All Things Superman: An Open Discussion (Spoilers) - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 92

[~.:/|T-MaN|\:.~]

1) Nolan's series just finished in 2012 - give people more time to forget about an awesome series before moving onto another interpretation of Batman.
2) An extension of 1, if you rush a Batman reboot and are trying to be different from Nolan's work, you run the risk of retreading the same storylines. Especially if they are too lazy that they're gonna want to copy TDKT for the sake of profitability.
3) Joker, give people time to forget Ledger's performance before you have fanboys raging over respect.

A batman reboot doesn't need to include joker. Not until maybe 3 or 4 films in. Build anticipation of a reveal or appearance a la end of BB.
The main reason I would not rush a reboot is because Nolan's vision was such a fresh and unique interpretation that clearly did well with all audiences and critics, going any direction away from that realism into more cartoon/comic-like would be major risk to repeat something that's already been done. There are expectations with this franchise now that if it doesn't please everyone like the TDK films did it will be marked as worse automatically.

My ideal reboot would be a more arkham city/origins movie treatment, but again it's been done. This is the challenge. This is where ideas need to trump WB's greed.

 

[J.Howlett]

Has there been any reports or theories as to how long Goyer has been writing the script for Man of Steel 2?

 

[Lencho01]

1) Nolan's series just finished in 2012 - give people more time to forget about an awesome series before moving onto another interpretation of Batman.
2) An extension of 1, if you rush a Batman reboot and are trying to be different from Nolan's work, you run the risk of retreading the same storylines. Especially if they are too lazy that they're gonna want to copy TDKT for the sake of profitability.
3) Joker, give people time to forget Ledger's performance before you have fanboys raging over respect.

1. There will be plenty of time when the film comes out.
2. It's not hard to do something different from Nolan's version. Not sure where you're getting the idea that they're doing the same thing.
3. Not sure what Joker has to do with any of this.

 

[MrMaooz]

Has there been any reports or theories as to how long Goyer has been writing the script for Man of Steel 2?

I think he's been writing for a while.

 

[The Question]

Well put.

People aren't used to seeing that kinda thing in a superman movie.
Ergo, it's a failure to some.
Talk about objectivity.

The problem isn't that he didn't save innocent lives. The problem was that the film didn't acknowledge the loss of human life. It's not the logistics that people are bothered by or what matter, it's the representation and what the movie seems to choose to care about. Something as simple as a line like "ZOD! THE PEOPLE" would have gone a long way toward making people feel better about the implied civilian casualties of the film. Seeing Superman at least attempt to take the fight out of the city, even if it wouldn't have worked, would have made people feel better.

Yes, logistically The Avengers had more opportunity to actively save civilians in their third act than Superman did in his. But the problem is that we didn't get much of a sense that either he or the filmmakers really cared, and that's what bugs people.

 

[J.Howlett]

I think he's been writing for a while.

If he's been writing for a while, then I'm betting this was a creative decision more than anything else.

He possibly saw an opportunity while working on the draft, presented it to Snyder, and then they presented it to WB...even if it does look like an answer to Avengers 2....

 

[tomoe]

When I first heard the news, I thought, oh, maybe some people won't like this idea. Then I was surprised reading around at how much there were actually a lot of fans who were not happy with this news. Or who were hesitant about being excited about it. With a WF movie announcement you would think it would be great news for both Superman and Batman fans. I think it's just the timing. A lot of people before were thinking about a kind of build up with the DC movies. They wanted a WF movie, but thought it would be separate from the MOS movies. But now it is all being incorporated. And it hasn't been done before. It is going to take a major adjustment, that might improve as time goes on.

I'm mostly unhappy because they're bringing the same team back who failed to see so many glaring issues in MOS. I really hope they at least bring a better and smarter writer in.

 

[Tempest]

The problem isn't that he didn't save innocent lives. The problem was that the film didn't acknowledge the loss of human life. It's not the logistics that people are bothered by or what matter, it's the representation and what the movie seems to choose to care about. Something as simple as a line like "ZOD! THE PEOPLE" would have gone a long way toward making people feel better about the implied civilian casualties of the film. Seeing Superman at least attempt to take the fight out of the city, even if it wouldn't have worked, would have made people feel better.

Yes, logistically The Avengers had more opportunity to actively save civilians in their third act than Superman did in his. But the problem is that we didn't get much of a sense that either he or the filmmakers really cared, and that's what bugs people.

Why do people need everything spelled out for them? Clark was desperate to protect the people he cares about, he told the people in Smallville to get inside, he saved the soldier falling out of the helicopter, he saved Lois Lane three times, he saved a bunch of people on the oil rig, he saved the bus of kids, and he chose to destroy the remnants of the race he genetically belongs to in order to save the people whom he has grown to care for.

The fact that he didn't abandon the fight to go save random civilians should not be held as proof that Superman doesn't care, when it is clear from the moment we first meet Clark that he is a man who has a great heart, and who wants to make a difference in the world.

To suggest that he somehow doesn't seem to care about the people in this film is completely ridiculous.

He gets flack for saving 'just that one family', and he gets flack for not saving enough random people. It makes me suspect that people are complaining just to complain (or to grasp at any little thing to snit about, since this Superman failed to be a replica of previous Superman films.

 

[Marvin]

Unlike tossing the flash into a superman movie, WB's in a position where they will have an audience pretty much up to speed on the batman mythos. Bale or not.
Funny enough most of the audience will be up to speed on the superman the character as well.

seems too good to be true.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

Why do people need everything spelled out for them? Clark was desperate to protect the people he cares about, he told the people in Smallville to get inside, he saved the soldier falling out of the helicopter, he saved Lois Lane three times, he saved a bunch of people on the oil rig, he saved the bus of kids, and he chose to destroy the remnants of the race he genetically belongs to in order to save the people whom he has grown to care for.

The fact that he didn't abandon the fight to go save random civilians should not be held as proof that Superman doesn't care, when it is clear from the moment we first meet Clark that he is a man who has a great heart, and who wants to make a difference in the world.

To suggest that he somehow doesn't seem to care about the people in this film is completely ridiculous.

He gets flack for saving 'just that one family', and he gets flack for not saving enough random people. It makes me suspect that people are complaining just to complain (or to grasp at any little thing to snit about, since this Superman failed to be a replica of previous Superman films.

 

[J.Howlett]

Why do people need everything spelled out for them? Clark was desperate to protect the people he cares about, he told the people in Smallville to get inside, he saved the soldier falling out of the helicopter, he saved Lois Lane three times, he saved a bunch of people on the oil rig, he saved the bus of kids, and he chose to destroy the remnants of the race he genetically belongs to in order to save the people whom he has grown to care for.

The fact that he didn't abandon the fight to go save random civilians should not be held as proof that Superman doesn't care, when it is clear from the moment we first meet Clark that he is a man who has a great heart, and who wants to make a difference in the world.

To suggest that he somehow doesn't seem to care about the people in this film is completely ridiculous.

He gets flack for saving 'just that one family', and he gets flack for not saving enough random people. It makes me suspect that people are complaining just to complain (or to grasp at any little thing to snit about, since this Superman failed to be a replica of previous Superman films.

 

[The Question]

Why do people need everything spelled out for them?

I don't. That's not even close to what I'm asking for.

What I'm asking is that a movie address things it needs to address.

Clark was desperate to protect the people he cares about, he told the people in Smallville to get inside, he saved the soldier falling out of the helicopter, he saved Lois Lane three times, he saved a bunch of people on the oil rig, he saved the bus of kids, and he chose to destroy the remnants of the race he genetically belongs to in order to save the people whom he has grown to care for.

But in the final fight with Zod, the fact that people were likely dying in the crossfire was not addressed. At no point during that fight did Superman make even a token effort to minimize collateral damage. If he's suddenly not making any efforts to save civilians during that fight, then it feels like he's stopped caring.

The fact that he didn't abandon the fight to go save random civilians should not be held as proof that Superman doesn't care, when it is clear from the moment we first meet Clark that he is a man who has a great heart, and who wants to make a difference in the world.

To suggest that he somehow doesn't seem to care about the people in this film is completely ridiculous.

And yet in the last fight he seems to have stopped caring. Someone who cares about the people around him would actually show concern for the people around them in that situation. When a character goes on about saving people throughout the whole movie, and then, during the last big fight scene, doesn't even acknowledge the massive collateral damage that's going on around him, it feels incredibly inconsistent.

Again, all it would have needed was a line like "ZOD! THE PEOPLE!" and a token effort to take the fight out of the city. That's all that would have been needed to make it seem like he still cares. But neither of those things happened, and what we had was a fight scene where the film was completely uninterested in the potential loss of human life. And that feels weird to people.

He gets flack for saving 'just that one family', and he gets flack for not saving enough random people. It makes me suspect that people are complaining just to complain (or to grasp at any little thing to snit about, since this Superman failed to be a replica of previous Superman films.

Or, maybe, they actually had problems with the film that are perfectly legitimate. I mean, those two complaints aren't contradictory in the slightest, they're both part of the same problem: In Man of Steel, Superman only seems to care about innocent lives when the plot requires him to care. It feels artificial and cold to people. All people are really asking for is that there would have been some signs that Superman was aware of and worried about the damage the fight was causing throughout the fight, instead of just focusing on the action.

 

[Marvin]

The problem isn't that he didn't save innocent lives. The problem was that the film didn't acknowledge the loss of human life. It's not the logistics that people are bothered by or what matter, it's the representation and what the movie seems to choose to care about. Something as simple as a line like "ZOD! THE PEOPLE" would have gone a long way toward making people feel better about the implied civilian casualties of the film. Seeing Superman at least attempt to take the fight out of the city, even if it wouldn't have worked, would have made people feel better.

I see what you are getting at but here is something to ponder. Superman expressed these very concerns when Zod initially proposed his genocide plan. It was a nightmare to him.

Why is it safe to assume that superman(and the filmmakers) then stopped caring....
why is it sefer to assume that instead of the idea that this guy who has spent his entire life saving people(and just sacrificed himself for them a few hours earlier) has all of a sudden stopped caring about them vs the idea that he simply is doing the best he can in the immediate situation?

I mean what does logic suggest. I just feel this is where preconceptions of superman shouting, "zod the people" like in the orginal film, are clouding people's perspective.

 

[The Question]

I see what you are getting at but here is something to ponder. Superman expressed these very concerns when Zod initially proposed his genocide plan. It was a nightmare to him.

Why is it safe to assume that superman(and the filmmakers) then stopped caring....
why is it sefer to assume that instead of the idea that this guy who has spent his entire life saving people(and just sacrificed himself for them a few hours earlier) has all of a sudden stopped caring about them vs the idea that he simply is doing the best he can in the immediate situation?

Obviously he hasn't actually stopped caring. No one, at least I hope no one, literally thinks that he magically stopped caring in that fight scene with Zod. No one has actually made that argument.

The problem they have is that in that scene, he doesn't show any concern until they land in the train station. Yes, Zod's genocide plan was a nightmare to him. Yes he has been established as someone who cares. And yet in the fight with Zod he doesn't show any concern for the collateral damage the fight is causing. It's inconsistent, it betrays the artifice of filmmaking, and it makes people feel like he doesn't care. Yes, logically, we know that he should care, but a big part of movies is how information is presented to the audience and how it makes them feel. If you have to go back and say "Well, he clearly was opposed Zod's plan so even if he didn't seem like he cared in the Zod fight logically he must still care" then the movie isn't doing it's job properly.

Really, the fact that they established him as someone who clearly cares earlier in the film proves my point, not yours. If it makes us feel like he doesn't care when it's been established that he does, then the movie ****ed up.

I mean what does logic suggest. I just feel this is where preconceptions of superman shouting, "zod the people" like in the orginal film, are clouding people's perspective.

It's not clouding people's perspective at all. A line like that is the smart thing to put into a scene like that, and a line like that would have dissuaded a lot of people's discomfort while also detracting absolutely nothing from the film. That's the key point, it would have helped for a lot of people and it wouldn't have hurt anything. That's why people bring it up. It's the thing they had a problem with done better.

 

[Tempest]

I don't. That's not even close to what I'm asking for.

What I'm asking is that a movie address things it needs to address.

No, you're asking the movie to address things you personally want it to address. I think a lot of people figured out on their very own that Superman is a Good Guy.

But in the final fight with Zod, the fact that people were likely dying in the crossfire was not addressed. At no point during that fight did Superman make even a token effort to minimize collateral damage. If he's suddenly not making any efforts to save civilians during that fight, then it feels like he's stopped caring.

At what point in that fight scene did he have a ton of time to go and rescue people?

And seriously, do the four people he saved at the end of the fight somehow NOT count in your equation? Or was that just not enough for you? How many people would you have needed to see saved on screen for this complaint to be nullified?

And yet in the last fight he seems to have stopped caring. Someone who cares about the people around him would actually show concern for the people around them in that situation. When a character goes on about saving people throughout the whole movie, and then, during the last big fight scene, doesn't even acknowledge the massive collateral damage that's going on around him, it feels incredibly inconsistent.

He kept his focus on the battle, and not on rescuing people. Any distraction could have resulted in many, many more casualties.

Again, all it would have needed was a line like "ZOD! THE PEOPLE!" and a token effort to take the fight out of the city. That's all that would have been needed to make it seem like he still cares. But neither of those things happened, and what we had was a fight scene where the film was completely uninterested in the potential loss of human life. And that feels weird to people.

All he did was save Lois Lane and that family of four. And the people of Earth. Again, how many lives does he have to save for you to be satisfied?

Or, maybe, they actually had problems with the film that are perfectly legitimate. I mean, those two complaints aren't contradictory in the slightest, they're both part of the same problem: In Man of Steel, Superman only seems to care about innocent lives when the plot requires him to care. It feels artificial and cold to people. All people are really asking for is that there would have been some signs that Superman was aware of and worried about the damage the fight was causing throughout the fight, instead of just focusing on the action.

I would say that anyone who believes this does not understand this version of Superman at all. Perhaps you should watch the film again and try to see it without the blinders of the past on.

 

[Serpico Jones]

I really hope we get a kind of Arkham City atmosphere to Gotham. And I hope Metropolis has an Art Deco look like the animated series.

 

[Ubba Dubba]

Did anyone see bodies lying around, I didn't. Maybe everyone is jumping to the conclusion that people were in the buildings? Perry and the rest got out of the Daily Planet building did they not? Maybe everyone was out of the other buildings also. I am sure if he had just said "Zod the People", (right out of Superman II coincidentally) everybody would have been fine with the destruction. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I respect that but I do feel sorry for people that have there enjoyment of a movie ruined because they can't let some things go. Do I think the movie could have been better, of course, but I loved what we did get a lot.

On another subject, a is used before a consonant and an is used before a vowel. Example I ate an apple, I saw a car. Sorry but it seems a lot of people get this wrong and it drives me nuts. I even see it from so called professionals on web articles.

 

[The Question]

No, you're asking the movie to address things you personally want it to address.

Well, yeah. That's what pretty much every film criticism boils down to.

I think a lot of people figured out on their very own that Superman is a Good Guy.

The problem is, people are confused because in the last fight he's acting like he's not a good guy.

At what point in that fight scene did he have a ton of time to go and rescue people?

I'm not asking for that. At no point have I asked for that. I agree, he had little if any opportunity to rescue civilians while fighting Zod. What I'm asking for is for Superman to show concern for the collateral damage and make at least one token attempt to take the fight out of the city. That's all.

And seriously, do the four people he saved at the end of the fight somehow NOT count in your equation? Or was that just not enough for you? How many people would you have needed to see saved on screen for this complaint to be nullified?

You don't seem to be understanding my complaint. My complaint isn't that he didn't save enough people. My complaint is that for a good five minutes of the film he seemed completely unconcerned with with collateral damage in spite of the enormous amount of collateral damage going on around him and then suddenly at the end he seems to care again. It's inconsistent, it takes people out of the movie, and it feels wrong. It feels like during that stretch the movie was only concerned with spectacle and not with character or the morality of the character, which is kind of lazy filmmaking.

He kept his focus on the battle, and not on rescuing people. Any distraction could have resulted in many, many more casualties.

That makes a logical sense, but that feels incredibly cold to average people. We expect a hero, especially Superman, and especially a young and inexperienced Superman, to express horror at a huge skyscraper collapsing in on itself when there are probably people inside. We expect a line or two about the lives that are endangered by this fight. We expect at least one attempt to take the fight out of the city. Even if it fails, even if Zod doesn't let it happen, we expect at least one attempt.

Otherwise, it feels cold and heartless.

All he did was save Lois Lane and that family of four. And the people of Earth. Again, how many lives does he have to save for you to be satisfied?

Well, again, it's not about strict numbers.

I would say that anyone who believes this does not understand this version of Superman at all. Perhaps you should watch the film again and try to see it without the blinders of the past on.

No one, or at least I hope no one, literally believes it. Saying that they do is kind of a straw man argument. The problem is that the movie makes them feel it, and that's a problem with how the movie conveys it's information and what it chooses to focus on.

 

[TheBourneSuper]

Why is anyone responding to this troll that is The Question? I stopped listening to this guy when he said "The Avengers will be remembered in 20 years time and is clearly a better film than MOS" or something very similar to that extent. The guy clearly has an agenda against the movie and chats utter garbage.

Superman not caring about the people in the final act? Right so he knows Zod is hell bent on destruction and to wipe out humanity, so he should basically distracts himself from wiping out this threat so Zod then can kick his arse and then kill every single human being on the planet....ok...He had to eliminate Zod, who was easily matching Supes in physicality...You say why didn't he take the fight out of the city?? Yes because Zod would allow Supes just to do that...That collateral damage was not Supes fault, he did what he had to do and he clearly shows caring feelings for humanity. Please do not talk and reference 'the people felt this' etc....you do not speak for me...speak for yourself.

This is going to be my last post on this forum and even though I know I wont be missed and I haven't even been here for a long time, I feel a few home truths should come out. The moment I heard about this announcement about Batman and Superman coming together, this is the first place I came to announce my excitement with fellow Superman fans, and yes some of you were like me, totally ecstatic and excited, their were posts of just complete drivel and negativity and completely just put such a downer. I'm constantly seeing this movie being analysed to bits about trivial things. There only a few posters here who actually thought MOS was amazing and the Superman we needed and to you guys, I hope your enthusiasm just goes up and up. Another poster said "we are watching Superman dying" I couldn't believe it....Superman Returns officially killed Superman. Now Superman has the most exposure he has had in so long and is going to be in so many more movies, and we get a comment like that? It is shocking.

Maybe this place is too extreme for me, I just wanted a forum where I could chat about how amazing MOS is and yes also chat about the flaws, but not constantly go on about trivial garbage such as why did he steal clothes? why did he kill? does he care? etc etc
Some of you need to seriously just relax and watch a movie for the pure spectacle of it. MOS was in no way a rubbish movie. It might not of been a perfect 10/10 movie, however it was a great movie.

Anyways I love that this upcoming film is a massive two fingers up to some of you are like 'meh whatever'. This is a golden age for comic book films and we are lucky enough now to see two of the alpha heroes in one movie together and you can't get excited for that?

I hope all the legit Superman fans here who are genuinely excited stay that way and continue to post your sheer enthusiasm for it. Take care.

 

[Brother Jack]

It literally would have taken a single line to alleviate the problem. Either someone says that most of the city had been evacuated or Superman making mention of the citizens in the collapsing buildings.

 

[The Question]

I think I made him mad.

 

[PacificBoy]

Acknowledging deaths we never saw? Thats my point. You never felt civilians in the Avengers were in any real danger. When we do see civilians they're shown being protected. When an entire skyscraper collapses in the Avengers the camera barely shows it in the corner of the screen and cuts to something else quickly. When it happens in Man of Steel the camera never turns away.

True, I never felt as if the civilians were in much danger during the New York battle, and that's because of the more comicky tone of the movie. MoS is the more ambitious film as it tackles a grounded Superman like you said, its tone is serious. That's why we are asking more in terms of how all the death and destruction is addressed.

Obviously thousands if not tens of thousands died in New York that day, but its OK for the Avengers to celebrate not too long afterwards because theres brief clips shown of a memorial? Why arent they shown helping in the cleanup like some are demanding of Superman?

If you are referring to the Shawarma scene it's ok because (1) it's a brilliantly funny scene which fit the tone of the overall movie (2) the police and likely firemen and other emergency services are on hand to deal with the aftermath. Well, I for one am not demanding of Superman to be involved in the cleanup. I'm simply asking for the movie to acknowledge some of the death and destruction.

As for there being no acknowledgement of the damage in Man of Steel, that goes back to my original point that because they 'grounded' Superman, they were going to put themselves in a corners with no way out. Acknowledge the more real feeling death and destruction, and the people who did not like the death and destruction would dwell on it even more, while bashing the film as even more "joyless". It was a conscious decision to not acknowledge it while going straight to the lighter, "I think hes hot" scene.

Writing a Superman that killed Zod is a bold move, and since they already "put themselves in a corner with no way out", why not go all the way and be true to the realism of the narrative and acknowledge the real feeling of all that destruction. And the "I think he's hot" line is the worst line in the movie, a juvenile way to invoke levity after the Metropolis fight. Barely 5 minutes after Zod's death and Superman's grief and "he's hot". Talk about getting it tonally off. Remove it and the scene demonstrating Superman's assertiveness, toughened from his recent experience, would be better for it.

They handled what happened in the finale the best way possible, which meant not directly acknowledging the death and destruction. They had Superman scream and break down after Zod's death, so we got a big emotional response from Superman. Having him break down twice in the last 10 minutes of the film would have been too emo

Once again, I'm not asking for Superman to break down twice. It's probably too emo, I agree. But Superman's big emotional response was for taking a life. All I ask was for the movie to acknowledge the deaths and destruction. Make Superman survey the ruins in a long shot, show the people picking themselves up and rebuilding. A news flash of Metropolis. Show SOMETHING. Without any acknowledgement, it's doing the pivotal moment of Superman killing Zod a huge disservice. Without acknowledgement, the showing of the death and destruction, the sacrifice on Superman's part, the compromise of his moral code, is in vain. It made the entire Metropolis fight with Zod feel like a video game sequence.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

^ Goyer said it will be addressed in MOS2. I think Snyder/Goyer thought it more than some of us think, though I believe that showing him looking around the devastation would be more meaningful, and perhaps that little bit was edited out. Man, I wish the editor were more relaxed.

 

[PacificBoy]

^ Goyer said it will be addressed in MOS2. I think Snyder/Goyer thought it more than some of us think, though I believe that showing him looking around the devastation would be more meaningful, and perhaps that little bit was edited out. Man, I wish the editor were more relaxed.

Yeah, and addressing that and the world's response to Superman would make a great story in the sequel. But not even ONE, quick scene like him looking around the devastation? If the next scene was the Clark and Martha interlude, I think it would have worked better than cutting to the "he's hot" scene. The cemetery as a background would be a quiet, dignified way of acknowledging the deaths.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

^ There's a few months. WB, put Henry back in the suit and show him in a graveyard crying for the people he couldn't save for the special edition DVD.