Originally Posted by MrsKent26
I sort of agree. I do think we need to see more public reaction to superman.
But the public in both SMTM and SR felt very artificial to me. They were just too welcoming or something, especially in SR after superman had left them. They didn't feel real.
The wider public reaction was the one thing that was glaringly missing
from MOS. Maybe Snyder did that on purpose, hopefully future films
will address it.
As for SMTM, the whole introduction of Superman was handled very differently - while Lois Lane publishes a story about him in both versions,
in MOS it's an underground web campaign, vs SMTM it was front page news after an exclusive interview.
So, in SMTM, he had the benefit of public opinion, and a positive PR campaign by Lois and the Planet, before he had to deal with other Kryptonians.
Even then, when Zod shows up, the people of Metropolis are
clearly on Superman's side because he's been around for a couple of years, saving people and getting cats out of trees, and stopping renegade nuclear missiles. So people feel a real sense of ownership of him (kind of like in the first Spider Man film, where the New Yorkers start throwing stuff at GG, when he's attacking Spidey on the bridge, of course if it was real life, they'd all have had guns, and would have popped a cap in GG's ass).
I can understand though, why you'd find that a bit unrealistic - but also, in SMTM Superman actually goes out to find Lois and tell her his story, whereas Amy Adams' Lois has to track Clark down. I agree that the way MOS handles the situation probably makes more sense in today's world.
BTW Let's not even go near Superman returns, I put a fair bit of effort into pretending that film never happened.
MOS took a very different approach to Superman's unveiling, even when Lois's story goes viral, he's still really just an unsubstantiated urban legend.
The key difference was the arrival of Zod. In SMTM there's no follow up of an apocalyptic invasion by renegade Kryptonians (well not at least until Superman II), but in MOS the Kryptonians show up right away, and it's Zod who "outs" Kal El.
Where I was going with all this, as someone who loves both films, is that I think it worked well in both movies....except maybe MOS didn't follow it up as well (although SMTM didn't really need to).
MoS is going to have to deal with a very different dynamic, as Superman will have to deal with the background of Zod's actions. I agree with those people who have suggested that a scene of Superman helping clean up
would have fit in well.
I'm really interested in seeing how they deal with that (at the very least I hope they don't ignore it). To be honest, I'm hoping they tie that in with Luthor's motivations, that he capitalizes on distrust of Superman.
On another note. You're right that the older Superman movies do have a campy feel, although of all of them, the first one is the best IMO, it dates better, I think, because Superman only deals with human adversaries.
Zod and co are fun, but really OTT in Superman II (and its effects haven't dated as well, I mean the Battle of Smallville puts the old Battle of Metropolis to shame - having said that it was awesome for 1980).
It's funny, something a previous poster said about SMTM standing out, in its time, whereas MOS didn't (which I disagree with ) something they missed out on was that in 1978 Superman was the first Superhero (since Batman back in the late 60's) to appear on the big screen. So of course it stood out, because really there were NO other Superhero films, and nothing on the scale, budget or scope of SMTM, so of course it stood out.
sorry, that didn't have anything to do with your post.
Anyway, fair call, I respect your opinion. Just a question, did you see SMTM as a child or were you a bit older ?
The reason I ask is that most people, myself included who saw SMTM as kids have very fond memories of it, and don't seem to have any problems with the campy style. Maybe those who see it when they're a bit older
find that stuff a bit less easy to swallow. I went away and watched SMTM, after seeing MOS, and still absolutely loved it.
One possible exception is that Christopher Reeve is such a likeable Superman -Cavill's great, but hasn't had the influence that Reeve had, I mean Brandon Routh was cast as Superman, because he looked a bit like Reeve. Of course Cavill was cast because he looks like Superman, that bit when he first comes out in the suit gives me shivers, it's like Superman just walked out of the comic and onto the screen.
Having said that, I saw MOS as an adult, and yet, coming out of the cinema felt the same thrill I did as an 8 year old coming out of SMTM.
For me, that's the number 1 reason that MOS was great - you can scrutinze
, deconstruct or do whatever kind of analysis of the film, but that feeling
alone makes it great, IMO, if a movie makes you feel genuinely like a kid again, then it's got to be great. I kind of feel sorry for people who didn't get the same thrill.