New Superman Movie

[Tomato]

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.

[BentonGrey]

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.

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

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.

[Tomato]

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.

[BentonGrey]

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!   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.

[daglob]

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?

[Tomato]

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" review.

Spoiler

But 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.

[steamteck]

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.

[oldmanwinters]

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. 

[BentonGrey]

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!   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.

[detourne_me]

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

[Tomato]

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.

[BWPS]

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

[Shogunn2517]

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/

[captmorgan72]

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.

[Talavar]

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.

[detourne_me]

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.

[bat1987]

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

[thalaw2]

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.

[bat1987]

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.

[steamteck]

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

[steamteck]

50 best MOS moments

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