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

[The Guard]

Furthermore, how does he change? He goes from being a child who's told what to do but occasionally has to use his powers to an adult being told what to do but has occasionally to use his powers.

No one is telling him what to do as an adult.

Clark goes from a child who is scared of his emerging powers, to developing into a child who attempts to use them for good, and is told he must hide who he is, not only because he might scare others and place himself at risk, but also because there are greater implications for the human race about his existence. He discovers the larger truth about his origins, and this causes him to question his place in the world, and his purpose, and whether he can trust humanity.

Because of all this, he then develops into someone who uses his powers for good but stays apart from the human race, due to those fears and concerns.

Finally he puts the final pieces of his birthright together, starts to realize the extent of his abilities, and further develops into someone who steps into the light, decides to finally trust in humanity, take up a leadership role, and to become humanity's protector.

By the end of the film, it's clear this is a role he has embraced, as he's developed a whole new plan to deal with it.

That's a pretty drastic character change over the course of a film.

The difference between a lot of those stories and this one is that they're written in order to showcase his character as a guardian angel. He doesn't just go and have a wrestling match whilst forgetting innocents, but tries his hardest to ensure their safety during the fight. The convenient excuse regarding this film is that it's a developing Superman so he's got no peripheral vision regarding the danger humans are in. It's about striking the balance. And this film didn't do it aside from the token Lois save.

The convenient excuse is the simplest one. That he's trying to stem the loss of life by stopping the cause of it: Zod. Who makes it clear, from the start, that this is his goal. The loss of human life.

Okay, let me explain something to you without coming across as condescending. This film is made by people. Said people have put the title character into an untenable situation and thought 'won't it be cool to see what happens?' Issue is by doing so he's created a backs to the wall scenario where the character can't be fully explored. It results in in an incomplete experience.

True, they have done that, but they've also approached the scenario with logic. What's incomplete about the experience? That he doesn't use all his powers in all the possible ways? I don't understand that statement.

What's the simple solution? Create manageable scenarios. Manage audience expectations whilst managing what can realistically be portrayed of a character's principals, traits and qualities.

Look at it this way. In a film like Batman Begins, Ra's Al Ghul could've not revealed himself to Bruce in the third act and just unleashed the toxin on an unsuspecting Gotham. That would've been the 'realistic' scenario and we could've skipped the exciting finale.

Except that said development wouldn't follow the film and its characters' internal logic, wherein Ra's Al Ghul felt betrayed by his student, and thus wanted personal revenge against Bruce Wayne, not just the destruction of Gotham, which he'd already wanted.

It's not so much only a question of what is the most realistic or "easy"...it's a question of the script and its events flowing from its own internal logic in a cohesive manner. Creating "windows of time" in order to showcase something that feels perfunctory for a character isn't necessarily a good use of screenwriting focus.

 

[Deserana]

That's kind of writing and screenwriting 101. Follow up intense drama with something a bit lighter. Immediately, to give the audience a chance to breathe again. I don't know that I always agree with that approach, but it's considered an acceptable structural tool.

I'm sorry but its not. As someone who has read a few screenwriting books as well as currently studying it at uni and previously college I can that the opposite is more commonly advised. (Sorry I hate writing stuff like that, makes me seem like a right c**k)

If what you suggested was correct then Iron Man 3 would be the best CBM of all time and TDK right down the bottom. If your character goes through something traumatic you cant in the next scene just have them happy and dandy again. Or at least have them entirely normal. Where is the development if you have a character go through something awful to then be okay again right away?

Look at Iron Man 1 and BB something very bad happens to both of them and it sets them on a path for the rest of the film, they dont just go into the next scene where they are both normal. When Coulson dies in Avengers you can tell everyone is ***** off and that leads into the final fight. It's then brought back up by Stark and other characters later.

My point was that the scenes don't work side by side. Someone else didn't get that either above. I very much like the Zod scene! I love the Martha/Daily planet scene! I DO NOT like them side by side. And the Satellite scene doesn't fit either.

 

[The Guard]

Jor-El is Krypton's Chief Scientist. Krypton, a world of flying monsters, ray guns and space ships. With their being a hint of Zod and him being at least associates I don't think that a man so strong minded as well as being possibly the most intelligent on the planet, wouldn't know some ancient self defence techniques, which could catch a very arrogant man like Zod off guard.

I think that is one of the little nuances in Zod character, is that he keeps underestimating his opponents due to how powerful he is. Jor-El showed him up a few times in the opener and yet he still kept underestimating him.
He’s also clearly acquainted with Zod.

It's pretty clear that Zod underestimated him. Jor-El essentially surprises him.

As far as Jor-El knowing combat techniques, it's clear he does because he is shown having them.

And it's obvious that at one point, he was more than a scientist. He has a suit of battle armor in his home.

 

[Deserana]

I just saw Man of Steel and couldn't help but notice how much like Transformers Dark of the Moon it was... I mean from brining or forming their destroyed planet here on earth to the alien invasion angle to the goody two shoes hero dispatching of the evil villain at the end.. Honestly it was eerily similar to Dark of the Moon.. Even the tintacle thing that both Prime and Superman fought.. Superman borrowed heavily from Dark of the Moon.. Both good movies though...

Wasn't the MoS script done a few years before Dark of the Moon even was announced? Same as the two Sherlock Holmes TV shows (Sherlock and Elementary) two shows very similar to each other but was just a coincidence they came out at the same time.

Also the terraforming earth has been seen many times. The Amazing Spider Man done a slant on it as well.

And the goody guy killing the bad guy. Kinda normal?

 

[Smallville13]

Just a simple scene in the end of Superman helping firefighters and freeing people from the rubble would have gone far. Have the people he's helping show fear of him, and that they blame him for the damage.

 

[Deserana]

Just a simple scene in the end of Superman helping firefighters and freeing people from the rubble would have gone far. Have the people he's helping show fear of him, and that they blame him for the damage.

Yes! This. Just inbetween the Zod death and the Martha scene. A small montage of this would have been perfect. Infact it seems like the logical thing to do rather than show a (frankly random) scene where Superman gets a guy to tell Washington to trust him.

One scene where he is rebuilding Metropolis or helping people, some stepping away in fear some embracing him as a hero. Then the Planet stuff would have been perfect. It would quickly establish the public's perception of him at the moment (a theme that was very strongly thread throughout the film!) as well as show time passing! Making Clark's more relaxed state of mind more digestible for me.

 

[Smallville13]

Yes! This. Just inbetween the Zod death and the Martha scene. A small montage of this would have been perfect. Infact it seems like the logical thing to do rather than show a (frankly random) scene where Superman gets a guy to tell Washington to trust him.

One scene where he is rebuilding Metropolis or helping people, some stepping away in fear some embracing him as a hero. Then the Planet stuff would have been perfect. It would quickly establish the public's perception of him at the moment (a theme that was very strongly thread throughout the film!) as well as show time passing! Making Clark's more relaxed state of mind more digestible for me.

Exactly. The thing is, we never learn what the world thinks of Superman. We don't get the answer to '...the world wasn't ready, what do you think?'. All we get is shots of fear amongst all the fighting. Ugh. What the hell Goyer.

 

[The Guard]

And you realize...this is going to be a question that is gradually answered throughout the franchise, right?

There's no answer given because there's not a simple answer to that question. The appearance of Superman is a complex event.

 

[Andreth]

Yes! This. Just inbetween the Zod death and the Martha scene. A small montage of this would have been perfect. Infact it seems like the logical thing to do rather than show a (frankly random) scene where Superman gets a guy to tell Washington to trust him.

One scene where he is rebuilding Metropolis or helping people, some stepping away in fear some embracing him as a hero. Then the Planet stuff would have been perfect. It would quickly establish the public's perception of him at the moment (a theme that was very strongly thread throughout the film!) as well as show time passing! Making Clark's more relaxed state of mind more digestible for me.

Yeah. I just wish that after Zod's death and all that drama and destruction we wouldn't have jumped straight to the "I think he's kind of hot" scene.

 

[InJustice]

Makes me wonder if Superman rescuing civilians was cut for time from the original 3.5-hour cut.

 

[Smallville13]

And you realize...this is going to be a question that is gradually answered throughout the franchise, right?

There's no answer given because there's not a simple answer to that question. The appearance of Superman is a complex event.

Yes, but I think it's important that they stand up as individual films too. Sequels should add and build on themes, not have to fix the problems of the original.

 

[MydnightPhoenix]

I do recall a scene of Superman walking through the rubble but I have no idea what he was doing. I do think seeing him lifting up rubble and pieces of buildings to save people would have been enough for some.

 

[Deserana]

And you realize...this is going to be a question that is gradually answered throughout the franchise, right?

There's no answer given because there's not a simple answer to that question. The appearance of Superman is a complex event.

Yes I realize that. But the theme itself could have at least lifted a little at the end of this film, it didn't need to be resolved as obviously it is an extremely strong theme that could carry an entire franchise easily. This film is clearly the beginning of a franchise so for me just a very small glimpse at where Metropolis stands in their perception of Superman would have been great to see and to speculate on.

Then they simply expand on it in the sequel. Along with the Planet stuff it would have been a great kickstarter for a sequel. Imagine if the film didn't get a sequel, we'd never even get a hint of an answer to that question. A question brought up 5 or 6 times in the film.

 

[TheIrishAvenger]

I do recall a scene of Superman walking through the rubble but I have no idea what he was doing. I do think seeing him lifting up rubble and pieces of buildings to save people would have been enough for some.

When he walks out of the Sears where he was hit by the train?

 

[Boy Scout]

And you realize...this is going to be a question that is gradually answered throughout the franchise, right?

Starting next film, right? That's when they're finally gonna start the build up? Because we weren't given a lot of that in this film. We can only guess how the world at large feels about the existence of Superman and extraterrestrial life. And this was supposed to be a story of first contact?

Yes, but I think it's important that they stand up as individual films too. Sequels should add and build on themes, not have to fix the problems of the original.

Yes I realize that. But the theme itself could have at least lifted a little at the end of this film, it didn't need to be resolved as obviously it is an extremely strong theme that could carry an entire franchise easily. This film is clearly the beginning of a franchise so for me just a very small glimpse at where Metropolis stands in their perception of Superman would have been great to see and to speculate on.

Then they simply expand on it in the sequel. Along with the Planet stuff it would have been a great kickstarter for a sequel. Imagine if the film didn't get a sequel, we'd never even get a hint of an answer to that question. A question brought up 5 or 6 times in the film.

Exactly.

 

[Joefixit]

Wasn't the MoS script done a few years before Dark of the Moon even was announced? Same as the two Sherlock Holmes TV shows (Sherlock and Elementary) two shows very similar to each other but was just a coincidence they came out at the same time.

Also the terraforming earth has been seen many times. The Amazing Spider Man done a slant on it as well.

And the goody guy killing the bad guy. Kinda normal?

Yeah.. Good points, but I think Dark of the moon was out in 2011 which means the script was probably conceived in 09 or 10...

And these movies are very similar in the parts I've mentioned.. It may have been done in other movies, but as far as recent big blockbusters these two come to mind.. With dark of the moon coming first..

And as far as the good guy killing the bad guy.. Well I'm thinking of comic book films.. And the backlash due to it being Prime or Superman.. I know there was a lot of people calling Prime blood thirsty.. It seems as though history has repeated itself with superman.. Just an observation though..

 

[Deserana]

Yeah.. Good points, but I think Dark of the moon was out in 2011 which means the script was probably conceived in 09 or 10...

And these movies are very similar in the parts I've mentioned.. It may have been done in other movies, but as far as recent big blockbusters these two come to mind.. With dark of the moon coming first..

And as far as the good guy killing the bad guy.. Well I'm thinking of comic book films.. And the backlash due to it being Prime or Superman.. I know there was a lot of people calling Prime blood thirsty.. It seems as though history has repeated itself with superman.. Just an observation though..

To be fair when Zod's grand scheme was that he was going to make Earth into Krypton (a fact I'm sure many on here knew but I presumed Zod was just going to Earth purely to get Kal-El for some reason) my mind just shot straight to Transformers (like you said with Sentinel's plan to make Earth Cybertron) and Amazing Spider-Man (with the Lizard trying to turn Earth into Lizards or something like that). So you aren't alone with that I did think "Really 3 blockbuster films in 3 years have the same master villain plan?". But yeah I'm pretty sure the MoS script was completed a long time ago.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

One scene where he is rebuilding Metropolis or helping people, some stepping away in fear some embracing him as a hero. Then the Planet stuff would have been perfect. It would quickly establish the public's perception of him at the moment (a theme that was very strongly thread throughout the film!) as well as show time passing! Making Clark's more relaxed state of mind more digestible for me.

Absolutely. It baffles me that the filmmakers would not insert a scene such as this after the destruction that was shown. How can you have destruction on that level and have zero acknowledgement of it after it is done? This was my biggest beef with the movie. Makes no sense to me.

 

[Deserana]

Absolutely. It baffles me that the filmmakers would not insert a scene such as this after the destruction that was shown. How can you have destruction on that level and have zero acknowledgement of it after it is done? This was my biggest beef with the movie. Makes no sense to me.

Yeah. My main issue with TDKR is that it didn't a very good job at portraying Gotham's view of Batman seeing as he is supposed a murderer. We get the Police's view but not the average Joe's which was vital to that franchise. It didn't show how Gotham was rooting for Batman when the final battle approach.

But even after that battle it at least alluded to the entire City rebuilding itself under the Batman legacy with the city obviously now idolizing him with the statue.

That kind of scene that alludes to the citizens perspective to Superman and the damage he cause was not here and sticks out like a sore thumb to me. Yes Goyer may have said in an interview that we would see the outcome of the devastation but seeing as he probably knew that was a criticism he could easily say "yeah yeah we'll be going into that" when in reality he may never had considered it.

 

[Tempest]

And you realize...this is going to be a question that is gradually answered throughout the franchise, right?

There's no answer given because there's not a simple answer to that question. The appearance of Superman is a complex event.

Your posts are superb. You have a clear understanding of this film. I just wanted you to know.

Yeah. I just wish that after Zod's death and all that drama and destruction we wouldn't have jumped straight to the "I think he's kind of hot" scene.

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.

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.

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.

Why in the world would we spoil the beauty of that moment by going into a kitschy montage?

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.

And I mentioned this before in the "Should Superman Kill" thread, but it bears repeating once again: If you go into a film expecting to see an exact replica of previous stories, or an exact, carbon-copy interpretation of the characters from the comics, you will be disappointed. Nothing will ever live up to 'the good old days'. Broaden your horizons, leave your prejudices at the door, and let the writers and actors take you into their interpretation.

The final thing I'm going to say in this post, is that I do not get where Superman's world was this Utopia of Goodness and Happiness Where Bad Things Never Happen (TM). Superman has killed before. Superman has been rude to people. Superman has not been able to save everyone before. Superman has been killed. Superman is sometimes an arrogant prick. This is canon. I don't know when Superman became a world of sunshine and lollipops. As always, when people remember the 'good old days', they like to forget all the ugly stuff, and blow the golden moments way out of proportion.

I suggest people try to get over the olden days. They were fun and fine, if not sometimes badly acted (and let's not talk about the 'fight' scenes), but they are from a different era, a different place in history. They stand alone as their own canon, but we've been given a whole new Superman to play with. Stop comparing him to the old ones; like a new comic book shoot-off, this is just another facet and piece to the story, and a chance to explore Superman in different ways.

 

[Herolee10]

Honestly, compared to previous takes on the character, when it comes to their personality as presented on film, I think Cavil's characterization of Superman/Clark is my favorite since he seems like a real person, but at the same time, embodying the innate sense of justice and goodness that the character is supposed to have overall.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

^ I thought Cavill's acting as a waitor/"normal person" was spot on. Someone trying not to stand out, while trying not to look "sneaky" for lack of a better word.

 

[jmc]

Yeah. My main issue with TDKR is that it didn't a very good job at portraying Gotham's view of Batman seeing as he is supposed a murderer. We get the Police's view but not the average Joe's which was vital to that franchise. It didn't show how Gotham was rooting for Batman when the final battle approach.

But even after that battle it at least alluded to the entire City rebuilding itself under the Batman legacy with the city obviously now idolizing him with the statue.

That kind of scene that alludes to the citizens perspective to Superman and the damage he cause was not here and sticks out like a sore thumb to me. Yes Goyer may have said in an interview that we would see the outcome of the devastation but seeing as he probably knew that was a criticism he could easily say ''yeah yeah we'll be going into that'' when in reality he may never had considered it.

Looking back at MoS I do think some degree of traditional Superman should have been present in the final act of the film, I'm not so much worried about the loss of life because that can be something to use as a character arc, but as has been mentioned something that alludes to the status quo would have been a nice touch, almost like the Joker card in Batman Begins. Honestly though, this films problems are far bigger than a hint of what's to come.

 

[sf2]

Looking back at MoS I do think some degree of traditional Superman should have been present in the final act of the film, I'm not so much worried about the loss of life because that can be something to use as a character arc, but as has been mentioned something that alludes to the status quo would have been a nice touch, almost like the Joker card in Batman Begins. Honestly though, this films problems are far bigger than a hint of what's to come.

bigger problems? to your eyes and some critics... maybe.

 

[Visualiza]

Sometimes, it feels like some intentionally try to find ways to bash and criticize MOS just for the sake of it.

When something is popular and alot of people like it, isnt that what they always do?

"The ending scene at Daily Planet felt rushed"

Oh boy, really? Now they're really digging

Yeah, it's getting old.

Are you all serious right now? To entertain such a notion one must also assume that the opposite is true, in that there are at least an equivalent amount of unreasonable homers who were going to love this film unconditionally, and defend it accordingly. Is that not equally reprehensible? Isn't that sort of intolerance exactly why we don't like trolls and 'haters'?

I can't understand why it's such a sacrilege to discuss different points of view on this movie. This isn't a circle jerk.