Man of Steel Discussion (Spoilers)

[E]

I refused to see this based on the Jonathan Kent stuff. I had no idea that Superman killed someone until I read it in a review yesterday.

This just is not a Superman movie. Plain and simple.

 

[Ice]

CBR quoted the review on their Facebook page and people were ripping apart Waid for that.

 

[mike3717]

I refused to see this based on the Jonathan Kent stuff. I had no idea that Superman killed someone until I read it in a review yesterday.

This just is not a Superman movie. Plain and simple.

More of a "Sooperman" movie.

 

[DARKKNIGHT]

I refused to see this based on the Jonathan Kent stuff. I had no idea that Superman killed someone until I read it in a review yesterday.

This just is not a Superman movie. Plain and simple.

How do you know? You haven't seen it. And if I'm not mistaken, Superman kills Zod in Superman II.

 

[thee great one]

I wasn't informed there was required reading. People complained SUPERMAN RETURNS had too much "required reading" when it was a sequel to the two previous Superman films that were liked. Obscure mini-comics do not a plot hole fill.

Retweet.



Also I thought I remember reading a post you wrote about Jonathan Kent. Maybe that was in another thread.

 

[Bass]

They do say that Krypton has thousands and thousands of outposts. It's arguable, that Zod may having been going to the list of old outposts and just hadn't gotten to Earth yet. It's a stretch, but I wouldn't necessarily call it a plot hole.

The hole is, "how does Superman know there is an alien ship there?" If he doesn't, then "why is here there?"

The other hole is, "if Earth is an ancient Kryptonian outpost, why does it take Zod so long to get there when it took Kal-El so little?" It just makes more sense that Zod hadn't heard of Earth, that no one had, and that is partly why Jor-El sent him there.

But you have a point, you can go too far. I think the first hole is a fair one to point out, the second not so much. The second one, is akin to going, "Zod has a terraformer, why doesn't he terraform Mars or Venus instead?" It's pedantic.

Mark Waid destroys this movie.

I didn't care for that review. Saying this interpretation doesn't work because it doesn't fit with prior ones (Superman doesn't kill!!111!) doesn't invalidate this one. It has to be internally problematic. The problem with Superman killing Zod isn't that he kills Zod, it's that the price is never set-up. For example, Superman does kill in one of the greatest Superman stories ever told: WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE MAN OF TOMORROW? by Alan Moore. It's a perfect and true a Superman story as any other.

The definition of fanboy criticism is, "It doesn't fit with my presupposed interpretation of this intellectual property" rather than judging the work as an entity of itself. Critics often impose feminist, marxist, freudian, darwinian, commercial, etc views on films and see it entirely through that lens. "Fanboys" (which is an unfair term) do so by superimposing their personal interpretation formed from a panoply of interpretations they've consumed over their childhood onto the work and judging it by a set of criteria they've determined to be true. There is an element of grey here: at what point is Superman not Superman? It's the old Achilles' ship paradox, but the point is never, "Is it or isn't is Superman" but "do the choices work or don't work?" The choices may not work because they're bad choices for the character, or because they're badly done.

Retweet.

Also I thought I remember reading a post you wrote about Jonathan Kent. Maybe that was in another thread.

Probably.

 

[Captain Canuck]

I didn't care for that review. Saying this interpretation doesn't work because it doesn't fit with prior ones (Superman doesn't kill!!111!) doesn't invalidate this one. It has to be internally problematic. The problem with Superman killing Zod isn't that he kills Zod, it's that the price is never set-up. For example, Superman does kill in one of the greatest Superman stories ever told: WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE MAN OF TOMORROW? by Alan Moore. It's a perfect and true a Superman story as any other.

But he does that. He admits he was pissed off b/c it wasn't the Superman he loves, but then he admits if they had built it up to show that he cared about protecting the people (which they didn't) and that that concern for the people around him was costing him the fight (which it wasn't) then it would have been a more reasonable scene. I thought that was a good point and it was most of what I could think about during the fight. How many people died b/c Superman smashed Zod through skyscrapers and gas stations? It was awesome to watch, but it wasn't really all that heroic. Why would killing Zod to save a family of four be important when he hasn't cared about all the people who were dying throughout the 45 minutes leading up to that point?

 

[DIrishB]

Mark Waid destroys this movie.

That's actually very fair. While he did point out the films triumphant moments:

And I think you’d be surprised to find that I loved everything about Jonathan Kent. I loved his protectiveness, even when it made him sound like an *******. (“Maybe.&rdquo And I loved, loved, loved that scene where Clark didn’t save him, because Goyer did something magical–he took two moments that, individually, I would have hated and he welded them together into something amazing. Out of context, I would have hated that Clark said “You’re not my real dad,” or whatever he says right before the tornado. And out of context, I would have loathed that Clark stood by frozen with helplessness as the tornado killed Jonathan. But the reason that beat worked is because Clark had just said “You’re not my dad,” the last real words he said to Pa. Tearful Clark choosing to go against his every instinct in that last second because he had to show his father he trusted him after all, because he had to show Pa that Pa could trust him and that Clark had learned, Clark did love him–that worked for me, hugely. It was a very brave story choice, but it worked. It worked largely on the shoulders of Cavill, who sold it. It worked as a tragic rite of passage. I kinda wish I’d written that scene.

He also makes plenty of fair points about Superman not fighting smarter, as in drawing the fight away from Metropolis and Smallville, so as to reduce the collateral damage and protect the citizens of those cities (or town in Smallville's case).

That said, I think it's important to point out that Zod and his henchman weren't really concerned about collateral damage, and were more than willing to kill countless humans to draw Superman to them. So I feel if Superman had flown into space hoping they'd follow, they'd just start killing humans to bring him back. So in that sense, Superman just straight up taking them on makes a certain sense, even given all the destruction and possible death it may have caused.

Also, I understand where he's coming from in terms of the Superman not killing opinion. But again, he didn't have any choice. It was that or let Zod fry a family of humans with his heat vision. I don't think what Superman did there was wrong, I believe he made the hard, but correct, choice. My only gripe was that he did have other options the filmmakers didn't really explore. He could have easily flown them both elsewhere, as was done in the cornfield when Superman knocks Zod away from his mother. I wish they'd introduced Krypton in that last scene, a way of robbing Superman of some of his power (and possibly Zod as well), forcing Zod to use a Kryptonian gun to threaten to kill the family instead. The end result could still be the same, but it would've explained why Superman killed him instead of trying something else first. It's also explainable that Superman saw the path Zod was on and finally accepted it in that moment.

There's also that not at all subtle symbolism of Superman choosing Earth over Krypton in his killing of Zod to save humans.

But he does that. He admits he was pissed off b/c it wasn't the Superman he loves, but then he admits if they had built it up to show that he cared about protecting the people (which they didn't) and that that concern for the people around him was costing him the fight (which it wasn't) then it would have been a more reasonable scene. I thought that was a good point and it was most of what I could think about during the fight. How many people died b/c Superman smashed Zod through skyscrapers and gas stations? It was awesome to watch, but it wasn't really all that heroic. Why would killing Zod to save a family of four be important when he hasn't cared about all the people who were dying throughout the 45 minutes leading up to that point?

I think it's important to remember most of Metropolis had been evacuated, something Waid either ignored or overlooked in his review. The Daily Planet people stuck around because one, that girl everyone thinks is a sex changed Jimmy Olsen was stuck under part of a building, and two I'd see at least some of them staying anyway to "get the story". Maybe, maybe not. But in my watching of those scenes of Superman and Zod crashing through skyscrapers I don't remember seeing a single civilian in them. That scene with Perry telling everyone to get out of the building, then running from the falling building, I took to be an indication that most of the city had evacuated. Granted there were still some people around, as evidenced by the family in the subway station, but again I think for Superman it was a choice between occupying Zod's attention with battle or watching him kill massive amounts of humans from afar, Kid Miracleman style.

Also, the idea Superman doesn't care about people is simply not true and proven by the movie itself. First in the scene when he's a teen and saved his classmates on the bus, second on the scene of the oil rig where he saves the workers, thirdly when he doesn't ***** slap that trucker in the bar and instead wrecks his truck, fourth when he sacrifices himself to the Kryptonians rather than see Earthlings hurt or killed, and finally when he saved the Army guy (whose name I forget). Oh, there was also the scene of him saving Lois' life in the Kryptonian ship using his heat vision to close her wound. It was a running theme of the movie. The only real issue was his battle in Smallville (where the citizens most assuredly were hiding in their shops/houses). But I chalk that up to inexperience and knowing if he'd tried to bring the battle elsewhere then Zod and his cronies would start killing humans to draw him back. His choice to stay and fight, as much destruction as it caused, still seemed like the path of least destruction or death had he chosen otherwise.

 

[Bass]

But he does that. He admits he was pissed off b/c it wasn't the Superman he loves, but then he admits if they had built it up to show that he cared about protecting the people (which they didn't) and that that concern for the people around him was costing him the fight (which it wasn't) then it would have been a more reasonable scene. I thought that was a good point and it was most of what I could think about during the fight. How many people died b/c Superman smashed Zod through skyscrapers and gas stations? It was awesome to watch, but it wasn't really all that heroic. Why would killing Zod to save a family of four be important when he hasn't cared about all the people who were dying throughout the 45 minutes leading up to that point?

He does, true, but his main point is not "they didn't make it work" but rather it shouldn't be allowed to work because it's not his idea of Superman.

I am intending to watch the film again. I want to really give it a second chance. There's something about the film that leads me to think it really could've worked if the storytelling had been better.

 

[SSJmole]

I just saw this today. I was a little resistant at first because of the negative stuff people have been saying plus the trailers annoyed me with the Jonathan Kent "maybe." But decided to judge it for my self. I'll break it down in to sections to make my viewers easier to read.

The feel

I was one of the people saying it looked to dark for a superman film. It was. However I feel after experiencing it for myself it worked. 1978 a movie came along called "Superman" it convinced the people that a man could fly. The 1970s were a simper time. Look at the trends. Star Trek (1966–1969) , The Roger Moore james bond and more. Look at now, Star trek by by J. J. Abrams , Daniel Craig's Jame bond and more. We now need realism. The brightness would have heard that I feel. This film made me believe not could a man fly but an alien could live among us.

The tone and look and feel of everything just worked I feel. It was not about the bright blue boy scout we worship like a god. It was about an alien refugee trying to find his place in the world. It added morality and choice decisions not many super hero films raise. The dark knight films bat just comes from the dark. Amazing spider-man once he gets his powers the choices were not as felt. This dared to ask "Is saving people worth it if it will destroy me and those around me?" and lois gets a similar choice. This made it real to me. The fact superman hesitated a few times did what few can, it put the MAN in Superman.

The look

The suit looked great. Unlike returns the red was red without been brown looking BUT managed to do what returns wanted to and Spider-man did, It made the colours true to the comics BUT realistic and grounded too. The kryptonian armour looked great too for the same reasons. Smallville looked real, something no other version has done to me. It looked like people could and did live there. Even the show smallville the town looked too bright and hollywood at times.

The big one in look was Krypton it's self. It looked so amazing. I felt personally this planet could exist. The creatures , the buildings the surface, everything. It looked real which like I said the tone was great. Who ever planned and designed this planet clearly in my mind loved the comics and what they were doing as it felt like a lot of time and effort and love of the craft went into creating it.

The characters

I liked every character in this movie. Normally there is one or two that i'm like "meh" to. But not this time. The part where clark saved lois the first time then gave her the look of "Would you just let me help you!" was so heroic and friendly that I felt Henry Cavill WAS superman. He looked the part but more importantly he acted it too. When he needed to he serious and enpowered but when he was with lois he was friendly and hopeful. I hate to say it but to me he is now Superman. He had clark down great and he had Superman down. I've never seen that. usually it's one or the other.

Amy Adams as Lois Lane was so perfect too. She did what few lois have. She made lois strong, independent but soft when needed vulnerable. Too often people feel they need to make her too strong. She is a strong character BUT she's also human. That was needed i felt as for the first time I felt Lois was real. I also loved for once they showed there IS more important stuff to her than her scoop. She realised clark was good and not a threat but exposing him would ruin lives. So she didn't run the story. That is more human than any lois before her.

The other characters were good too. I felt Perry could use more time though as what we saw was great BUT he needed more focus. That is what the sequal will do with clark now working for him though.

The story

Some of it was silly yes but overall it worked. It was a story of man saving his home and becoming a hero. Zod was a great choice for a first villain as we had no quick and easy Kryptonite to serve as plot device. It was a natural story it felt great. Unlike Dark Knight Rises they got the pacing and time skips to a normal feel that was easy to follow. This story set up beautifully what Superman will be and how we will treat him. It has plot holes and dumb stuff to nitpick but really what doesn't when it comes to comic book movies?

conclusion

This is NOT the superman from the comics no. But it is the best way of doing it for today's audience and it was superman if he really existed. Turn off the part of the brain that says "I need 100% comic perfection" like any comic movie and think instead "What if my hero from a comic existed i real life?" and you will find this film to be great. As for the "SUPERMAN DOESN'T KILL!" He has killed in the comics before and he had a choice kill zod or innocents like a family would be killed. He saved the day and THAT is the one thing you can 100% count on him to do.

I'd give it 9 out 10 so I voted 4 stars. great film and i want to see more in this universe

 

[DIrishB]

Nicely said, Mole. Exactly how the movie came off to me. It's not a perfect film, but there's a lot to admire: that realistic tone makes for an interesting approach to the character and his abilities, the fact Henry Cavill really has given the performance which qualifies as my favorite version of the onscreen Superman, the special effects, etc. Also, the performances besides Cavill's were great, Costner as Johnathan Kent, Michael Shannon as Zod, Amy Adams as Lois, all were memorable and believable...but Cavill does a great job stealing the show. He is Superman.

It does have a few problems, mainly plot holes (the major of which the prequel comic answers, but that's a problem since only a small percentage of fans will read it), but overall I enjoyed it. I look forward to seeing it in the theater at least once more and buying the DVD to watch at home.

Also, people keep mentioning the Superman doesn't kill thing. He's killed in the comics, and used it as a last resort in this film. It's not like he's flying around killing babies and puppies with his heat vision. He did it to save innocents, which morally makes it acceptable to me. If you think those humans should've died to Zod didn't have to you've got a strange sense of morality. I'd hope future sequels don't resort to that, in a sense showing him grow as a character and hero. He was forced into a corner in this first film, I'd hope the sequels allow him to grow smarter in terms of how he fights as well as show why he won't be forced into such a position again: because he learned from that instance and he likely won't be fighting Kryptonians again, which means physically they won't match him or outmatch other humans, or at the very least be vulnerable to what humans throw at it (Lex Luthor). I do think we'll see Krypton introduced in the sequels, but I'd like to see it treated slightly differently that in the comics or past movies.

I don't want to see it cause him pain or whatever, just rob him of his god like abilities. Else you'd expect every Kryptonian living on the planet before its destruction to be in constant pain. I realize that our sun supplies his powers, but the radiation of rocks from his home planet shouldn't have the effect of pain (even if it is just for dramatic effect), merely just rob him of his powers, which can set up an interesting scene in a sequel when he finally encounters it.

Anyway, again, the fanboys are far too harsh and not accepting or maybe even realizing its an origin film, and even series of films. Superman isn't his comic book counterpart right off the bat. He's only started using certain aspects of his abilities (his flight, for example) on a regular basis, and he still has to figure out his place in the world (though this film essentially set that up, right down to his alter who's job which will point him in the direction of wrongs that need righting and people who need saving). The sequels can now explore his job at the Daily Planet, his growing experience in his career as a superhero, and the human response to him (the fear, the appreciation and adulation, the jealousy and contempt--personified by Lex). The haters need to take a step back and realize there's more to the journey to get their version (or at least an approximation) of Superman on screen. Personally I for one am glad it's a different approach than the Boy Scout, which was unrelatable to say the least.

 

[SSJmole]

I agree with that completely DIrishB. It's like I mentioned someone n my opinion in terms of actor Marlon Brando > Russell Crowe obviously but in terms Jor-El I actually loved Russell Crowe's version a lot more (though I wish the hologram had been more hologram looking if that makes sense) Also speaking of lex I admit I grinned huge when I saw the LexCorp logo. I missed the Wayne Enterprises one though (will be looking for it on bluray)

The next movie I'd like Lex but in the background as the puppet master controlling metallo as I think that would introduce kryptonite in a new and interesting way.

 

[DIrishB]

I agree with that completely DIrishB. It's like I mentioned someone n my opinion in terms of actor Marlon Brando > Russell Crowe obviously but in terms Jor-El I actually loved Russell Crowe's version a lot more (though I wish the hologram had been more hologram looking if that makes sense) Also speaking of lex I admit I grinned huge when I saw the LexCorp logo. I missed the Wayne Enterprises one though (will be looking for it on bluray)

The next movie I'd like Lex but in the background as the puppet master controlling metallo as I think that would introduce kryptonite in a new and interesting way.

The Wayne Enterprises logo was tough to spot, but it's on the satellite that Zod hurls at Superman during their final fight, towards the end of that altercation. Immediately after they fall to Earth and into the train station where Supes ultimately kills Zod. It is very hard to see, though.

Also, meant to mention this before, but there were a couple of Battlestar Galactica alumni in the film. Gaeta was obvious as the guy working as a tech at the Kryptonian ship dig, the one who explains to Lois how old the ice is surrounding it.

And Helo (think that was the character's name) is one of the people interviewed by Lois while she's looking for Supes after he saved her in the Kryptonian ship.

I fully expect to see Edward James Olmos and Starbuck in Man of Steel 2.

 

[Bass]

Baltar as Lex Luthor.

 

[DIrishB]

Baltar as Lex Luthor.

That'd be awesome, except I don't think James Callis is capable of NOT doing a British accent.

 

[ProjectX2]

It was exactly what I thought it would be: a boring mess. If this is the start of a cinematic DC universe then I'm afraid I'm out already.

 

[SSJmole]

It was exactly what I thought it would be: a boring mess. If this is the start of a cinematic DC universe then I'm afraid I'm out already.

To be fair (while i enjoyed both but MOS was better) people said the same thing after Incredible hulk. each marvel film can be good or bad or different why can dc not be the same?

Iron man 2 was bad like really bad. Avengers was great! Even IF mos was bad, why can JLA not be good? it's like comics them selves DC and Marvel they both had good and bad comics

 

[DARKKNIGHT]

To be fair (while i enjoyed both but MOS was better) people said the same thing after Incredible hulk. each marvel film can be good or bad or different why can dc not be the same?

Iron man 2 was bad like really bad. Avengers was great! Even IF mos was bad, why can JLA not be good? it's like comics them selves DC and Marvel they both had good and bad comics

Very good point. It's not as if all the DC movies would be the same in terms of quality. The Marvel films certainly aren't. As much as Marvel's movie universe is praised (and rightly so due to the planning and executing of creating a comic book movie universe), the films' quality have been a bit 'hit or miss'. They have their share of lemons: Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, Iron Man 3, Thor.

I am a bit worried because I have a feeling the box office numbers of this movie means WB will do more of the same, and maybe won't look at improving the quality of the sequel.

 

[ProjectX2]

To be fair (while i enjoyed both but MOS was better) people said the same thing after Incredible hulk. each marvel film can be good or bad or different why can dc not be the same?

Iron man 2 was bad like really bad. Avengers was great! Even IF mos was bad, why can JLA not be good? it's like comics them selves DC and Marvel they both had good and bad comics

I haven't liked all of the Marvel movies but none of them have been as bad as this. And future DC movies could obviously be an improvement but considering Zack Snyder and David Goyer are working on a sequel (I don't care for either) and Warner Bros. want it and Justice League released in the next couple of years, I don't have much hope.

 

[DIrishB]

Very good point. It's not as if all the DC movies would be the same in terms of quality. The Marvel films certainly aren't. As much as Marvel's movie universe is praised (and rightly so due to the planning and executing of creating a comic book movie universe), the films' quality have been a bit 'hit or miss'. They have their share of lemons: Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, Iron Man 3, Thor.

I am a bit worried because I have a feeling the box office numbers of this movie means WB will do more of the same, and maybe won't look at improving the quality of the sequel.

Thor was a lemon? I thought it was great, one of the better Marvel films after Avengers and the first Iron Man.