All Things Superman: An Open Discussion (Spoilers) - - - - - - - - - - Part 90

[Smallville13]

It has plenty to say on its themes imo. Choice being the big word, and it touching on everything from adoption, the environment, the concepts of heroism and sacrifice.

This seems like a good discussion to have.

OK, choice. I think the big moments for choice are Jor-El sending his baby away to have a chance to be 'something other than what society intended', and Clark in the church making the choice to 'take the leap of faith, with trust coming later'. I'm not sure what the big takeaway from these are though. What was the payoff? I'm not saying there was none, just what do we think it is.

Trust was another I guess. But there's no answer to this. Does the world trust Superman now? The answer is ???? I guess Col. Hardy and Lois did. Even at the end Superman says 'I'll just have to trust you general.', but there's no real answer to this. Was the world ready for a Superman? Well it's greatest city did just get pulverized so... no? The only glimpse into the public psyche was fear and distress.

Adoption, heroism, and sacrifice, is pretty much just the territory of the genre. All the Batman and Spider-Man films deal with this. What did MOS say regarding these that was different?

 

[PacificBoy]

It has plenty to say on its themes imo. Choice being the big word, and it touching on everything from adoption, the environment, the concepts of heroism and sacrifice.

I get choice, heroism and sacrifice, but aren't these two a little overreaching as themes? It's like saying Green Lantern was about overcoming primordial fear and developing intergalactic racial tolerance.

 

[Project862006]

well if hal jordan is overcoming fear then he isn't hal jordan

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

Bottom line, is I don't think MOS is as deep as the script wants you to believe, but I don't think it's shallow entertainment either. Just my two cents.

 

[shallbecomeabat]

But the film falls on a technical level, as in the very structure of it. Everything happens to service the plot or allude to a theme. But the plot follows a very straight predictable line, and the film doesn't really have anything to say regarding it's themes.

But that is your opinion and not fact. I HATE it if people act like their word is fact. Its not fact.

In my opinion the movie has no structural problems, but that is my opinion. The same for its themes, which I think were well achieved and shown, IF you pay attention.

 

[Smallville13]

But that is your opinion and not fact. I HATE it if people act like their word is fact. Its not fact.

In my opinion the movie has no structural problems, but that is my opinion. The same for its themes, which I think were well achieved and shown, IF you pay attention.

Of course it's my opinion, but it is shared by half the people here, if not the majority, so what does that say.

 

[BlueLantern]

But that is your opinion and not fact. I HATE it if people act like their word is fact. Its not fact.

In my opinion the movie has no structural problems, but that is my opinion. The same for its themes, which I think were well achieved and shown, IF you pay attention.

I hate people who believe that others are implying their word is fact. Why? Because it's not fair. It's his opinion and he's not saying it should be universally accepted so get off your self-righteous pedestal.

It's also not fair to ask someone to repeatedly state that they're expressing a personal opinion. People should be intelligent and aware enough to realize that it's the case unless someone says otherwise.

Furthermore, you're insinuating that people didn't pay attention. Saying you didn't like something is fine but espousing a belief that people aren't aware enough whether an opinion or not isn't your call to make.

 

[The Batman]

You just brought up Rotten Tomato. Really? That has about as much to do with the quality of a film as CinemaScope or any random review here or the classic IMDB rating.

This post speaks of bitterness. Your annoyed with how others feel about Donner's film and SR. This isn't about Man of Steel. You just made that perfectly clear.

You literally just brought up what percentage a film should have on Rotten Tomato.

While I wasn't annoyed before...I am now. We were having a nice discussion, and then you decided to be an ass.

Then again, your whole attempt at trying to sound objective with the "Why are you still here" shtick was flimsy at best. You DO want this board to be a lovefest, you just didn't want to be overt about it, a tactic I have seen on the TDKR boards.

My point was that, if people can have dissenting opinions on other versions of Superman, I think its fair for me to share my thoughts of MOS. Really has nothing to do with being bitter over people's anger at Donner or SR, as a vocal minority hate Donner, and, as I have said before, SR and MOS are of the same level of quality.

When you learn not to be condescending, give me a call.

 

[BlueLantern]

See, we were having a nice discussion, and you decided to be an ass.

Then again, your whole attempt at trying to sound objective with the "Why are you still here" shtick was flimsy at best. You DO want this board to be a lovefest, you just didn't want to be overt about it, a tactic I have seen on the TDKR boards.

My point was that, if people can have dissenting opinions on other versions of Superman, I think its fair for me to share my thoughts of MOS. Really has nothing to do with being bitter over people's anger at Donner or SR, as a vocal minority hate Donner, and, as I have said before, SR and MOS are of the same level of quality.

 

[shallbecomeabat]

This seems like a good discussion to have.

OK, choice. I think the big moments for choice are Jor-El sending his baby away to have a chance to be 'something other than what society intended', and Clark in the church making the choice to 'take the leap of faith, with trust coming later'. I'm not sure what the big takeaway from these are though. What was the payoff? I'm not saying there was none, just what do we think it is.

Trust was another I guess. But there's no answer to this. Does the world trust Superman now? The answer is ???? I guess Col. Hardy and Lois did. Even at the end Superman says 'I'll just have to trust you general.', but there's no real answer to this. Was the world ready for a Superman? Well it's greatest city did just get pulverized so... no? The only glimpse into the public psyche was fear and distress.

Adoption, heroism, and sacrifice, is pretty much just the territory of the genre. All the Batman and Spider-Man films deal with this. What did MOS say regarding these that was different?

What did Smallville say about those themes that was different from other stories? Those are themes that have been dealt with a million times. You cannot say a movie failed because it did not show you a new aspect of trust or choice. Thats stupid and just a reason you fabricate to hate on the movie.

Choice was how Clark decided to help earth and denounce Krypton to save us.

Trust is the trust the military showed Superman and the trust Supes gave the government at the end of the movie. There doesn't need to be an immediate answer. It just shows that they try to establish a trust. If that holds we will see in the future. There is nothing wrong with that.

Sure Metroplois was destroyed, but without Clark the whole world would've died. He saved them and gave them hope.
Again you try to bash the movie under the false pretense of critizing it objectively, but you are anything but objective.

 

[BlueLantern]

What did Smallville say about those themes that was different from other stories? Those are themes that have been dealt with a million times. You cannot say a movie failed because it did not show you a new aspect of trust or choice. Thats stupid and just a reason you fabricate to hate on the movie.

Choice was how Clark decided to help earth and denounce Krypton to save us.

Trust is the trust the military showed Superman and the trust Supes gave the government at the end of the movie. There doesn't need to be an immediate answer. It just shows that they try to establish a trust. If that holds we will see in the future. There is nothing wrong with that.

Sure Metroplois was destroyed, but without Clark the whole world would've died. He saved them and gave them hope.
Again you try to bash the movie under the false pretense of critizing it objectively, but you are anything but objective.

Calm down with the personal attacks before things spiral out of control. Thanks.

 

[Smallville13]

What did Smallville say about those themes that was different from other stories? Those are themes that have been dealt with a million times. You cannot say a movie failed because it did not show you a new aspect of trust or choice. Thats stupid and just a reason you fabricate to hate on the movie.

Choice was how Clark decided to help earth and denounce Krypton to save us.

Trust is the trust the military showed Superman and the trust Supes gave the government at the end of the movie. There doesn't need to be an immediate answer. It just shows that they try to establish a trust. If that holds we will see in the future. There is nothing wrong with that.

Sure Metroplois was destroyed, but without Clark the whole world would've died. He saved them and gave them hope.
Again you try to bash the movie under the false pretense of critizing it objectively, but you are anything but objective.

Never said the movie failed. I used the word 'fall' (note the lack of 'i') regarding it's technical structure.

Again. It is much more constructive to discuss these issues, than fight each other.

Also I will say again that I love this movie. But I am still disappointed with it. I just wanted better. Only cause we were led to believe it would be so much better. There's no denying with the polarized reaction everywhere that this film has problems.

 

[PacificBoy]

What did Smallville say about those themes that was different from other stories? Those are themes that have been dealt with a million times. You cannot say a movie failed because it did not show you a new aspect of trust or choice. Thats stupid and just a reason you fabricate to hate on the movie.

Choice was how Clark decided to help earth and denounce Krypton to save us.

Trust is the trust the military showed Superman and the trust Supes gave the government at the end of the movie. There doesn't need to be an immediate answer. It just shows that they try to establish a trust. If that holds we will see in the future. There is nothing wrong with that.

Sure Metroplois was destroyed, but without Clark the whole world would've died. He saved them and gave them hope.
Again you try to bash the movie under the false pretense of critizing it objectively, but you are anything but objective.

You had a fine counterargument going, but you had to cheapen it with such personal digs. Smallville13's previous post was ever so respectful.

 

[Smallville13]

Look here's the problem with the themes of the movie. Because who cares, none of us are judging the film on that. We just want to really enjoy it and be entertained by it. Just like The Avengers and TASM. What is the difference between MOS and those films though? The complete different tone. MOS tries very hard to be this high brow weighty reverent film. Constantly giving us redundant exposition and flashbacks regarding it's themes. If it's going to do this, it better have a pretty good reason. As in make an actual point about these.

Just by having Jonathan Kent or Jor-El preach these themes again and again in dialogue, does not heighten the film in any way. There's no point or anything being made. Even if it was as simple as the end of TDK, 'Sometimes the truth isn't good enough', it would at least be trying to say something. Instead it's all 'you will give them...' and 'one day you will...' which ultimately leads to a big CGI destruction scene and no addressing these focal points.

That's why the themes become a problem. Just the way the film treats itself. The main problem for me though is probably just the haphazardly structured first half, followed by a paint-by-the-numbers second half.

 

[BlueLantern]

Look here's the problem with the themes of the movie. Because who cares, none of us are judging the film on that. We just want to really enjoy it and be entertained by it. Just like The Avengers and TASM. What is the difference between MOS and those films though? The complete different tone. MOS tries very hard to be this high brow weighty reverent film. Constantly giving us redundant exposition and flashbacks regarding it's themes. If it's going to do this, it better have a pretty good reason. As in make an actual point about these.

Just by having Jonathan Kent or Jor-El preach these themes again and again in dialogue, does not heighten the film in any way. There's no point or anything being made. Even if it was as simple as the end of TDK, 'Sometimes the truth isn't good enough', it would at least be trying to say something. Instead it's all 'you will give them...' and 'one day you will...' which ultimately leads to a big CGI destruction scene and no addressing these focal points.

That's why the themes become a problem. Just the way the film treats itself. The main problem for me though is probably just the haphazardly structured first half, followed by a paint-by-the-numbers second half.

Thumbs up.

 

[Deserana]

I don't think we needed another pause in the action to show Superman lifting pieces of buildings or whatever you seem to have wanted, which, by the way, seems boring and pointless.

How is it any more boring and pointless than the satellite scene?

And it wouldn't even be pointless. It would show that much time has past, which makes it easier for the audience to accept that all the Planet staff are now happy and dandy since due to the pacing it really feels like its the next day or two. It would also be chance to quickly touch on (not answer) how the people feel about Superman.

We would see it. Rather than presume it. This is different from spoonfeeding.

It was far more effective for me to see Superman grieving, seemingly alone, and then to have Lois hold him. And he holds onto her. It is a quiet moment, but so beautifully done. The emotions that both Amy and Henry conveyed in that one scene absolutely sealed that as one of my favorite moments in a movie ever.

It is a lovely moment. It's just a shame it is immediately followed by a scene in which Clark is fine and cracks a few 'MURICA quips. You've just had this HUGE devastating moment for this character now he is fine.

It's the equivalent of Rachel dying in Batman Begins during the car chase when she is poisoned and its very emotional as Bruce lies her down in the Batcave then straight in the next scene you have Bruce give the "that's damn good television" line. You'd just be a bit like "woah, you're girlfriend just died man".

I know, people wanted the grand, sweeping gestures of Superman being great and powerful and elegant and confident. What we were given was something more raw and beautiful: the world's savior on his knees, grieving, facing the worst situation anyone could face, and he's alone. And then...out of the destruction and darkness Lois steps up. She gives strength where he needs it, she offers love, she offers compassion.

Yep it really is a great individual scene. It just doesn't work side by side with the next scene for me. The emotional beat should have been given a little more time to breath rather going to straight it into "I'm American as it gets!".

Besides, I don't mind waiting for the sequel to see what the world's reaction is to him, especially when it's bound to be complicated and messy, and not easily done in four or five minutes.

No one said that they wanted this theme wrapped up. I said before the theme is enough to carry an entire franchise. It should have at least been touched on though. I admit I view franchises like this as "stories" Film 1 is part 1, film 2 is part 2 etc etc but as someone here said before they should also stand as their own films.

What if we never get a sequel to MoS? We never even get a hint to answer to a question brought up about 6 times in a film by about FIVE different characters! How would people react if someone like this was out there?

If I was asked to give an answer and provide evidence with scenes from the film I honestly think I'd struggle very very much.

 

[STARMAN]

There are plenty of entertaining CBMs but there are very few great ones.

 

[The Batman]

There are plenty of entertaining CBMs but there are very few great ones.

I think the CBM's we've seen this year (so far) illustrate this point perfectly.

 

[BH/HHH]

There are plenty of entertaining CBMs but there are very few great ones.

Which ones would you say for you were great?

Really am just interested btw not trying to start anything cause I can tell you I have 5 I would consider great.

 

[Visualiza]

There are plenty of entertaining CBMs but there are very few great ones.

Some people can't differentiate between the two concepts.

 

[Visualiza]

Which ones would you say for you were great?

Really am just interested btw not trying to start anything cause I can tell you I have 5 I would consider great.

Here's a better question - Which ones do you find very entertaining that are otherwise average films?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

This seems like a good discussion to have.

OK, choice. I think the big moments for choice are Jor-El sending his baby away to have a chance to be 'something other than what society intended', and Clark in the church making the choice to 'take the leap of faith, with trust coming later'. I'm not sure what the big takeaway from these are though. What was the payoff? I'm not saying there was none, just what do we think it is.

The ultimate payoff of the film is Superman, hero of Earth.

This film is about the boy from Krypton, who funnily enough can't move on from it and take up the role of Superman until he confronts his heritage. I think it is very much telling his reaction when he returns home. The smile of relief and excitement on his face as he tells his mother he finally knows where he comes from. In that moment where he comes from is now irrelevant. The big mystery is gone. What is left is the young man who was raised by the Kents and all that entails. Knowing that he is "alone" in his Kryptonian nature, while sad, finally allows him to be at peace. He knows.

Then Zod shows up and suddenly Clark is confronted with hard choices. including the choice to become Superman. And it is significant that he can make those choices. How much of Zod's problem is that he can't be pleaded with? That he is genetically incapable of seeing another point of view?

Jor-El and Lara made a decision to give their son complete freedom of choice, and also gave him the biggest decision in Kryptonian history. He is the one who must decide what happens not only to Earth and humans but Krypton as well. And in this situation, he is confronted by all that went wrong with Krypton and the Kryptonians as a race. He is meant with those that can not reasoning, who have basically been programmed not to.

And I adore the moment when Clark realizes this. When he is speaking with his mother after the battle of Smallville.
Martha: "Isn't that a good thing."
Clark: "I don't think they are interested in sharing this world."

There are of course so many other choices that are important.

- The Kents and their decision to take Clark in.

- Lois' pursuit of her mystery man.

- Clark's decision to listen to his father for that one moment.

I also think it is missed how important it is that Clark believes and takes on board the Kents teachings. The easy thing for Clark is to join Zod, to be with people who will accept him. Earth can and may very well reject him, but leaving them to be slaughtered, that isn't something the boy Martha and Johnathan raised can do.

Trust was another I guess. But there's no answer to this. Does the world trust Superman now? The answer is ???? I guess Col. Hardy and Lois did. Even at the end Superman says 'I'll just have to trust you general.', but there's no real answer to this. Was the world ready for a Superman? Well it's greatest city did just get pulverized so... no? The only glimpse into the public psyche was fear and distress.

See, I didn't really see the theme as trust, as much as an extension of the idea of choice. Hardy choices to trust Superman. Lois chooses to trust Clark. It is why I adore the moment with Lois and Clark before Faora's arrive.

Clark: "Thank you."

Lois: "For what?"

Clark: "For believing in me."

Lois: "Didn't make much difference in the end."

Clark: "It did to me."

So much can come from such a little choice.

Earth's acceptance of Clark is almost irrelevant in this film once Clark makes his choice to be it's champion. Will he try and win us over? Yep. Will it be a struggle? Probably. But he has made the choice and that is the first real step, that is goal of this film, Clark's choice and the effect it has on Earth and the legacy of Krypton.

Adoption, heroism, and sacrifice, is pretty much just the territory of the genre. All the Batman and Spider-Man films deal with this. What did MOS say regarding these that was different?

Well this is the question of whether it needs to say anything differently? Raimi's Spider-Man said nothing different from Superman the Movie or Superman II on the subjects.

Though here I think they tied them all very well to the main theme of choice.

I get choice, heroism and sacrifice, but aren't these two a little overreaching as themes? It's like saying Green Lantern was about overcoming primordial fear and developing intergalactic racial tolerance.

Not when you consider how the Kryptonians handle their environment and Earth's. Also when it comes to adoption, well we are talking about Superman here. It is the ultimate adoption story, well this side of the Bible.

 

[Deserana]

if i understand right he said that it looks like avatar. looks.like you i disagree with him. but then you tell him that the story from avatar was not original? Avatar looked original.

The concepts in Avatar weren't completely original. Some was but a lot wasn't.

The floating islands weren't heck just play a Halo game for a few hours and you can see where a lot of its design came from. Yes I'm aware his script was done a long time ago but he to adapt it threw the times and like any writer does, saw stuff in something else thought "that looks good" and changed it up a little for his own film.

The feeling that this was an entirely new planet and everything was very original to me but there were still many things that you'd seen before. It still looked great though.

 

[Nathan]

It is a lovely moment. It's just a shame it is immediately followed by a scene in which Clark is fine and cracks a few 'MURICA quips. You've just had this HUGE devastating moment for this character now he is fine.

It's the equivalent of Rachel dying in Batman Begins during the car chase when she is poisoned and its very emotional as Bruce lies her down in the Batcave then straight in the next scene you have Bruce give the "that's damn good television" line. You'd just be a bit like "woah, you're girlfriend just died man".

Seriously? Let's see, one person was the love of Batman's life, the other person is someone who wanted to commit Genocide. Did Bruce mope much when he left Ra's to his fate? And yeah, maybe it was cut too fast and they didn't get the sense of time having passed across too well, but we can naturally assume it wasn't immediately the next day. No one goes to work the next day, after an alien craft leveled a good portion of the city.

But back to the moping, as I mentioned before in the Thread, sometimes it's best not to linger on certain moments. Clark screaming and having to be held by Lois spoke volumes. It was effective enough without having to watch him contemplate his decision for 5 more minutes. He was a wreck, having had to kill tore him apart inside. Something like that sticks with you. Just because the next scene doesn't show him sitting alone by himself, doesn't mean he's fine and dandy, and has already forgotten that experience.

 

[Smallville13]

to your last post DarthSkywalker.

I'm not saying I completely agree, but this is the type of discussion we should be having. Less personal attacks, more informed discussion.