New Superman Movie

[oldmanwinters]

This is no The Day the Earth Stood Still, that's for sure.

You thinking of the 1951 or 2008 version?   

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

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

[BentonGrey]

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

Precisely.

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

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.

[oldmanwinters]

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

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.

[BentonGrey]

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.

[Shogunn2517]

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.

[BentonGrey]

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:

You 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?

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...

[Talavar]

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.

[BentonGrey]

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.   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.   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.

[Shogunn2517]

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?

[stumpy]

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.

[oldmanwinters]

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.

[BentonGrey]

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.

[Podmark]

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.

[JKCarrier]

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. 

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.

[oldmanwinters]

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!)

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.

[BentonGrey]

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.

[spydermann93]

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!)

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.

[stumpy]

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.

[BentonGrey]

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

[oldmanwinters]

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.

[Courtnall6]

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.

[Shogunn2517]

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.

[Shogunn2517]

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.

[BentonGrey]

Great example, Shogunn!

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

[Courtnall6]

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!

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

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

Sooooooo much better!

[Podmark]

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.

[captmorgan72]

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?

[BentonGrey]

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.