that, what do we have? The lesson here wasn't that Superman will never kill again, but that he will kill when it seems necessary to him to save lives. And, by the way, I am not one who would argue that the killing wasn't justifiable in this case. However, merely being able to justify some terrible thing isn't good enough reason for Superman to do it.

And, the movie isn't helped by the fact that this was not convincingly shown as an exclusive choice between Superman killing Zod and Zod killing innocents. There were dozens of ways for Superman to save those people. And, ultimately, it's a weakness of the movie that Superman didn't use one of them. Is covering Zod's eyes or dragging Zod to the moon only a short-term solution? Well, longer-term solutions are available, too.

One can opine the the Phantom Zone is a moral crutch, but it's a perfectly believable science fiction device in this context. There are super-powered beings and the PZ is a super prison that can hold them. And, I saw no indication that the PZ was some sort of existence defined by eternal torture. It's a mechanism to isolate proven dangerous people from the rest of society, like any legitimate prison. And, there is no need for it to be of unlimited duration. On Krypton, the PZ sentence was said to be for something like 300 cycles. Who knows what that means in Earth time, but one can infer that 1) it isn't infinity, and 2) it's an indication that the technology had been developed to return PZ prisoners after some period of time.

BTW, if that doesn't work, then the movie was perfectly happy to show that kryptonians can be depowered by a kryptonian environment that their ships can create. Bingo. A place to hold Zod where Zod can't hurt others. Of course, one can argue that such an environment is essentially the same as the Phantom Zone, but that is ultimately an argument against prison itself, not against a particular form of imprisonment.

Regardless, the movie can't have it's cake and eat it, too. If the PZ is too weak a device to earn a place in the movie, then don't use it to deal with the rest of Zod's crew.

Benton, you really ought to read Maggin's Miracle Monday. It depicts Superman facing with a similar moral dilemma and dealing with it like Superman would. I think you would find that handling of this issue to be very true to the character.

Spoiler

I agree that Hollywood doesn't understand Clark as a secret identity well enough (or doesn't trust audiences enough) to portray it well. I think it would be easy to pull off. First off, there is no reason for anyone to suspect that Superman has a secret identity and no reason for him to tell anyone that he has one. More importantly, as others have pointed out (and I have, too, a couple years ago), it's not the glasses that disguise Clark, it's the fact that when he walks into a room, your heart doesn't stop. Hollywood's inability to make an audience understand how totally easy it is for Superman to maintain a secret identity as Clary Kent (without doing the wink-wink-nudge-nudge schtick) is in reality a failure to convey how awe-inspiring and impressive Superman's level of power is. No one would expect Superman to have a secret identity any more than they would expect the Sun to dress itself up and pretend to be a table lamp. And, to that mindset, if the Sun were to put on a lampshade and sneak onto our end table, we could easily see through the disguise. Similarly, in the public psyche, Superman is raw, crackling power - the heat of a million furnaces can shoot from his eyes, it's only because he's careful that the earth doesn't tremble when he walks, he could be struck by a falling meteor and only the meteor would be reduced to dust. If it was lucky. Hollywood gets too lost in the pitiful superficiality that Kal and Clark look similar. A tiny LED held at arm's length can be made to look similar to the sun, but no one who has the vaguest notion of the sun's power would ever think that it might be disguised as an LED.

Spoiler

I liked the several bones thrown to the fandom and hope they follow up on them. E.g., the LexCorp tankers, the kryptonian ship (Fortress of Solitude) found in the icy north (in Canada, just like in the comics, no less), etc.

I appreciate all the discussion about Justice League "Justice Lords" Superman & the JLU Captain Marvel vs. Superman fight that pretty much destroyed the (un-inhabited) Lex-Corp housing area in Metropolis.  I was thinking about those two scenes quite a bit during the movie's big battle scene that tore down the city (the very much inhabited) city.

Also, to echo Shogunn2517:

Spoiler

Yes.  That whole thing can as a shock to me not only that Superman would intentionally try to do that but that it would actually work on Zod.  It was the sort of thing that suggested any Kryptonian could have done that to another whenever they had opportunity.   The fact that the big special effects battle should end so abruptly seemed like a cheat on the director's part.

Stumpy, I agree with pretty much everything you said, other than  your overall assessment of the movie.  I suppose that the flaws weighed more heavily on me than you.

Stumpy about Clark's identity:

Spoiler

I don't buy that it's the problem of the audience to buy something that on the surface is very superficial. In any movie or show Clark and Superman are played by the same person and the only thing done to disguise that fact is a different outfit, maybe some different hair, and if you're lucky some noticeably different body language. The audience looks at them and says "Oh yeah that's the same guy, how do the characters in the story not notice what I have?".

The story wants you to buy the fantasy that people can't recognize the difference between Clark and Superman, and the way it's usually portrayed it's a tough sell (some more than others). Some people will buy into it, some won't.

Hollywood is trying to sell this movie to millions of people. Probably the majority of them do not completely buy into that idea or at all. So I can understand Hollywood trying to justify it somehow, trying to sell that to the mass audience. In this case that probably meant Lois figures it out easily.

For the record I've never had a problem buying the identity thing. I've been a superhero fan my whole life so things like that are the norm. But I have friends that like Superman but openly mock that aspect, and to me that makes sense. Because Superman is asking you to buy into a pretty flimsy concept. That's not to say Superman is wrong to do so, I don't think there is a right or wrong in this situation.

Quote from: Talavar on June 22, 2013, 03:55:22 AMWriters also wrote those comics where characters chose the Phantom Zone over death (in many of them because they wouldn't have been allowed to write a story involving death) and in my opinion, the Phantom Zone is a moral cop out.  It's all the effectiveness of killing a villain without getting anyone's hands dirty.  And while it may not be a consignment to Hell, it's the next best thing: Purgatory or Limbo.  For Mon El, choosing the Zone is one thing - he's going to be let out when a cure can be found.  It has a limit, even if an undefined one.  For villains like Zod, that limit is the heat-death of the universe.  Death would be a mercy compared to 50 or a 100 thousand years in limbo, and in that amount of time his stay in the Zone would just be getting started. 

I don't know what the status is in the current comics, but Pre-Crisis, Phantom Zone sentences were limited, just like regular prison...you served your time and then got released (off the top of my head, examples include Ak-Var, Shyla Vor-Onn, and Quex-Ul). Of course, recidivists like Zod keep breaking out and committing new crimes, and their sentences get extended accordingly.

One possible "third way" solution that I was thinking of during this movie was that perhaps Superman could have found a way to preserve the Kryptonian race through a means other than the

Spoiler

Phantom Zone and the "Zod solution."

I would have been impressed if Snyder/Nolan would have thought to give us a new take on the City of Kandor.  That would pretty much solve everyone's problems. (Apologies if you guys have already discussed that idea already!)

Quote from: Podmark on June 22, 2013, 03:41:43 PM

Spoiler

Stumpy about Clark's identity:

The story wants you to buy the fantasy that people can't recognize the difference between Clark and Superman, and the way it's usually portrayed it's a tough sell (some more than others). Some people will buy into it, some won't.

Hollywood is trying to sell this movie to millions of people. Probably the majority of them do not completely buy into that idea or at all. So I can understand Hollywood trying to justify it somehow, trying to sell that to the mass audience. In this case that probably meant Lois figures it out easily.

For the record I've never had a problem buying the identity thing. I've been a superhero fan my whole life so things like that are the norm. But I have friends that like Superman but openly mock that aspect, and to me that makes sense. Because Superman is asking you to buy into a pretty flimsy concept. That's not to say Superman is wrong to do so, I don't think there is a right or wrong in this situation.

For whatever reason, the average superhero movie fan these day seems more concerned with whether something is "realistically plausible" rather than whether the story is any good or the characters are well developed.   Creativity now takes a back seat to appeasing people who think themselves to be smart.

Haha, well said, Winters. 

Actually, a Kandor-esque solution would have been rather brilliant.  That would have been a really neat idea!  However, I'm sure that wouldn't be "dark" enough. :P

Quote from: oldmanwinters on June 22, 2013, 04:27:47 PM
One possible "third way" solution that I was thinking of during this movie was that perhaps Superman could have found a way to preserve the Kryptonian race through a means other than the

Spoiler

Phantom Zone and the "Zod solution."

I would have been impressed if Snyder/Nolan would have thought to give us a new take on the City of Kandor.  That would pretty much solve everyone's problems. (Apologies if you guys have already discussed that idea already!)

Quote from: Podmark on June 22, 2013, 03:41:43 PM

Spoiler

Stumpy about Clark's identity:

The story wants you to buy the fantasy that people can't recognize the difference between Clark and Superman, and the way it's usually portrayed it's a tough sell (some more than others). Some people will buy into it, some won't.

Hollywood is trying to sell this movie to millions of people. Probably the majority of them do not completely buy into that idea or at all. So I can understand Hollywood trying to justify it somehow, trying to sell that to the mass audience. In this case that probably meant Lois figures it out easily.

For the record I've never had a problem buying the identity thing. I've been a superhero fan my whole life so things like that are the norm. But I have friends that like Superman but openly mock that aspect, and to me that makes sense. Because Superman is asking you to buy into a pretty flimsy concept. That's not to say Superman is wrong to do so, I don't think there is a right or wrong in this situation.

For whatever reason, the average superhero movie fan these day seems more concerned with whether something is "realistically plausible" rather than whether the story is any good or the characters are well developed.   Creativity now takes a back seat to appeasing people who think themselves to be smart.

This actually irritates me and disappoints me quite a bit.

Not everybody is meant to be dark and brooding.

Regarding the secret ID thing: I don't disagree that it's a difficult concept to bring off in a visual medium. That doesn't make the inability to bring it off still something of a fail, if they don't manage it. Don't get me wrong: They will have another shot to do it well, since adult Clark was never really a character in this first movie of the new series. I assume we will get more of him next time.

And, for all my criticism of the 2006 debacle, this is something that they actually made an attempt to show. There was an office scene where Lois and Richard were looking across the room at Clark and basically mulling over the idea "Hmm, Clark and Superman actually look a lot alike." And then Clark stumbles in some archetypically Clark fashion and they just laugh at themselves for even entertaining the idea that such an awesomely ordinary human could possibly be the most extraordinary being on the planet. Anyway, the scene wasn't perfect, or even all that effective really, but it was an attempt. Now, the new series will make an attempt, assuming the scene we saw with Clark at the Daily Planet in this first movie is given some follow up.

BTW, I speculate that the successful approach (to showing the audience that Clark is Superman's secret ID and people don't see through it) will make a serious attempt to show us how the people around Superman perceive him, subjectively. I mean, as distinct from the more objective way in which we, the audience, get to see him. Imagine something like the slow-motion, close-up scenes from the first Raimi Spider-Man movie, where we get to see the world through Pete's senses. The buzzing of the fly, the detail in the droplet of milk (or whatever), and so on, all from his point-of-view. Now turn that around to allow us the POV of someone seeing Superman.

In other words, if Snyder could give us the experience of people in a room when Kal enters it, it would go a long way toward making the secret ID work. I am neither a writer nor a director, but imagine something like this: There is an audible heartbeat of the POV person, normal at first. And there is background noise, typical stuff, people yammering, phones going off, street noise below, etc. Then Superman flies in, glorious, awe-inspiring, glowing as if back lit by the sun, perfect. The heartbeat races. The background noise seems to vanish. The room seems brighter. Everyone has turned to him, rapt. A quick series of close-up pans show that men stand up taller, women flush a little, everyone has goosebumps. Superman smiles and the person whose POV we are sharing perceives that everyone in the room becomes noticeably happier and less tense - the most powerful being on the planet is smiling, everything must be okay, whatever the crisis is, he'll make sure we are safe. When he talks, his voice reverberates with a power all its own. Everyone listens, everyone believes him, people jump into action. When he leaves, the room seems to darken back to normal. The heartbeat, which has been elevated the whole time, drops back to normal. The adrenaline rush is fading...  Then the camera snaps back to our normal 3rd person omniscient perspective, to let us know our journey inside someone else's perception is over.

Such a scene would be even more effective at giving the audience an understanding of why the secret ID works if it came not long after Clark had tried to propose a similar idea and the POV is of a person nearby in the room. That POV shows the person being distracted by the fact that Clark's hair is mussed and his coat is rumpled. People don't stop and stare at him when he walks (not especially gracefully) into the room. He's hard to hear, there is all the usual background noise and Clark's voice isn't especially clear or commanding. Most people in the room go on with whatever they were doing, and those whose attention he has managed to corral consider what he has to say with some skepticism. If any action is taken it's because Perry or some other authority figure decides Clark's words have some merit. As the scene ends, except for anyone actually leaving with Clark, no one is paying attention to him any longer - they don't notice as he leaves the room.

Yes, Kal and Clark will both be played by the same actor, so I see that secret IDs are tough, but I think someone with Snyder's visual talent could make Kal's secret ID work and make it clear to the audience that being in Superman's presence is an experience, even if most of it is just due to the expectations of the people having it, while being in Clark's presence is simply normal.

Great ideas Stumpy, and a very good point.  Telling a good story is always difficult, but that difficulty does not excuse poor story tellers. 

Quote from: BentonGrey on June 22, 2013, 07:25:17 PM
Telling a good story is always difficult, but that difficulty does not excuse poor story tellers.

Especially when the storytellers are probably getting paid more than one million dollars for their efforts.

Saw Man of Steel last night.

Spoiler

My biggest complaint was Superman's extreme lack of good judgement. He gave little to no thought of the people of Smallville and Metropolis. The fights were epic and fantastic to watch...but Superman would never allow that kind of carnage to continue in heavily populated areas. Dozens upon dozens killed in Smallville...Tens of thousands killed in Metropolis! He would try as hard as he could to minimize the innocent death toll WHILE fighting off Zod's invasion force.

My biggest praise was that the writers actually managed to get through the film without mocking the character in anyway. No oh so hilarious jabs at his "blue spandex" or "wearing his mothers drapes" or some other such nonsense they so love to do.

The suit still sucked horribly and the lack of a spit curl was glaring throughout the film. Hopefully in the sequel he'll try to be less "alien" and wear something closer to what the real Superman looks like.

Quote from: Podmark on June 22, 2013, 03:41:43 PM
Stumpy about Clark's identity:

Spoiler

I don't buy that it's the problem of the audience to buy something that on the surface is very superficial. In any movie or show Clark and Superman are played by the same person and the only thing done to disguise that fact is a different outfit, maybe some different hair, and if you're lucky some noticeably different body language. The audience looks at them and says "Oh yeah that's the same guy, how do the characters in the story not notice what I have?".

The story wants you to buy the fantasy that people can't recognize the difference between Clark and Superman, and the way it's usually portrayed it's a tough sell (some more than others). Some people will buy into it, some won't.

Hollywood is trying to sell this movie to millions of people. Probably the majority of them do not completely buy into that idea or at all. So I can understand Hollywood trying to justify it somehow, trying to sell that to the mass audience. In this case that probably meant Lois figures it out easily.

For the record I've never had a problem buying the identity thing. I've been a superhero fan my whole life so things like that are the norm. But I have friends that like Superman but openly mock that aspect, and to me that makes sense. Because Superman is asking you to buy into a pretty flimsy concept. That's not to say Superman is wrong to do so, I don't think there is a right or wrong in this situation.

Thank you, Pod.

Spoiler

Not only do I also not have a problem buying into his secret identity, it's been an acceptable piece of knowledge for audiences for the last 75 years.  Why feel the need to change now?

I mean, if we're expect to suspend our belief of a flying man that can do amazing inhuman things, how much more of a stretch is it that we can do the same for a pair of glasses and an act?

Not to mention, as I said earlier, if any of you who went to go see that movie, what would you say if Superman was actually sitting in the audience watching with you?  You'd all say bullchips.  You'd say he has better things to do.  If you were a God and could do God-like things, you wouldn't want to be among ordinary people no more than ordinary people would expect you to want to be around them.  It's different for Clark.  He WANTS to be ordinary.  He WANTS to be ordinary and actually had some self-hate for not being ordinary.  But to deflect attention from him, not only is he not just ordinary, he's attempting to be less than that.  The assumption with his identity is that he can do all of these extraordinary things he'd be wasting himself trying to be anything but.  No one looks for the ordinary or less than ordinary that's among them.

Here's a story about EXACTLY how the public sees Superman:

My uncle was born in the late 1960s.  So by time he's come of age in the early 80s, the biggest thing to a kid in the city is the rise of Hip-Hop.  My uncle was all on it and it got him through his teenage years while he worked at Wendy's.  He continued at Wendy's as your typical "Calvin working at McDonalds" story, becoming shift manager, store manager and regional manager.  From there he's opened his own restaurant and also run a Chilies at the airport in Atlanta. 

Well, while taking the train to work one day, he's on a crowded train minding his own business and two guys get on, baggy clothed and were kinda loud.  Slightly ignoring them, these dudes were being brash and talking about all of the "businesses they got" and "doin' it big" and "taking it global, homeboy!"  By this time, my uncle's thinking these local idiots need to know what hardwork is, the kind that got him to his own restaurant.  While he's thinking this, a rather geeky white kid nudged one of the two guys and said "excuse me, but aren't you Jam Master Jay and that's Run from Run-DMC?"  While my uncle is thinking "this guy needs to stop thinking all black people look alike", the guy says "Yeah man, what's up! You want an autograph?  That's what's up.  You getting off here too, we got you homie."

Hearing this And seeing two living legends who my uncle literally thought walked on water, that he listened to day-in, day-out much to my grandma's chagrin, his mouth was gaped open and he could not believe that an entire train ride to the airport, he was standing shoulder to shoulder with Run-DMC.  And he did not get a single word in.

We do not expect the extraordinary to walk among us.  This is why Superman can get away with wearing a pair of glasses.

Great example, Shogunn!

C, I'm not surprised that you share my thoughts on the costume.

Also, it's missing the single greatest movie theme ever conceived!

I've heard John Williams Superman theme countless times and it still gives me goose bumps! :cool:

Found this on Youtube. A Man of Steel trailer using the iconic theme.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Y24MosIL3Q

Sooooooo much better!

Quote from: Shogunn2517 on June 23, 2013, 02:03:51 AM

Well, while taking the train to work one day, he's on a crowded train minding his own business and two guys get on, baggy clothed and were kinda loud.  Slightly ignoring them, these dudes were being brash and talking about all of the "businesses they got" and "doin' it big" and "taking it global, homeboy!"  By this time, my uncle's thinking these local idiots need to know what hardwork is, the kind that got him to his own restaurant.  While he's thinking this, a rather geeky white kid nudged one of the two guys and said "excuse me, but aren't you Jam Master Jay and that's Run from Run-DMC?"  While my uncle is thinking "this guy needs to stop thinking all black people look alike", the guy says "Yeah man, what's up! You want an autograph?  That's what's up.  You getting off here too, we got you homie."

It's a good example. BUT the mass audience that doesn't buy into the identity isn't complaining about the general public not recognizing Clark is Superman (well at least not most of them). They're complaining about Lois, Jimmy, Lex and anyone else who ends up spending mass amounts of time with both people. Now as I said above I'm not saying that Superman is wrong, I'm saying that it is understandable that part of the audience doesn't buy the identity. And with that in mind I think it makes sense for the film makers to try and find some way to address this.

I haven't seen this film yet so I'm not sure how and how well they handle the identity issue.

Stumpy's idea is very good, but it seems like it would make Superman even less relatable, which is another common complaint about the Superman character. I remember watching Superman TAS and Supes seemed like a pretty down to earth man, someone that Jimmy could be pals with, someone that I could be pals with. I think the awe inspiring experience of Superman's presence might hurt that, but maybe that would be the cost of selling the identity in a film.

Saw Man of Steel last night.

Spoiler

I really liked it, but like so many here, I had problems with Supes allowing all that destruction and death in Smallville and Metropolis during his fight with Zod and his soldiers. I am a little confused about something though. Why would being in the Kryptonian ships negate their powers? I also couldn't understand why terraforming Earth to be like Krypton had the same effect as red sun radiation. They were changing the planet not doing anything to Earth's yellow sun. Also, how could Jor-El (a scientist) dominate and defeat General Zod (a genetically engineered soldier) in close quarter combat?

Those are all excellent questions, Cap, and they all have the same answer: terrible writing.

That's an interesting point, Pod.  I wonder if you could try and have your cake and eat it too, by having a scene like Stumpy describes, then selling Superman as more down to earth through the rest of the movie.  You know, like he has this electrifying presence, like Captain America, and yet he is, at his heart, just Clark Kent from Kansas.

Also, C, you're entirely right.

Just got back from superman... and no, it wasn't just "terrible writing" actually, but I guess everyone was raging so hard on "ZOMG SUPERMAN WOULD NEVER DO THAT" that no one paid attention.

Spoiler

They went out of their way to state that it wasn't JUST the planet's yellow sun that evoked such a change in superman. His abilities also came from the change in gravity, as well as the composition of the air they were breathing... they explicitly state that Lois cannot breathe the air on the ship for that reason. If the air on krypton had a low oxygen content, or something akin to it, Superman's body would not be able to supply his muscles with the nutrients they were used to. And that's excluding the possibility that the ship was designed to emit red sun radiation so the soldiers wouldn't be supercharged every time they passed a different star. And when Superman was trying to take down the terraforming device, they specifically stated it was altering composition the air as much as it was altering the gravity.

It's the same reason Zod couldn't access all the superpowers until the mask came off... the kryptonians could move faster due to the sun's radiation and the lower gravity, but he could not access the advanced senses and heat vision until his body was able to process the earth's air.

Yeah, this wasn't a perfect film, and I'm not thrilled with the ending either, but this was leagues better than Green Lantern or even Begins. Admittedly I'd still put it below most of the Marvel films (maybe above some of the weaker movies like IM2... we'll see), but I'm much happier with this film than with the last attempt.

Spoiler

Again, my opinion on his killing Zod is that it doesn't bother me UNLESS he does it again. This is a very raw superman, he's only JUST learned to fly, and he hasn't had the experience to think of a third option in a situation like that. Yes, there are things he COULD have done instead (and admittedly I wish he had) but I doubt he was thinking clearly enough to come up with them. I'm not exactly thrilled either, but I think the whole thing is being blown out of all freaking proportion.

Sorry, 'Mato, I payed pretty close attention, close enough to know that:

Spoiler

despite the fact that they did include those specific lines of dialog, the end result didn't make any sense.  They broke their own logic because they contradicted themselves.  For Superman it seems that the Earth's atmosphere is behind pretty much all of his powers, including his super strength and enhanced endurance, because when he's exposed to Kryptonian atmosphere he loses these.  Note his inability to break his bonds.  It isn't simply the lack of oxygen that causes this either, and we know that it isn't simply his being in space that negates these abilities, as he flies into space and seems fine at another point.  HOWEVER, the Kryptonians apparently aren't subject to the same rules, as they get their super strength, endurance, and invulnerability purely from the sunlight, as they display all of those abilities while wearing their helmets.  It is only heat-vision and super senses that seem to result from exposure to Earth's atmosphere.  So yeah, I'm going to have to call terrible writing.  If you take the time to explain a mechanic in your universe, you should probably play by the rules you establish.

As a film, this is certainly miles ahead of Green Lantern, but you must not be talking about BATMAN Begins.  That's the craziest thing I've heard all week.  Begins is the best Batman movie of all, and it's in the top five superhero movies!  That aside:

Spoiler

I don't think 'murder is bad' is all that hard of a rule to come up with as a beginner.  Heck, I've never been a superhero (that you KNOW of!), and I think I can wrap my mind around it. ;)  Personally, I'm astonished that a lot more people aren't spitting nails over this.  It's utterly out of character.

On another note, I hated how Superman only started being Superman in order to save the world from the Kryptonian invasion.  Apparently Pa Kent's paranoid rants got to him so much that he just decided to bum around the world forever rather than doing anything important or useful.

I should point out that

Spoiler

He didn't commit murder.  Killing in defense of self or others is actually legal and generally considered to be morally good in real life.  The superhero style no killing morality is pretty absurd if applied to real life, actually, but its superheros.  They aren't expected to be realistic and heroes like Superman are supposed to be someone to look forward to who is better than who real people can be.  If you want realistic heroes, that original character are the best route to go, not messing with superman.  The Wearing the Cape novel series just a brilliant job of this, for example.

Eh...

Spoiler

Again, we don't know what EXACTLY changed on the environment of the ship. We know the gravity and air changed around the machine (which Superman still managed to fly around, so he wasn't exactly weakened THAT much) but what wavelengths of light to the light blubs on the ship emit? What's the temperature set to? Presumably everything on that ship is designed to replicate the environment on Krypton, not just the air.

But again, even assuming it was just the air, Superman got dizzy and started vomiting within a minute of getting on board that ship. Whatever changed aboard the ship messed him up something awful. It's not that big a stretch to say that the change in the air made him too weak to break alien restraints and to prevent having his blood drawn, even if it didn't "remove his powers" entirely. So citing any of that as "terrible writing" when the film DID explain at least some of those elements and DID show the shock to his system is just reaching for things to complain about. A tad sloppy perhaps, but "terrible writing" is an overstatement.

Yes, we're all mystified by why they thought Superman killing was necessary. It was a stupid addition, and I just shake my head at it in disbelief. But it didn't ruin the movie or the character for me. The film is decent overall, I'll buy it when it comes out, and I want to see what they do with a sequel. Anything else is just getting myself into a rage over something that, in the long term, isn't worth getting upset about. Other fans have shown their irritation with the concept of Superman killing, they have no narratively sound reason to have him kill again, and wasting time yelling at the screen is a waste of time.

Also... no. Begins isn't even close to the best Batman movie. You could make the case for the original Batman movie, maaaybe even the Dark Knight, but Begins? Eh. It was OK, but all of the complaints you constantly cite with regards to the rest of the series began with the first film, it's all clearly on a soundstage rather than a real city, and the action scenes feature so much shaky cam that not even the characters could properly count how many guys are in the prison brawl near the beginning of the film.

Cat, fair enough, but that just sounds so much more viciously appropriate for how I feel about the action.  Words mean what they mean, though.

Mato:

Spoiler

If you've got to explain it, the film has failed in part of its job.  I understand that we can probably figure out a way for it to make sense, but we shouldn't have to.  What they said, specifically that the ship had Krypton's atmosphere, like their suits, didn't hold up logically with the events of the movie.  That's true for me, that's true for the folks with me, that's true for several others, obviously.  They should have added in another line that explained they were purposefully replicating all of Krypton's conditions, or something.  As it was, that gap in logic bothered me in and out of the movie.  I'll give you that "terrible writing" is an overstatement for that one, but not for the rest of the plot holes and general terribleness.  Pa Kent's dialog and characterization alone deserves that label.  This movie desperately needed someone with a red pen and some authority.

I finished yelling at the screen before I left the theater, thankyouverymuch! :P  See, I think my anger is pretty justified.  Like Mark Waid I feel betrayed, because I went to see a Superman movie, and they ended it by completely violating the character.  I sort of feel like they took my money under false pretense.  To be clear, I don't think this was a bad movie, as such.  It's mediocre, because its truly awesome bits are undercut by bad writing and plot holes, but it does have some really sterling bits.  Taken as a film, it beats the pants of Returns, plot holes and all (partially because Returns had bigger ones and worse characterization).  The ending though, makes this something of an anti-Superman flick as far as I'm concerned.  It invalidates the film for me, as I said.  If not for that, I'd probably buy the movie, because it definitely has some great bits that I wouldn't mind seeing again, if the taste of them hadn't turned to ash in my mouth.  That's what really kills me.  They took my Superman movie away. 

As for whether this is a waste of time or not, well, I love talking about stories, so I'm enjoying the debate on the boards.  I consider that time well spent! :)

Begins...really 'Mato?  You're partially right, the shakey-cam nonsense began with Begins (ha!), but it only really mars the final fight.  It's relatively justified or at least follows a discernible narrative logic throughout the rest of the film, so much so that, if you remember, I talked about how I was sure they wouldn't do that in the sequel because it had made its point.  How silly of me. :(    As for the other flaws, the terrible editing, the ridiculous growling, the blatant disregard for the source material (I'm thinking of Rises for that last, obviously), and the rest...well, those things are really not to be found in Begins.  The growling is kept to reasonable levels, the movie is actually about Batman, the story actually makes sense and holds together, the editing is mostly tight, and it tells a complete tale.  The only real flaw with it is the vacuous whispering that Katie Holmes attempts to pass off as acting.  Batman is pitch perfect, Alfred is pitch perfect, the villains are interesting and feel like their comic-counterparts, and Gotham feels like Gotham.  Personally, it baffles me that you could rate it at the bottom!  I will say that the original Burton Batman movie still holds up remarkably well, though.  Keaton's Wayne is just way too quirky in retrospect to have it at the same level as this one.

Just kind of wondering if anyone else noticed that the coloring on this new Superman's costume is somewhat similar to the kryptonite- affected  Chris Reeve Superman's from Superman III?

I didn't say bottom, I said "not the best." There is a HUGE difference there, especially given the character's track record in feature film. I still put TDK above begins PERSONALLY because I am a huge Two-Face fan and that's one of the elements TDK did get right, but honestly... I prefer "Batman." Really, it comes down to the character of Batman himself, and I feel as though Keaton was a more natural fit for the role. Plus, Bale was portrayed right from the start as more of an everyman, and that didn't gel with the incorruptible, tough as nails Batman I know and love.

Honestly, I think Nostalgia Critic summed up my feelings on the matter in his "Batman vs The Dark Knight" (http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/thatguywiththeglasses/nostalgia-critic/7184-batmanvsdk) review.

Spoiler

QuoteBut I have to admit, as hard as Bale tries, Michael Keaton is still the superior Batman. The main reason? He keeps all of his pain inside. When you see Bale, you can instantly see somebody who's either looking for attention or trying to hide something. With Keaton, he acknowledges that this is his battle, and he'll fight it alone. If you heard this guy (Bale) was Batman, you'd be like, "Yeah, he seemed a little odd to me." But with Keaton, you totally wouldn't believe it. In fact, a lot of people didn't. Many people petitioned not to have Keaton as Batman because they couldn't see him in the role. But that's why he's so frickin' perfect. You wouldn't suspect him. Look when he grieves over his parent's death. This is all very, very subtle: no tears, no facial expressions, but you can feel the pain that he's going through, where Bale still seemed a little lost and confused. And, of course, you have to look at them as Batman. Keaton is the only Batman who can actually smile and still look intimidating.

My arguments have all been made and frankly not been refuted except by absolute opinions. I don't like god Superman. This guy I liked. I actually like he had to make the very hard choice and it devastated him. I get the destruction was pretty intense but felt superman was doing his best.

Completely unrelated thought, but...

Has it ever occurred to anyone that what Superman does to the people of Earth in Superman (1978) and the Richard Donner Cut of Superman II is essentially the same thing as what Batman and Gordon do to the people of Gotham City at the end of The Dark Knight?  Something really bad happened, and the hero decides to hide the truth of the reality from everybody to "protect" them. 

Okay 'Mato, I suppose I got a bit confused because you mentioned Begins in the same breath as Green Lantern, but I see that you were drawing a distinction between them as opposed to claiming they were equal in quality...which would have been madness! :P  I'll certainly agree that Batman was and is a really good movie, and Keaton is great in the suit. 

Yeesh Steamteck, sorry you've been bothered so much by this.  I'm not quite sure what your arguments were at this point.  The debate has sort of moved in a lot of different directions.  I point you to Mark Waid if you want solid arguments well articulated.  Anyway, go take a breather and relax.  We all still like each other, even if we disagree. :)

Winters, I don't remember those two Superman flicks well enough to catch the parallels, but 'hide the truth to protect them' is classic superhero mantra.

hmmm, it seems some people might want to rewatch Batman,  he straight up murders a thug in the first action sequence. and kills more than a dozen other thugs throughtout the movie... oh and he lets joker fall to his death.
a real hero there, eh?
people just have nostalgia vision when thinking about the '89 film in my opinion.
Batman Killcount video, counting all of the deaths - of course a lot of these are debatable
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3wM7_Bch1Y

well, I already brought up the deaths of zod and co. in the donner films, but to be perfectly fair here... I have less of an issue with Batman killing than with Superman. I don't particularly care for either one just murdering people mind you, but Superman is about inspiration, and Batman is about vengeance.

I think every superhero should straight murder every villain, how else are they supposed to keep people safe? This whole code against killing thing is so unrealistic and frankly naive. #makeminemarvel

What happens when political wonks meet comic geeks?

Spoiler

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/21/supermans-battle-with-zod-cost-2-trillion-killed-129000-people/

Could Supes had brought the fight to a remote location? What if Zod and his forces wouldn't have left the city? Its not like Supes could ask Zod to take the fight somewhere else. Looked to me like an impossible situation for Supes, damned if he does and damned if he does not. How do you stop Zod and his forces without massive collateral damage? Even if Supes would have surrendered himself to prevent the fight, Zod would still have insisted on wiping out humankind and teraforming Earth.

Quote from: BWPS on June 26, 2013, 02:54:01 AM
I think every superhero should straight murder every villain, how else are they supposed to keep people safe? This whole code against killing thing is so unrealistic and frankly naive. #makeminemarvel

Superman doesn't murder anyone in Man of Steel.  If the rest of that statement is sarcasm to suggest Marvel heroes don't kill, maybe you should watch their movies again.  On film, Iron Man kills people.  Captain America kills people.  Black Widow & Hawkeye kill people.  Thor (presumably) kills a bunch of those Frost Giants he fights, and both he and Hulk kill aliens in Avengers.

I guess this whole discussion is spiraling off into dangerous territory. 
Marvel Heroes have never really had an aversion to killing, except for Spider-man and Hulk to an extent. 
Batman and Superman on the other hand kind of predicate their status as champions of justice on the fact that they would never kill.
Anyway.  I gotta go to bed. Goodnight, all.

A bit late to the party, just saw the movie. I think it was a well done super hero flick all in all.

Things i didn't like:

- not sure what they wanted to do with Jonathan Kent, he wants him to help people, he is destined for greater things, he is not...It's as if they were undecided where to go with him
- fight with Faora and the big dude lasted longer than it should have IMO
- colateral damage was a bit too much, seemed pretty ridicilous at one point

A lot of the other things they did I enjoyed. Best depiction of Superman's powerset on a big screen to date. I like the angle they approached the whole thing, alien on our planet etc. Jor-El was pretty cool throughout the whole thing. As a whole they created a Superman that has a wider appeal. General perception of Supes is "Guy in trunks who is unbeatable", this will fix that for sure.

For those of you who said "this is not Superman", look at this as another interpretation of the character, or "elseworlds" if you will. It's what I did with the Nolan trilogy and i generaly enjoyed it despite lots of flaws, and you're hardly gonna find as big Batman fan as I am.

Spoiler

Oh and on the Supes killing Zod I am still not sure on. I always think that Supes finds another way and maybe they should have gone to that route, on the other hand the scene is not as bad as some people made it to be, he was clearly devastated by what he did...

p.s. have a lot more pros and cons this is just all on top of my head

Just saw this today and I agree with Bat1987...

Spoiler

I don't know what was up with Pa Kent...It was too much of a conflicting message...they should have just let Kevin Costner have his nude scene instead as that would have made much more sense.

I won't go into deep criticism..not that I ever do.  As for action this was the best Superman movie yet.  I would go even further to say it was the best superhero movie action sequences since the Avengers and perhaps better than that.  This is exactly what I would expect to see if Superman fought with beings as powerful as himself.  The movie was slow paced in the beginning and I wasn't too impressed with the backstory on Krypton as I felt it was too rushed (I know the move is over 2 hours long, but still...).  Overall, this is the Superman that DC can use to launch sequels.  The new guy doesn't hold a candle to Christopher Reeves, but I'm willing to delay judgement until the next installment when there will probably be more of him being Clark Kent.

Quote from: thalaw2 on June 30, 2013, 09:40:53 AM
As for action this was the best Superman movie yet.  I would go even further to say it was the best superhero movie action sequences since the Avengers and perhaps better than that.  This is exactly what I would expect to see if Superman fought with beings as powerful as himself.

Last fight IMO is probably the best comic book brawl on the big screen.

It was  so nice to see a Superman movie which was not ponderous and plodding  and action deprived. Combat wise, It was great to him give and take in combat like the Superman I know and love

50 best MOS moments

http://www.totalfilm.com/features/man-of-steel-50-best-moments/sorry-sir-i-just-think-he-s-really-hot