All Things Superman: An Open Discussion (Spoilers) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 94

[NewYorkSpider]

Wait. How do people know what a tornado actually looks like up that close?

There's plenty of footage of tornadoes up close out there. The tornado to me looked "bloated", if that makes any sense.

The tornado in the movie Twister looked a hell of lot better than the one in Man Of Steel, but that's just my opinion.

[YT]DFFE7WbgSew[/YT]

 

[John-An]

I had issues with Jonathan Kent in the film. I wish he had backed away from his "maybe" to letting the kids die. Although the scene did remind me of Jonathan Kent getting on Clark's case for saving a bus in the Pilot of "Lois and Clark".

I liked the idea behind Jonathan sacrificing his life to protect Clark. However I do not think it came off as being done for sufficiently compelling reasons. Saving a dog just is not worth it.

he even mentioned the lifes of all of the world will be in the game.. he said that he have to keep the side in secret not he didn´t like that he saved the kids.. was his fear caused by Pete's mom what PA kent was trying to explain to Clark...
SAving a dog is even more worthy cause is to see a man taking care of not peoples in the car but also taking care of a dog (he deserves to live the same as a human, don't agree with you on that) makes him he cares for all lifes not just humans... what made the scene more emotional IMO...

 

[John-An]

There's plenty of footage of tornadoes up close out there. The tornado to me looked "bloated", if that makes any sense.

The tornado in the movie Twister looked a hell of lot better than the one in Man Of Steel, but that's just my opinion.

[YT]DFFE7WbgSew[/YT]

but you didn't answer do we know a "real tornado" look that close? not from a movie like twister (that the whole movie was about only TORNADOS and in a pretty dangerous area]) I mean do all tornados look the same and have the same power ? I don't think so...

 

[NewYorkSpider]

but you didn't answer do we know a "real tornado" look that close? not from a movie like twister (that the whole movie was about only TORNADOS and in a pretty dangerous area]) I mean do all tornados look the same and have the same power ? I don't think so...

Do you know what a real tornado looks like that close? I haven't seen one that close and I'm sure you haven't either. I'm basically telling you that I've NEVER seen a tornado look like that from footage I've seen.

 

[John-An]

Do you know what a real tornado looks like that close? I haven't seen one that close and I'm sure you haven't either. I'm basically telling you that I've NEVER seen a tornado look like that.

That's what I´m trying to say nobody could see a tornado that close.. how can we possibly know how the tornado look like that close neither you nor me... as I was saying not all the tornados have the same power and are as big as many of you saw in movies.. depends on the area, situation and many facts...

 

[Tempest]

I never said Jonathan was stupid. But to choose a certainty over a probability in this case is really questionable on Clark's part. Yes, everything we do has potential consequences and can rely on luck. But Jonathan's death was a definite consequence, and saving him did not guarantee something bad will happen. It was possible that they might be 'lucky' and nothing will happen. And even if something does happen, it is still not worse than his death. At least it shouldn't have been from Clark's standpoint. Anyways, like I said, it really didn't look to me like Clark needed to use his powers to get to Jonathan in time. The scene made it look like he could have had it both ways. Jonathan alive and no power usage. And even if not using his powers was impossible, he could have at least tried to use it subtly. Like running just fast enough to reach Jonathan in time while pretending to struggle against the winds. People watching really could not know that he was using any powers since they were not experiencing the winds themselves.

Again, I would point out that Clark was 17, and was in an emotionally difficult situation. It's very easy to sit in the comfort of our homes and suggest what someone could or should have done in moments of danger or peril...but really, until you've been there, you just don't know.

Everyone wants to think they'd do the situation right, and that they'd be the hero of the moment. But the reality is that most of us are not like that. That's why stories of heroes fascinate us so much -- because they do what we can't, and sometimes won't do.

So you don't think Clark did the right thing? The consequence of his nonaction was Jonathan's death. The consequence of his action is nebulous, up in the air, and in all likelihood did not involve death. And even if everyone saw Clark use his superspeed in all it's glory and they told officials about it, what's to say the officials would even take them seriously and not attribute it to something like mass hysteria or a curious phenomena not much worth looking into? I mean what could they really say except he ran reaally reaally fast. They might also say the winds were too strong for him to move that easily but they could not know exactly how strong those winds were when Clark was moving through it. I mean Jonathan was still standing in it just fine before he got swept away.

I'm saying that Clark did the best he could at that moment in his life. It's really not up to me to be too harsh on him, when he is still clearly suffering with guilt and doubt years later.

Why didn't Clark save his dad? Why didn't he try to take the battle away from the town and the city?

The film rewrote what makes a hero great. It's not that they do everything right. It's not that they have all the answers. It's not that they are perfect. It's that when they screw up, they keep going. No matter how hard the road is, no matter how much the odds are against them, they fight with everything in them.

There are things that have happened to me, and that I've done that I wish I could take back. Maybe do them differently. Be stronger or braver in certain moments. I appreciated this film, because it reminded me that it's not always about perfection. It's about trying your best, and always, always looking forward.

I have no problem with the dog and I do think Jonathan was heroic.

He was wonderful.

 

[NewYorkSpider]

That's what I´m trying to say nobody could see a tornado that close.. how can we possibly know how the tornado look like that close neither you nor me... as I was saying not all the tornados have the same power and are as big.. depends on the area, situation and many facts...

Actually there's plenty of Storm Chasers out there that have seen tornadoes that close and have documented footage of them close up. What I'm trying to tell you is I have yet to see a tornado from the footage they've collected that is similar to the one in Man Of Steel. The tornado to me looks fake.This really has nothing to do if I've seen one up close because if I have seen one up close, it would probably look the same as it does on TV. Tornadoes to me don't look like that.

From what I can tell I'm not going to change your mind and you're not going to change mine. I guess we just have to agree to disagree.

 

[sf2]

Again, I would point out that Clark was 17, and was in an emotionally difficult situation. It's very easy to sit in the comfort of our homes and suggest what someone could or should have done in moments of danger or peril...but really, until you've been there, you just don't know.

Everyone wants to think they'd do the situation right, and that they'd be the hero of the moment. But the reality is that most of us are not like that. That's why stories of heroes fascinate us so much -- because they do what we can't, and sometimes won't do.



I'm saying that Clark did the best he could at that moment in his life. It's really not up to me to be too harsh on him, when he is still clearly suffering with guilt and doubt years later.

Why didn't Clark save his dad? Why didn't he try to take the battle away from the town and the city?

The film rewrote what makes a hero great. It's not that they do everything right. It's not that they have all the answers. It's not that they are perfect. It's that when they screw up, they keep going. No matter how hard the road is, no matter how much the odds are against them, they fight with everything in them.

There are things that have happened to me, and that I've done that I wish I could take back. Maybe do them differently. Be stronger or braver in certain moments. I appreciated this film, because it reminded me that it's not always about perfection. It's about trying your best, and always, always looking forward.




He was wonderful.

But it isn't real life. It is just a film. Shouldn't they make it perfect? That is why we look for film for escaping because life isn't?

sorry act as evil advocate.

 

[Tempest]

But it isn't real life. It is just a film. Shouldn't they make it perfect? That is why we look for film for escaping because life isn't?

sorry act as evil advocate.

Nothing wrong with that.

It's a matter of what works for people. I just happen to like and appreciate the realism they poured into MOS.

 

[John-An]

Actually there's plenty of Storm Chasers out there that have seen tornadoes that close and have documented footage of them close up. What I'm trying to tell you is I have yet to see a tornado from the footage they've collected that is similar to the one in Man Of Steel. The tornado to me looks fake.This really has nothing to do if I've seen one up close because if I have seen one up close, it would probably look the same as it does on TV. Tornadoes to me don't look like that.

From what I can tell I'm not going to change your mind and you're not going to change mine. I guess we just have to agree to disagree.

well yeah both have different opinions... as you've seen different strom chases you have to know that not all the tornados look the same to me.. ones are bigger, ones are powerful, ones are thicker... I didn't have a problem with that cause to me it was seen as a tornado but not a pretty big one..
I guess we just have to agree to disagree

 

[John-An]

Nothing wrong with that.

It's a matter of what works for people. I just happen to like and appreciate the realism they poured into MOS.

I appreciate the way the realism was handled in MOS... nothing like no consequences, everything perfect... I mean this was a Superman that we can identify with him... with his mistakes, his good choices... a Superman that will never give up and will continue doing its best.. saving the world...

 

[John-An]

Again, I would point out that Clark was 17, and was in an emotionally difficult situation. It's very easy to sit in the comfort of our homes and suggest what someone could or should have done in moments of danger or peril...but really, until you've been there, you just don't know.

Everyone wants to think they'd do the situation right, and that they'd be the hero of the moment. But the reality is that most of us are not like that. That's why stories of heroes fascinate us so much -- because they do what we can't, and sometimes won't do.

There are things that have happened to me, and that I've done that I wish I could take back. Maybe do them differently. Be stronger or braver in certain moments. I appreciated this film, because it reminded me that it's not always about perfection. It's about trying your best, and always, always looking forward.

all the post was beautiful... but the last part I couldn't agree more. was great....

 

[tomoe]

Again, I would point out that Clark was 17, and was in an emotionally difficult situation. It's very easy to sit in the comfort of our homes and suggest what someone could or should have done in moments of danger or peril...but really, until you've been there, you just don't know.

Everyone wants to think they'd do the situation right, and that they'd be the hero of the moment. But the reality is that most of us are not like that. That's why stories of heroes fascinate us so much -- because they do what we can't, and sometimes won't do.

Well, I would never judge a real person for what they would do in such a situation, nor can I say for sure I would have done anything different, but Clark is not a real person and this is a movie. And I'd like to think Clark is smarter and more level headed than average, not like 'most of us'. Just because I might panic or be reckless or do some dumb@$$ thing in certain situations, doesn't mean I want to see my favorite heroes do the same. Not saying Clark was a dumb@$$, but just in general, I prefer my heroes to be smarter than me, handle things in a superior way than I would. I suppose you'll say that makes him more realistic and relatable, but I don't even think the movie did a great job of making him relatable. They were getting there, then Zod came and basically froze the movie for me.

I'm saying that Clark did the best he could at that moment in his life. It's really not up to me to be too harsh on him, when he is still clearly suffering with guilt and doubt years later.

Maybe, but the movie didn't really make it seem like it was a big mistake that Clark regretted. The movie only shows him telling Lois about it so that she wouldn't reveal him. Perhaps if they had expanded that scene, showed them talking a bit more, maybe with Clark expressing his regret or conflict about his father's death or something, it would have gone over better as well as deepening Lois and Clark's relationship more believably.

Why didn't Clark save his dad? Why didn't he try to take the battle away from the town and the city?

The film rewrote what makes a hero great. It's not that they do everything right. It's not that they have all the answers. It's not that they are perfect. It's that when they screw up, they keep going. No matter how hard the road is, no matter how much the odds are against them, they fight with everything in them.

There are things that have happened to me, and that I've done that I wish I could take back. Maybe do them differently. Be stronger or braver in certain moments. I appreciated this film, because it reminded me that it's not always about perfection. It's about trying your best, and always, always looking forward.

He was wonderful.

I'm a complete sucker for hot perfect noble white knight heroes and Superman is the embodiment of that, so I suppose I judge him based on that standard, which maybe isn't totally fair. But I don't think that standard necessarily makes him boring like many people think. He can still be emotional and relatable without putting people in danger or letting people die. If I want to see some screwup hero, I'll go watch a Marvel movie. Or Batman

 

[Tempest]

Well, I would never judge a real person for what they would do in such a situation, nor can I say for sure I would have done anything different, but Clark is not a real person and this is a movie. And I'd like to think Clark is smarter and more level headed than average, not like 'most of us'. Just because I might panic or be reckless or do some dumb@$$ thing in certain situations, doesn't mean I want to see my favorite heroes do the same. Not saying Clark was a dumb@$$, but just in general, I prefer my heroes to be smarter than me, handle things in a superior way than I would. I suppose you'll say that makes him more realistic and relatable, but I don't even think the movie did a great job of making him relatable. They were getting there, then Zod came and basically froze the movie for me.

Well, yeah, Clark is fictional. Which makes it better when he's flawed. And let's not forget, he's mucked up in the comic books. He hasn't always been perfect and done things the right way.

I realize you couldn't relate to Clark, so I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise. For me, it worked very well. I got a lot out of the movie. Different strokes for different folks.

Maybe, but the movie didn't really make it seem like it was a big mistake that Clark regretted. The movie only shows him telling Lois about it so that she wouldn't reveal him. Perhaps if they had expanded that scene, showed them talking a bit more, maybe with Clark expressing his regret or conflict about his father's death or something, it would have gone over better as well as deepening Lois and Clark's relationship more believably.

You're one of those people that needs a literal interpretation of everything, I think. There's a lot of things that you felt needed to be explained, when it's really in the unspoken areas that the audience is supposed to find their answers. I'm not criticizing you; just making an observation from my conversation with you.

For me, I didn't need the explanations of Clark's emotions from him, when I can see it displayed in the body language and actions him...and really, all of the characters. I liked that this film felt more like a comic book from the standpoint of how you had to rely on the visual cues more than the words.

I'm a complete sucker for hot perfect noble white knight heroes and Superman is the embodiment of that, so I suppose I judge him based on that standard, which maybe isn't totally fair. But I don't think that standard necessarily makes him boring like many people think. He can still be emotional and relatable without putting people in danger or letting people die. If I want to see some screwup hero, I'll go watch a Marvel movie. Or Batman

It makes Superman a little boring. Sort of like when Batman is really awesome at everything. It makes the story less compelling, because you know the character can fix everything. So who cares about the story when we already know the basic outcome?

But if it turns out Superman can't save every person, or that he does something kind of dumb, it makes you wonder how he'll fix it, how he'll be affected, how it might change him in the future.

But like I said, different strokes.

 

[tomoe]

Well, yeah, Clark is fictional. Which makes it better when he's flawed. And let's not forget, he's mucked up in the comic books. He hasn't always been perfect and done things the right way.

I just feel like he mucked up a lot more than usual, and with much greater consequences in this movie compared to his other movies, and compared to the movies of other comic book heroes. I don't recall any other superhero in recent memory just letting someone they loved die, or being so reckless, or was responsible for bringing the cause of thousands of deaths (whether he meant to or not). Ok, Thor was probably more reckless, but that was a major part of his character arc that was addressed in the same movie. If Clark had to muck up that's fine, but he couldn't just muck up the same amount as his fellow heroes? I didn't expect him to muck up that much more than his 'peers'.

You're one of those people that needs a literal interpretation of everything, I think. There's a lot of things that you felt needed to be explained, when it's really in the unspoken areas that the audience is supposed to find their answers. I'm not criticizing you; just making an observation from my conversation with you.

For me, I didn't need the explanations of Clark's emotions from him, when I can see it displayed in the body language and actions him...and really, all of the characters. I liked that this film felt more like a comic book from the standpoint of how you had to rely on the visual cues more than the words.

No, I don't necessarily need everything spelled out for me; I appreciate subtlety. With MOS, I really didn't get the sense that they were trying to be subtle though. I got more the feeling that they didn't think things through. I can tell that Clark was worried and conflicted in that scene and in pretty much any scene; Cavill is wonderfully expressive. And I know the idea that they were trying to get across, I just think it was really poorly done and that the idea itself is half baked. If they meant for Jonathan's death to be the cause of Clark's wanderings and actions thereafter, then it really should have been edited in a way that made that more clear. As the movie is, I didn't think of it that way at all. Only that the scene was so dumb it almost ruined the entire movie for me. It's not so much a need for literal interpretation rather than coherent, well flowing storytelling.

It makes Superman a little boring. Sort of like when Batman is really awesome at everything. It makes the story less compelling, because you know the character can fix everything. So who cares about the story when we already know the basic outcome?

But if it turns out Superman can't save every person, or that he does something kind of dumb, it makes you wonder how he'll fix it, how he'll be affected, how it might change him in the future.

But like I said, different strokes.

Yet I was never excited in MOS or worried that he wouldn't succeed. Did anyone think the basic outcome would be him failing and Zod killing everyone? I never even got the impression that he was even close to failing. His fights with the other kryptonians and especially Zod completely lacked intensity since they barely seemed to be hurting each other. And not once did I ever think that he might not save Jenny in time; that whole scene was set up so that there was no doubt that she would live. Plus, Perry White was with her and he can't possibly die.

With TDK, and even TDKR with all it's hugely dumb things that happened, I felt an excitement and intensity almost throughout the entire movie. I knew he would succeed in the end, but I really wondered how. For many of the Marvel movies, the warmth and humor won me over. My point is, I like to feel something when I'm watching a movie. I want to be at the edge of my seat wondering how the hero can possibly win, or be excited, or be amused, or even be brought almost to tears. I know you felt all this when you watched MOS, and I'm happy for you. Unfortunately for me, the most excited I felt was right at the beginning with the Krypton scenes, then there were a few amusing and interesting moments with Clark and his flashbacks, and then it was a quickly declining curve of feeling for me after that. The tornado scene basically kickstarted that detachedness for me.

 

[batman497]

The whole tornado scene was an EPIC cinematic FAIL.

Couldn't agree more! I just saw the movie again at a second showing. Costner is embarrassing. I like when he limps out of the car like a dog with a thorn in his paw. The tornado looks horrible. Freaking Martha locked the damn dog in the car! The way he dies is just silly.

 

[Herolee10]

I honestly still don't understand the backlash that this film continues to get in regards to the super fights. In the comics and other animated portrayals, the collateral damage is just as bad, if not even worse.

 

[Mysteryman]

Maybe it is because this is the first time we have really seen what we see in the animated films in Live action.
At least to this extent .

 

[TeeKay]

Comes to discuss MOS, sees argument concerning how realistic tornadoes look or how bad the tornado looked in MOS.

Starts to back away slowly.......

 

[TeeKay]

No, because you purposely started that fire knowing the consequence it would have. Kal had no idea the consequences involved when he inserted the command key. Not even remotely close.

Right before Superman and Zod began to fight, Zod said he would kill these humans that Superman cares for so much to make him suffer. So at that moment Superman immediately takes the fight to him. Had Superman floated above Metropolis waiting for Zod, who knows how many humans Zod would have killed while Superman floated there waiting. Zod's main objective at this point was to kill humans.

Now I guess one can argue, then punch Zod or aim the punches to keep Zod above the skyline. That sounds much easier said than done. A rookie fighter being able to contain a fight with a trained superpowered general to a certain area who is hellbent on killing people?

Funny thing is, Zod never made an attempt to kill any humans up until the family he wanted to fry with his heat vision He was following and fighting Kal-El across the city The irony is, I thought Supes would take Zod into space to fight him there but nope, Zod was the one who tackled Supes into space and threw a satelight at Kal-El lol xDt:

 

[TeeKay]

I would say that Clark is responsible for anybody who died in Smallville because he brought Zod and the other Kryptonians there. Was it that hard to tackle Zod to one of the many empty fields in Kansas, Clark?

 

[TeeKay]

It's too bad you aren't a super hero, in law enforcement, or the POTUS. I'm sure you could do it a billion times better than any of them.

I don't know if you've noticed this, but most comic book battles don't happen in a cornfield, or an abandoned lot.

The reason for this is because it's more interesting to wantonly destroy buildings. Visually, and from a story-telling basis, putting people in danger makes the story more compelling and gripping.

Even in the cartoon series, the cities were damaged all the time. This is how it's been for eons. I don't know why MOS is catching so much flak for it. It's not like it's the first film ever to destroy a small town or two city blocks all for the joy of having explosions and buildings falling over.

Just because something works in the comics or cartoons, it doesn't mean it will work on live action

 

[TeeKay]

He gets so much flak for it because the destruction came across as so realistic. People just couldn't handle that I suppose in a comic book movie and a Superman movie of all heroes. Superman is supposed to be so kid friendly and this movie wasn't. One can argue there is destruction in The Avengers as well, but to me, it never felt as "heavy" and "real" as it did in MOS.

Eh no, it was the failure to acknowledges the loss of human life, that was the problem for me. The movie wrapped up as if the invasion never happened. You know, Metropolis has been rebuilt, everyone's happy, Clark starting his new job at the newly built Daily planet.Yep I think Clark must have erased everybody's memory about the invasion or the Men In Black showed up t: and this is a movie that's trying to be "realistic" as you say

Say what you want about The Avengers but at least they showed the aftermath of the invasion, you know, the impact it had on people, the destruction, the lives lost, showed people in mourning etc.MOS did nothing to acknowledge any of that

[YT]zXPJ6xFvdWk[/YT]

 

[TeeKay]

It's a shame that WB is seemingly forcing Snyder to shift the focus back onto Batman. I would have liked Superman to have another standalone film before doing anything with Batman, or at least before having Batman be a big part of the film.

Dude what did you expect?? lol xD The whole Batman vs superman movie (or whatever they;re calling it) feels like a cash grab to me It seems to me like WB panicked over some of the reaction MOS has gotten and have decided to bring out the big gun rather than focus on a MOS sequel. And also MOS didn't make the numbers they were expecting at the box office even though it's still a success.

 

[roach]

Dude what did you expect?? lol xD The whole Batman vs superman movie (or whatever they;re calling it) feels like a cash grab to me It seems to me like WB panicked over some of the reaction MOS has gotten and have decided to bring out the big gun rather than focus on a MOS sequel. And also MOS didn't make the numbers they were expecting at the box office even though it's still a success.

This is incorrect on so many levels.
1) When starting a DC movie universe and Superman is already introduced the logical next person is Batman..especially if you are leading towards a JL movie. The DC universe comes down to Batman and Superman. Everyone was begging for a WF movie before a JL movie and now they are doing it and everyone is acting like it's a cash grab...as if 650M wasn't enough money.
2) Robinov's comments should be taken with a grain of salt. He was an exec that was passed on for the studio head job. They took away a lot of his power. They phased him out of decision making and leaked stories to the press saying he had a bad attitude and was not a right fit for the company...he was on his way out...Robinov's 1Bil estimate was to make WB look bad when the movie didnt do that much. WB had/has a lot riding on MOS.