Man of Steel Discussion (Spoilers)

[DARKKNIGHT]

As I said in the other Man of Steel tread, I just saw it and thought it was good. It drags in the middle, which has a lot to do with the multiple flashbacks (probably the weakest part of the film). The Superman = Jesus stuff was too heavy handed in a couple scenes too (church scene and crucifix in space).

Things I'm wondering about for future films: what do you think they're going to do with the Fortress of Solitude? I assumed going in that the spaceship seen in the trailer would serve as it, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Maybe he will simply make it from some cave in the Arctic. Is hologram Jor-El destroyed? The last scene has me excited for the (hopeful) sequel.

 

[thee great one]

Superman Returns was better.

What a complete waste. The cast was great and the direction was okay. But the writing and structure was terrible. The focus on Krypton was great, but they didn't focus enough on Smallville or Metropolis. Yes they did it in other adaptations, but Nolan's films had a complete focus on Gotham and Superman needs that also.

Also I liked the changed of Jonathan Kent's character. It makes sense that he doesn't want Clark to reveal himself cause he know they will be scared of him. Its a simple idea that works that you don't see ever, like when Alfred doesn't want Bruce to be Batman anymore in TDKR. The flashbacks were too many. Everyone had them telling Clark how special he is and how great his destiny is.

I don't like when Superman can have entire conversations with Jor-El. That is always odd and he shouldn't know his parents in any personal fashion.

Part of the problem is most of this film felt like it should have been a sequel. Superman should be an established hero when he fights his own people. It would have had more of impact if the people turned on him when Zod demands they hand them over. The people of the Earth would know what Superman could do and be more frightened of the invaders. But that Zod broadcast was the highlight of the entire film.

I don't know how I feel about Lois discovering he is Clark right away and the kiss was so out of place. Also it lacked humor. Most successful blockbusters have moments that lighten the mood. Avengers, Pirates, Transformers, even Nolan's Batman all have them. This movie had only one moment I can think of when the soldier says how hot Superman is.


For all these problems I was still generally enjoying it until Superman snapped Zod's neck. Now it would have been more believable that it was his last resort except we never see him ever have any other challenges he overcome. But Superman should never kill. I can buy any other character doing it. Captain America, Iron Man, Spiderman, even Batman. But never Superman.

Ugh.

2 stars.

 

[DIrishB]

Superman Returns was better..

Yeah, that sentence right there invalidates the rest of your review.

But seriously? Superman Returns was better? Come on!

As for the Superman shouldn't kill (in reference to snapping Zod's neck), normally I'd agree with you, except he didn't really have a choice. It came down to the "greater good" argument. Does he kill Zod, or let Zod murder an entire family of humans, including children? And sure, he could've taken off and flown away and brought Zod along, but thematically it was meant to illustrate Superman breaking his last ties with Krypton and accepting Earth. Not very subtle or well handled, admittedly, but effective in getting the message across. It laid out a scenario of Superman being forced to choose between killing a villain or allowing innocents to die. Seems like a pretty simple choice.

That said, he was extremely conflicted and it was an obviously difficult choice and action for him to take. I found that scene better handled than the ending of Batman Begins where Bruce lets Ra's al Ghul die...by allowing him to die when he had the choice to save him, even Ra's being a villain, he's effectively allowing him to die, and it could easily be argued be did kill Ra's by setting up the train falling (with Gordon's help). It's not that different from someone cutting the brake lines on a car. If someone did that and another person died as a result, that's still murder, is it not? My point is, this scene between Superman and Zod was better handled and more true to the character of Superman (despite him killing Zod) than the scene in Batman Begins (since Batman supposedly never kills...well he did there, maybe indirectly, but he set up Ra's death). Also, has Superman never killed anyone or any supervillain in 70+ years of comics?

 

[DIrishB]

I agree with a lot of what Langsta said. It wasn't perfect, but it was pretty good and certainly did the character justice. If there are people saying it's downright horrible, I simply don't get where they are coming from. While I generally thought it was quite good, here are a few things I had issue with: The film drags a bit in between the scenes of Krypton and the arrival of Zod. A lot of this has to do with the flashbacks, which many have mentioned. While the flashback scenes work, the way they are sprinkled through the middle of the film doesn't. Perhaps it would have been better to cut some of them, or just to have the movie progress in a more linear fashion. Clark finding the suit on the ship, kind of makes sense (all Kryptonians seemingly wear the same type of suit), however his is a different color and comes with a red cape, which differentiates it. This difference is never really explained. I was lead to believe that somehow, when they insery to House El key, it uploaded it...but I dunno. Overall, this is a minor issue though. I do agree that he accepts the role of "superhero" a bit too easily. It would have been nice to show him struggle a bit more with the process of becoming Superman. The same can be said for him accepting what Jor-El tells him about Krypton, and not seeming that affected by it. He just found out about his alien heritage, he should have some significant reaction! The scale of the destruction at the end was a bit much. A good portion of Metropolis is seemingly destroyed. It gets a bit distracting wondering how much the property damage is, as well as how many people have died. Smaller scale destruction would have served the story, and would have been less distracting. It also would have been nice for Cavill to have a few more lines. It seems a bit line he gets shortchanged in that department. Overall, he did a very good job though.

Did you just confuse me with Langsta? Never again!

Recognize I am superior. Come to me, Son of DARKERKNIGHT, grandson of DARKESTKNIGHT. Kneel before DIrishB!

Then pick me up a cheeseburger and a root beer and all will be forgiven.

 

[DARKKNIGHT]

It's not that different from someone cutting the brake lines on a car. If someone did that and another person died as a result, that's still murder, is it not?

Not to go on a tangent, but that analogy isn't really applicable to the end of Batman Begins. Batman didn't do anything to put Ra's into the situation he was in (being on a train that was headed for destruction), so it's not really comparable to Batman cutting the breaks on Ra's car. While it would be murder to cut the breaks on someone's car, it wouldn't be murder if someone else cut those break lines (including the victim - which is a closer analogy to the end of Begins), even if the person had an opportunity to save the person in the car. At least I'm fairly certain of that. Legally, you don't have an obligation to help people, unless you created the problem that they need saving from. I'm in law school, and in our criminal law class I remember thinking of the end of Batman Begins during that lesson. Tangent over. haha

Anyway, I've never really understood the insistence that superheroes never kill their villains. This seems to be a criticism for DC heroes especially, while most people seem to be ok with Marvel heroes offing their villains, for whatever reason. Are you telling me that Batman can't kill the Joker, even though the Joker has been responsible for the death of thousands? I just don't buy it. I mean, it makes sense in terms of you want these villains to stick around because some are almost as important as their heroes, but I just don't get the outrage over Batman killing Ra's or Superman killing Zod. Our world is more complicated than simply saying "heroes never kill".

The more I think about the movie, the less I like it. Don't get me wrong I still think it's pretty good (probably a B-), but it seems like such a missed opportunity. The cast, CGI, design, costumes all were great. The script is the weak link. From what I've read the movie looks like it'll do big business over the weekend, so hopefully they fix the weak parts in the sequel. I wonder how the general audience is reacting to the movie, since most of the reactions I've heard so far are from comic fans/"fanboys".

 

[DIrishB]

Not to go on a tangent, but that analogy isn't really applicable to the end of Batman Begins. Batman didn't do anything to put Ra's into the situation he was in (being on a train that was headed for destruction), so it's not really comparable to Batman cutting the breaks on Ra's car. While it would be murder to cut the breaks on someone's car, it wouldn't be murder if someone else cut those break lines (including the victim - which is a closer analogy to the end of Begins), even if the person had an opportunity to save the person in the car. At least I'm fairly certain of that. Legally, you don't have an obligation to help people, unless you created the problem that they need saving from. I'm in law school, and in our criminal law class I remember thinking of the end of Batman Begins during that lesson. Tangent over. haha

Actually I believe there's such a thing called the "Good Samaritan" Law which makes it a crime to NOT help a person you notice is in trouble and you're able to help, whether you created the problem or not. For instance, if you saw someone get hit by a car in front of you and you don't stop to call for an ambulance and keep on driving away, you can be convicted of breaking that law if I'm not mistaken. I'm not sure of the specifics but I know it exists (or at least used to). And while Batman wasn't responsible for Ra's being on the train, he (and Gordon) were responsible for blowing up the train support struts that brought the train crashing down, and Batman willfully refused to help Ra's escape (even going so far as to stab that thing into the controls to prevent Ra's from slowing or stopping the train--or was that Ra's...now I can't remember). My point was it doesn't fit with Batman's refusal to kill, and my analogy works in regards to Batman setting up the train to crash, just as cutting the brake lines on a car would likely cause it to crash.

Anyway, I've never really understood the insistence that superheroes never kill their villains. This seems to be a criticism for DC heroes especially, while most people seem to be ok with Marvel heroes offing their villains, for whatever reason. Are you telling me that Batman can't kill the Joker, even though the Joker has been responsible for the death of thousands? I just don't buy it. I mean, it makes sense in terms of you want these villains to stick around because some are almost as important as their heroes, but I just don't get the outrage over Batman killing Ra's or Superman killing Zod. Our world is more complicated than simply saying "heroes never kill".

I agree with this, and please don't mistake my argument comparing the two ending scenes between Man of Steel and Batman Begins as saying heroes shouldn't kill, just the opposite. Was merely defending the use of lethal option Supes used in killing Zod, and illustrating why it wasn't completely out of character given he wasn't left with much choice.

The more I think about the movie, the less I like it. Don't get me wrong I still think it's pretty good (probably a B-), but it seems like such a missed opportunity. The cast, CGI, design, costumes all were great. The script is the weak link. From what I've read the movie looks like it'll do big business over the weekend, so hopefully they fix the weak parts in the sequel. I wonder how the general audience is reacting to the movie, since most of the reactions I've heard so far are from comic fans/"fanboys".

Eh, I think the general movie going audience will be far less critical and able to enjoy it more, one because they don't have the extensive familiarity with the comics to compare the movie to and gripe about, and two, when movies like Fast 6 and the Twilight series are attractive to a large number of people, well that kind of illustrates a lot about the mindset of the general movie goer.

 

[Zombipanda]

This movie sounds stupid. I'll probably go see it eventually but it sounds like another vapid Snyder effects fest with wincingly bad Goyer dialogue that misses the point of the character. Every bit of story I hear about just makes me wince.

They should have used my story treatment.

Also, Fast 6 was awesome.

As for the killing thing, for me it's not that heroes shouldn't kill. It's that Superman should find a better way. It's kind of the heart of his character. To me, Superman's about hope, and this sounds like a mopey, self-indulgent mess.

 

[thee great one]

Anyway, I've never really understood the insistence that superheroes never kill their villains. This seems to be a criticism for DC heroes especially, while most people seem to be ok with Marvel heroes offing their villains, for whatever reason. Are you telling me that Batman can't kill the Joker, even though the Joker has been responsible for the death of thousands? I just don't buy it. I mean, it makes sense in terms of you want these villains to stick around because some are almost as important as their heroes, but I just don't get the outrage over Batman killing Ra's or Superman killing Zod. Our world is more complicated than simply saying "heroes never kill".

I agree but that's not what comics are. I think some characters should be better then that and thats why they are superheroes. That's a problem with ongoing superheroes stories in general.

The more I think about the movie, the less I like it. Don't get me wrong I still think it's pretty good (probably a B-), but it seems like such a missed opportunity. The cast, CGI, design, costumes all were great. The script is the weak link. From what I've read the movie looks like it'll do big business over the weekend, so hopefully they fix the weak parts in the sequel. I wonder how the general audience is reacting to the movie, since most of the reactions I've heard so far are from comic fans/"fanboys".

Everyone I seen on twitter and film critics have hated it.

This movie sounds stupid. I'll probably go see it eventually but it sounds like another vapid Snyder effects fest with wincingly bad Goyer dialogue that misses the point of the character. Every bit of story I hear about just makes me wince.

They should have used my story treatment.

Also, Fast 6 was awesome.

As for the killing thing, for me it's not that heroes shouldn't kill. It's that Superman should find a better way. It's kind of the heart of his character. To me, Superman's about hope, and this sounds like a mopey, self-indulgent mess.

Furious 6 was awesome. It was better then Iron Man 3, Star Trek into Darkness, and Man of Steel. This from someone who hated the fast and furious movies until Fast 5

Yeah, that sentence right there invalidates the rest of your review.

But seriously? Superman Returns was better? Come on!

Classy.

As for the Superman shouldn't kill (in reference to snapping Zod's neck), normally I'd agree with you, except he didn't really have a choice. It came down to the "greater good" argument. Does he kill Zod, or let Zod murder an entire family of humans, including children? And sure, he could've taken off and flown away and brought Zod along, but thematically it was meant to illustrate Superman breaking his last ties with Krypton and accepting Earth. Not very subtle or well handled, admittedly, but effective in getting the message across. It laid out a scenario of Superman being forced to choose between killing a villain or allowing innocents to die. Seems like a pretty simple choice.

I'm criticizing the filmmakers choice to even have the scene there. Not if it made any sense story-wise.

 

[DIrishB]

This movie sounds stupid. I'll probably go see it eventually but it sounds like another vapid Snyder effects fest with wincingly bad Goyer dialogue that misses the point of the character. Every bit of story I hear about just makes me wince.

They should have used my story treatment.

Also, Fast 6 was awesome.

As for the killing thing, for me it's not that heroes shouldn't kill. It's that Superman should find a better way. It's kind of the heart of his character. To me, Superman's about hope, and this sounds like a mopey, self-indulgent mess.

Fast 6 was awesome, but it's not high brow entertainment by any means. And yes, MoS certainly has vapid elements, but again, I don't think it missed the mark completely nor do I think it's as bad as some people make it out to be.

As for Superman finding a better way, yes, you're right. But I think the "better way" in the instance we're talking about was saving innocent humans or killing a Kryptonian villain. And while the Superman from the comics very well may have found that better way, this is a wet behind the ears, far less experienced, rookie Superman. One hopes that he'll grow and evolve into that character, but it's understandable at this point in his career, when faced with an impossible choice, why he'd do what he did.

Again, it wasn't a brilliantly written or subtle scene, but it got the point across that he was willing to sever his ties with Krypton to save humanity.

And it's not really a mopey, self indulgent mess, at least not on the levels you're thinking, that I promise (though there are certainly elements of that).

It's nowhere near what Superman: Earth One was, which was extremely mopey and self-indulgent.

Everyone I seen on twitter and film critics have hated it.

I've seen plenty of reviews which were in favor of it. While there were complaints in those reviews, overall they've been decent. And either way, a consensus shouldn't make up others mind for them about anything, so no matter how good or bad the reviews are for something shouldn't affect a person's individual opinion. Most people consider The Dark Knight the best superhero movie ever, but my buddy Peter hated it because he prefers the campier, 1960's Batman and the Batman and Batman Returns films of the late 1980's/early 1990's. Just his preference (strange as it is).

Classy.

Dude, Superman Returns sucked in so many ways. While this film certainly had its problems, it was night and day better than SR. Besides I was kidding...well, kinda. Man up.

I'm criticizing the filmmakers choice to even have the scene there. Not if it made any sense story-wise.

Isn't a scene making sense story wise a good reason to or to not have it in the movie?

 

[Captain Canuck]

Umm, it was okay. Nothing special. If I was a big Superman fan or had been really hopeful of this movie, I probably would have been let down. I think the whole thing just kind of collapsed under the weight of itself and the movies that have come before. Origin movies need to focus on who the character is and the relationships surrounding the character. They need to have the origin. In order to do that well, the movie has to start off without too much action. But Superman couldn't take another movie that didn't have a credible threat for him to face. After Returns and yet another Lex Luthor real estate scheme, this movie needed to have significant action. And it did that, and the action was cool. But the movie suffered from poor development and pacing while trying to balance the origin story, the development of Zod as a credible threat, and the crazy action in the third act.

And I don't think it's so much that Superman and Batman SHOULDN'T ever kill. It's that they DON'T ever kill. If the Joker was real and Batman really killed him, that would be fine with me. If Superman really snapped Zod's neck to save children, awesome. But Batman doesn't kill, that's been a big part of his character for a lot of his history. (I'm not sure if the same is true of Superman, but being the "boyscout" character he is, I would guess it probably is the case).

And Fast & Furious 6 was so good. Although I liked Star Trek Into Darkness more.

 

[DIrishB]

I keep hearing people say the character development wasn't well done. While I'm not arguing that, exactly what was done poorly or ineffectively?

 

[Captain Canuck]

I keep hearing people say the character development wasn't well done. While I'm not arguing that, exactly what was done poorly or ineffectively?

Maybe you weren't referring to me, but since you had posted directly before AND after my post, it seems like you are.

I didn't say the character development was poorly done, I said the story development was poorly done due to them trying to do too much.

But the movie suffered from poor development and pacing while trying to balance the origin story, the development of Zod as a credible threat, and the crazy action in the third act.

 

[DARKKNIGHT]

Actually I believe there's such a thing called the "Good Samaritan" Law which makes it a crime to NOT help a person you notice is in trouble and you're able to help, whether you created the problem or not. For instance, if you saw someone get hit by a car in front of you and you don't stop to call for an ambulance and keep on driving away, you can be convicted of breaking that law if I'm not mistaken. I'm not sure of the specifics but I know it exists (or at least used to). And while Batman wasn't responsible for Ra's being on the train, he (and Gordon) were responsible for blowing up the train support struts that brought the train crashing down, and Batman willfully refused to help Ra's escape (even going so far as to stab that thing into the controls to prevent Ra's from slowing or stopping the train--or was that Ra's...now I can't remember). My point was it doesn't fit with Batman's refusal to kill, and my analogy works in regards to Batman setting up the train to crash, just as cutting the brake lines on a car would likely cause it to crash.

Good Samaritan laws go more towards protecting people who come to the assistance of others from legal liability if their assistance is faulty. One or two states do require you to help others if it is reasonable. What you're talking about is closer to Duty to rescue laws, which no US jurisdiction has. While Batman did cause the train to crash, it was because he had to, to prevent that chain reaction. I see where you are coming from, so I'll stop belaboring the point.

I agree but that's not what comics are. I think some characters should be better then that and thats why they are superheroes. That's a problem with ongoing superheroes stories in general.

But don't you think superheroes need to reflect their times to a certain extent. Part of the appeal of superheroes and villains is that they have such wide appeal and can be molded to fit the age in which they are being told, for me at least. I'm not saying that Superman should kill his villains very often (it should only be for the worst of the worst when there's no other option), or that him doing so in this movie was well done, just that knee-jerk reactions against superhero killing villains are somewhat silly.

Everyone I seen on twitter and film critics have hated it.

In the film's defense, a little more than half of critics like the film (according to RT). While that's not a good number, I wouldn't say that it's universally panned by critics. The weird thing is that everyone I've seen post about the film on Facebook have loved it. I don't know exactly what it means, but these people aren't comic book fans. So I dunno. I could see general audiences liking the film for the action (which was fun), similarly to how so many people love the Transformers movies. Just to be clear, I'm not comparing MOS to Transformers in terms of quality.

I have no idea why they kill of Jonathan Kent when they do, and in the manner that they do. That might have been the worst portion of the film. It would have been far better if Zod would have killed him when he attacked Smallville.

 

[Ice]

I haven't seen anyone do a better Superman origin adaptation, animated or live-action, than Superman TAS. They did it better in just 60 minutes.

 

[Captain Canuck]

I haven't seen anyone do a better Superman origin adaptation, animated or live-action, than Superman TAS. They did it better in just 60 minutes.

That's true. Why aren't Bruce Timm and his team involved in writing stories for DC's live action films?

 

[DIrishB]

Maybe you weren't referring to me, but since you had posted directly before AND after my post, it seems like you are.

I didn't say the character development was poorly done, I said the story development was poorly done due to them trying to do too much.

Fair enough, and I wasn't really referring to you but it reminded me of a common complaint of others, hence my question.

Good Samaritan laws go more towards protecting people who come to the assistance of others from legal liability if their assistance is faulty. One or two states do require you to help others if it is reasonable. What you're talking about is closer to Duty to rescue laws, which no US jurisdiction has. While Batman did cause the train to crash, it was because he had to, to prevent that chain reaction. I see where you are coming from, so I'll stop belaboring the point.

Ah, ok. And again, Batman was doing the greater good by stopping the train, since if it had hit Wayne Tower it would've caused the hallucinogen to spread across the city. I was merely pointing out that based on his no kill policy from the comics (and even displayed in TDK when he saves Joker from falling to his death at the end) isn't very consistent.

I have no idea why they kill of Jonathan Kent when they do, and in the manner that they do. That might have been the worst portion of the film. It would have been far better if Zod would have killed him when he attacked Smallville.

I disagree. He was killed off there specifically to create a situation where Clark could have saved him by using his powers (as opposed to him dropping dead of a heart attack or stroke), but he'd have to reveal his existence by using his powers in front of all those people taking shelter under the bridge. Jonathan specifically shakes his head no, holds his hand up to dissuade Clark from doing so. This is pretty clearly explained through dialogue in the modern day scene in the graveyard when Clark is speaking to Lois about how he could have saved him. If Zod would have killed Jonathan, it would've been cliched (leading into a vengeance motivation for Clark), plus there's no reason for Clark to hide his powers at that point since these super powered aliens have already made themselves known to the world.

I think the way Jonathan went out worked. Again, it lacked a certain subtlety, but it worked. Better than him being killed off by natural causes or Zod killing him (no offense).

That's true. Why aren't Bruce Timm and his team involved in writing stories for DC's live action films?

That's a darn good question. I'd attribute it to the powers that be pigeon-holing him and his writing style/approach as "only good for cartoons", which is stupid, short-sighted, and narrow-minded, but I'd be willing to bet that has something to do with it.

Also because maybe Timm didn't make a pitch or have an interest in doing a live action movie. He's done great in the animated arena and perhaps he's more comfortable there. Who knows?

 

[E]

I just added a poll. Please vote.

Also I liked the changed of Jonathan Kent's character. It makes sense that he doesn't want Clark to reveal himself cause he know they will be scared of him. Its a simple idea that works that you don't see ever, like when Alfred doesn't want Bruce to be Batman anymore in TDKR.

I do not get the comparison - and you aren't the first to make it. Alfred's influence on Bruce and the idea of Batman is completely different form Jonathan Kent's on Clark.

After reading all of this, I'm glad I didn't go see it tonight. I'll wait for it to come out on DVD.

 

[ProjectX2]

Yesterday I was looking forward to this movie. Now... I have no real desire to see it.

 

[DIrishB]

I just added a poll. Please vote.

I do not get the comparison - and you aren't the first to make it. Alfred's influence on Bruce and the idea of Batman is completely different form Jonathan Kent's on Clark.

After reading all of this, I'm glad I didn't go see it tonight. I'll wait for it to come out on DVD.

I think he's referring and comparing the aspects of worry that each have for their respective wards. Alfred is worried about Bruce--really the whole time--but especially this is evident in The Dark Knight Returns when he warns him off from taking on Bane. And Jonathan is worried about Clark, not so much in a physical sense, but in an emotional and psychological sense. They're both surrogate father figures displaying blatant protectiveness, albeit in different ways and for different reasons, but it's a fair comparison I think.

Granted the influence and the results for each character are different, but that's a result of Bruce growing up in a more emotionally cold environment, whereas Clark had the classic nuclear family and farm setting, a far cry from Gotham.

 

[E]

Yesterday I was looking forward to this movie. Now... I have no real desire to see it.

Yeah, that's kind of how I feel. After seeing the trailer during Star Trek I thought I really wanted to see it, but all of the lukewarm reviews are making me not care if I ever see it or not.