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

[the last son]

So superman ages like a human?

 

[sf2]

it's been around way before Goyer.
Spider-man 2
Spider-man 3
Superman 2
Pym and Ultron
Batman and Azrael

And the Amazing Spiderman too. Where the villains somehow were led or created by the hero. And people keeps ignoring all these but grilled on MOS.

Another perfect example of double standard. Why??? Blaming superman is easier?

 

[Tempest]

And the Amazing Spiderman too. Where the villains somehow were led or created by the hero. And people keeps ignoring all these but grilled on MOS.

Another perfect example of double standard. Why??? Blaming superman is easier?

Haters gonna hate.

I'm surprised at the lack of wank regarding the race of Perry White, to be honest. Was there a lot of flipping out on the forum about that, or were people for the most part cool? I've really only seen one comment about it elsewhere, and it was enough to make me want to throw things at my monitor.

 

[steelfighter]

And the Amazing Spiderman too. Where the villains somehow were led or created by the hero. And people keeps ignoring all these but grilled on MOS.

Another perfect example of double standard. Why??? Blaming superman is easier?

I think the way Zod finds the Earth thanks to the scout ship was the best way I mean... many solars systems with and ocean of stars and Zod finds earth with no explanation only because He´s Zod (that would be silly and complaints will be there too) and you are right in many movies the hero has a big part on a villain interaction.. even TDK with Batman's presence put Joker in the game.... so I see nosense with that... in Avengers thanks to Nick Fury Loki located the Theseract and the invasion plan came.. but what's the problem? That makes the hero vs villain (s) works and gives the hero a great conflict that makes the movie stronger.. I don't see any other way... there always gonna be a situation like that if there isn't then is not a movie.. and neither a cmb...
Many people only wants to make debates and criticize even if the situation doesn't need it...
and yeah haters gonna hate too!!!

 

[tomoe]

And the Amazing Spiderman too. Where the villains somehow were led or created by the hero. And people keeps ignoring all these but grilled on MOS.

Another perfect example of double standard. Why??? Blaming superman is easier?

I haven't ignored it in other cbm at all. I don't like it when it happens in other movies either. I don't think it's necessary and it undercuts the heroism. Why can't the threat come from something the hero had nothing to do with? Like Lex Luthor in STM? I did not like it that Superman was the one who inadvertently freed Zod from the Phantom Zone in Superman 2 either, but he saved thousands of lives by throwing that bomb into space, much more lives than Zod and company took. In MOS thousands of lives were lost because he inadvertently led Zod to earth, so it is much harder to accept that he can be free of all blame. He saved billions that would not have needed saving if Zod had not come.

As for the fire analogy: If my family and thousands of others were killed because someone had accidentally knocked over a lamp, I would NOT be hailing that someone as a hero even if he risked all to stop the fire. I would see his "heroism" as more of an obligation to stop what he had started. If I was the one who had accidentally started that fire that killed thousands of people, you can bet I would be suicidal with guilt. I wouldn't just be like, oops oh well it was an accident so it's not my fault. And I would not blame people for blaming me.

 

[Tempest]

I haven't ignored it in other cbm at all. I don't like it when it happens in other movies either. I don't think it's necessary and it undercuts the heroism. Why can't the threat come from something the hero had nothing to do with? Like Lex Luthor in STM? I did not like it that Superman was the one who inadvertently freed Zod from the Phantom Zone in Superman 2 either, but he saved thousands of lives by throwing that bomb into space, much more lives than Zod and company took. In MOS thousands of lives were lost because he inadvertently led Zod to earth, so it is much harder to accept that he can be free of all blame. He saved billions that would not have needed saving if Zod had not come.

Superman was an unforgivable *****e in Superman 2, so no matter what you say, MOS's Superman has still managed to outclass S2 in every possible way.

As for the fire analogy: If my family and thousands of others were killed because someone had accidentally knocked over a lamp, I would NOT be hailing that someone as a hero even if he risked all to stop the fire. I would see his "heroism" as more of an obligation to stop what he had started. If I was the one who had accidentally started that fire that killed thousands of people, you can bet I would be suicidal with guilt. I wouldn't just be like, oops oh well it was an accident so it's not my fault. And I would not blame people for blaming me.

How about if you accidentally set the fire, and it isn't out of control, nor does it pose a threat to anyone, until some jerk with an attitude picks up a few people and tosses them into the fire?

Do you still feel guilty about the fire then?

How about if you find out that this person has killed many, many times before he came across your accidental fire? Would you still feel like the deaths are your fault?

Let's turn this upside down now: If Zod had been accidentally summoned to Earth by Clark, looked around and said, "Hey, I can fix world hunger and disease with my awesome alien technology!"

And then he does so. Do you give Clark any credit, even though he didn't really do anything to warrant praise?

 

[tomoe]

Superman was an unforgivable *****e in Superman 2, so no matter what you say, MOS's Superman has still managed to outclass S2 in every possible way.

Ok, sure, I will respect your opinion on this even if I don't completely agree with you. Which I do, a little bit.

How about if you accidentally set the fire, and it isn't out of control, nor does it pose a threat to anyone, until some jerk with an attitude picks up a few people and tosses them into the fire?

Do you still feel guilty about the fire then?

I would feel guilty about the fire. I would not feel responsible for the people who got tossed into the fire. However, I do not think this is a proper analogy. This is less direct. A closer analogy would be if I accidentally started a fire, and this fire attracted the jerk with an attitude who killed everyone around me. Then I would feel guilty about both the fire and the people who got killed.

How about if you find out that this person has killed many, many times before he came across your accidental fire? Would you still feel like the deaths are your fault?

If the jerk had just happened upon my group and started throwing people into the fire, then I would not take blame for their deaths. I had not done anything to make him come or make him murder. This would be like if Superman built his fortress of solitude and Zod found it and smashed people into it.

If my fire was what made him come, then I would feel partly to blame for the deaths. Of course I know the jerk is directly responsible for their deaths, but I would not be able to absolve myself of all guilt either. It would probably haunt me for the rest of my life. This is more like what happened in the movie.

Let's turn this upside down now: If Zod had been accidentally summoned to Earth by Clark, looked around and said, "Hey, I can fix world hunger and disease with my awesome alien technology!"

And then he does so. Do you give Clark any credit, even though he didn't really do anything to warrant praise?

Then Clark is connected to the all the good that Zod does by accidentally bringing him here. Like if I accidentally started a fire and instead of summoning a jerk it attracts a genie that grants all our wishes. Even though I know it was an accident, I would still feel kind of good knowing I had some part in bringing us all fortune.

 

[georgec]

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.

 

[sf2]

I haven't ignored it in other cbm at all. I don't like it when it happens in other movies either. I don't think it's necessary and it undercuts the heroism. Why can't the threat come from something the hero had nothing to do with? Like Lex Luthor in STM? I did not like it that Superman was the one who inadvertently freed Zod from the Phantom Zone in Superman 2 either, but he saved thousands of lives by throwing that bomb into space, much more lives than Zod and company took. In MOS thousands of lives were lost because he inadvertently led Zod to earth, so it is much harder to accept that he can be free of all blame. He saved billions that would not have needed saving if Zod had not come.

As for the fire analogy: If my family and thousands of others were killed because someone had accidentally knocked over a lamp, I would NOT be hailing that someone as a hero even if he risked all to stop the fire. I would see his "heroism" as more of an obligation to stop what he had started. If I was the one who had accidentally started that fire that killed thousands of people, you can bet I would be suicidal with guilt. I wouldn't just be like, oops oh well it was an accident so it's not my fault. And I would not blame people for blaming me.

Fine. Make sure you do the same in spidey n batman boards too.

 

[Loki882]

Lets see, Batman accidently creates the Joker in 89, and inspires the Joker in TDK. Bane and Talia were out for revenge in TDKR, and he helped create the Riddler in BF. The Lizard in TASM, Venom in SM3, Zod in SM II, Loki in Thor and TA, etc. This is a common trope, why is MOS such an egregious case.

 

[Tempest]

Lets see, Batman accidently creates the Joker in 89, and inspires the Joker in TDK. Bane and Talia were out for revenge in TDKR, and he helped create the Riddler in BF. The Lizard in TASM, Venom in SM3, Zod in SM II, Loki in Thor and TA, etc. This is a common trope, why is MOS such an egregious case.

Because Superman is apparently supposed to be absolutely perfect. He's never been that way in canon, so I don't understand where this ideal standard has come from.

 

[John Lambert]

Meh. Cheesy. And I have a hard time trying to sympathize with people bent on genocide. Sorry. I hated that part of All Star Superman.



I loved the ending. I loved that Superman won, but at a great personal cost. I loved that he was faced with the prospect of being alone, but then is embraced and held, comforted by Lois. I love that he has found his purpose, that he knows now what he can do, and that he's chosen a career where he can make a difference not just as Superman, but also as a man. The future is one of hope, of new plans, of new beginnings. I LOVE this ending.

As for whether Cavill's Superman hates humans, pfffffffffffffffft. What nonsense. There is no way that Superman would fight so hard to save those kids on the bus, or the guys on the oil rig, or to betray his own race if he hated people.

Now, Cavill's Superman might not hug you, and he might tell you to buck up, but he would probably tell you that things get better.

But mostly, I've really been catching up on the older comics, the ones I've missed out over the past ten years, and I have to tell you, I am not seeing the Superman you see.

The ONLY Superman who has met up with your expectations is the All Star Superman. Every other iteration of Superman I've seen so far (and I admit, I haven't gotten through all of them), he's been angry, he's done dumb things, he's gotten into arguments, he's been a jerk sometimes. He's beaten people up, nearly lost control of himself, and he's even killed a handful of times.

But, he's also been willing to sacrifice everything for his friends, he saves everyone when he can. He forms bonds with the people he's around, just because he's that good of a guy, even with all his mistakes.

The MOS Superman is no different -- he just had a different path. Cavill's Superman gives us hope not because he did everything perfectly, but because despite the pain, despite the tremendous loss, he is willing to forge ahead, with the idea of creating a better world than the one we live in now.

I'm so sorry you don't like MOS. Maybe you should read the novel. You seem to need more details and so forth, and the novel has them. It might make you feel better.

Well Clark being a loner, who has been disconnected from everyone but his parents, is not new to this film. In STM he literally disconnected from humanity for 12 years. In "Lois and Clark", he shows up at the planet having spent the last 7 years as a wandering free lance reporter, going from assignment to assignment. Well, except apparently he was editor of the Smallville Press, which seems to be a daily paper (at least it was in the 1960s, that is the impression I get from when they go back in time), but until he shows up at the planet he seems to have spent a lot of time wandering and disconnected.

On the other hand, in MOS Clark seems to have developed some connection with co-workers at the bar. It is partly because he sticks up for his co-worker he has the fight with the trucker. True, he says he distrusts humanity, but it is in a conversation with a priest, so he clearly trusts some people. Considering how willingly after 9/11 some were to go after anyone who seemed culturally different, is Clark's worry that people will distrust him anything be expected?

 

[John Lambert]

I think we know why. Superman is supposed to be perfect. Every choice and every action he makes is supposed to be perfect. The expectations for the character and thus the movie can be absolutely ridiculous.

I caught Pacific Rim for the first time last night. Massive amounts of destruction caused by the robots fighting the monsters. But I understood the situation, these robots are trying to stop these monsters and collateral damage is to be expected.

However when Superman tries stopping Zod and there is collateral damage as a result, then Superman gets absolutely roasted for it. Sigh.

But in SR Superman made choices that were much stupider and more destructive than in MOS, and the critics gave it a much higher rating.

In SR, Superman leaves earth, thus allowing a mass-murdering criminal to be released from prison. True, the way it happened does not correspond with how our legal system works, but obviously in SR they are in an alternate world, where key witnesses need to be present for appeals. Superman would clearly know this (and if he does not, he is clearly negligent), thus he should not leave earth. Thus, all the problems after Luthor's release can be blamed on Superman. Then there is his being a deadbeat Dad and abandoning the woman he loves.

In MOS, some seem to say "Superman should have taken the fighting out of Metropolis". Besides the fact that the only way they suggest doing this is the open Metropolis to mass drestruction of Superman II, they are missing the main cause of desctruction in Metropolis. Metropolis was not mainly leveled by the Superman/Zod fight. The main cause of the destruction, and the only cause of death is the World Engine beam. Superman goes to fight and destroy it as fast as he can. He acts expeditiously to save humans.

 

[roach]

But in SR Superman made choices that were much stupider and more destructive than in MOS, and the critics gave it a much higher rating.

In SR, Superman leaves earth, thus allowing a mass-murdering criminal to be released from prison. True, the way it happened does not correspond with how our legal system works, but obviously in SR they are in an alternate world, where key witnesses need to be present for appeals. Superman would clearly know this (and if he does not, he is clearly negligent), thus he should not leave earth. Thus, all the problems after Luthor's release can be blamed on Superman. Then there is his being a deadbeat Dad and abandoning the woman he loves.

Well to be fair after reversing the damage done by the missiles and probably any proof that Luthor did anything wrong...he did just drop him off in prison. To hell with due process and courts, Superman says your guilty then your guilty. Any lawyer outside the state of Florida could have gotten him off.

and Superman skipped out because even he didnt want to explain what happened:

Superman: "Luthor commandeered the missiles, one headed for California and the other for Hackensack, NJ. Luthor hates the Jets as much as everyone else. At which point I grabbed the NJ missile and threw it into outer space. The second missile hit the fault line causing a massive earthquake. I sealed the fault and tried to save as many people as I could."
Lawyer:"How come we never heard of this?"
Superman: "I flew around the earth so fast I caused it to spin backwards and reverse time. At which point I arrested Luthor and brought him to prison."

 

[That person]

Haters gonna hate.

I'm surprised at the lack of wank regarding the race of Perry White, to be honest. Was there a lot of flipping out on the forum about that, or were people for the most part cool? I've really only seen one comment about it elsewhere, and it was enough to make me want to throw things at my monitor.

I seem to recall a few oh-so-hilarious jokes about how his last name is WHITE, but Lawrence Fishburne is BLACK. But I really can't say I saw anything especially vile. It helps that Fishburne is a damn fine actor. He was actually pretty criminally underused really.

 

[tomoe]

Lets see, Batman accidently creates the Joker in 89, and inspires the Joker in TDK. Bane and Talia were out for revenge in TDKR, and he helped create the Riddler in BF. The Lizard in TASM, Venom in SM3, Zod in SM II, Loki in Thor and TA, etc. This is a common trope, why is MOS such an egregious case.

It's not. But none of those aforementioned examples resulted in possibly hundreds of thousands of lives lost. Superman in MOS did nothing worse than any of those heroes above, but the consequences were much much higher. It isn't fair to blame him, and he really doesn't deserve any blame, but the magnitude of damage and lives lost from his innocent mistake just makes it seem worse than anything Batman or Spiderman contributed to their own villains and resulting chaos. I just wish it wasn't written that way; I don't want him to have any connection to so many lives lost, or at the very least, a much less direct connection if there had to be any connection at all.

 

[Tempest]

It's not. But none of those aforementioned examples resulted in possibly hundreds of thousands of lives lost. Superman in MOS did nothing worse than any of those heroes above, but the consequences were much much higher. It isn't fair to blame him, and he really doesn't deserve any blame, but the magnitude of damage and lives lost from his innocent mistake just makes it seem worse than anything Batman or Spiderman contributed to their own villains and resulting chaos. I just wish it wasn't written that way; I don't want him to have any connection to so many lives lost, or at the very least, a much less direct connection if there had to be any connection at all.

So if he doesn't deserve the blame, and it's not fair to blame him, then DON'T!

Mainly because he accidentally sent a signal out. He wasn't responsible for what was summoned, nor was he responsible for their actions.

Let's try a different comparison than the fire one.

You leave your home about the same time every day for work. Someone hears the garage door open and shut, and hears your car drive away. They break in, and steal EVERYTHING of value in your home, then light the place on fire before they leave.

This is what happened to Kal. He sent out a signal, and he did it without knowledge or intention.

Of course I expect him to feel guilty (who wouldn't?), and I expect people will blame him, because that's human nature. But that's a common trope in comic books too, so I don't know why you're complaining about this.

 

[tomoe]

So if he doesn't deserve the blame, and it's not fair to blame him, then DON'T!

Mainly because he accidentally sent a signal out. He wasn't responsible for what was summoned, nor was he responsible for their actions.

Let's try a different comparison than the fire one.

You leave your home about the same time every day for work. Someone hears the garage door open and shut, and hears your car drive away. They break in, and steal EVERYTHING of value in your home, then light the place on fire before they leave.

This is what happened to Kal. He sent out a signal, and he did it without knowledge or intention.

Of course I expect him to feel guilty (who wouldn't?), and I expect people will blame him, because that's human nature. But that's a common trope in comic books too, so I don't know why you're complaining about this.

Ok fine, blame is a bad word I guess, though I have repeatedly tried to explain that I agree that he can't be blamed in any fair or legal way. I KNOW he did it without knowledge or intention. I just do not like it. I don't like him to be connected in any way to all those deaths that happened. But he is, whether he can be fairly blamed or not. The movie really makes it so that the world would be have better off without him. Now, he could possibly save hundreds of thousands or millions of lives in the future, which would make the world a better place with him. But in MOS, he has not. Those billions he saved would not have needed to be saved if he had not done what he did. And maybe Zod would have found earth without him anyways. But that's not what happened in the movie.

These analogies you present really are not the same. I have given a perfectly good analogy with the fire attracting that jerk- that is pretty much EXACTLY what happened with Kal. When I leave home every day, I will do the same series of things, open the garage, drive away, etc. I did not do anything out of the ordinary. I did not make a mistake or do something unusual. Also, my house being robbed and burned down affected mostly just me. Oh, the fire spread to the houses around me and maybe killed a few people? Well, I would probably feel slightly guilty then that my house was the source, but not too much because I really didn't do anything out of the ordinary to attract the jerk. What Kal did was nothing routine or ordinary, it was something very specific. I can understand why he did it. I probably would have done the same thing. It doesn't matter, it still ultimately summoned a monster who killed thousands.

Just because it is a common trope in comics doesn't mean I have to like it or accept it or think it's necessary to tell a good story. And like I said, this particular one in MOS just had much huger consequences than usual, which makes it that much worse.

Why does it bother you that this bothers me?

 

[John Lambert]

Martha's hilariously non-chalant reaction to Clark's costume. The eighteen wheeler seen. Every scene with Pete Ross and his funny facial reactions. Lois's penile joke to Col. Hardy, etc. Yeah, the film had humor, it was just subtle.

It was not until my second viewing that I picked up fully that Clark was there when Lois first gets off the helicopter. I might have realized it was him when I first saw it, but by the time I got home I forgot that Clark and Lois had met before the scene on the space ship. Even on my second viewing I did not pick up that Col. Hardy was there at the "submarine" sight.

 

[John Lambert]

Well, I think its all easier said then done. If you put too many fun parts into the movie it loses its more serious, grounded tone. I know many say they would have preferred a lighter, funner tone to the movie, and it may have worked. But I have no issue with the tone Goyer and Snyder chose for Man of Steel. Its a different take, and was executed well. Its not like Batman and Robin where Schumacher decided to make Batman into a musical and it ends up a mess.

People complained about not long enough talking moments. The film is already 2 and 1/2 hours long. If you add extended talking sequences it could have started to really drag. Even if you cut 5-10 minutes of action out and replace it with more talking you're back to where you started.

I think alot of people really underestimate the titanic job Snyder and Goyer had on their hands. They didnt have the luxury of two films getting the green light from day 1 like Richard Donner. Snyder and Goyer had to prove themselves with Man of Steel. They had to pack an expansive origin story and Zod's arrival into one film. As a result the movie can feel a bit rushed, with limited talking scenes and characterization.

So why do I still think this is a great film despite its flaws? I thought it had a truckload of touching or powerful scenes. I mean the very first scene of the movie with Kal-El being born was powerful and moving for me, perhaps in large part due to Hans Zimmer's great score. Then there is Zod and Jor-El fighting, 'I will find him!', Lara's death, Clark locking himself in the closet, Clark floating in the water with whales swimming past, and thats just the first 30 minutes! Man of Steel was loaded with great moments. Thats why its hard for me and others to understand why so many people seem intent on picking on its flaws instead of raving about the many things it did great.

I was thinking about how some people say "MOS2 is too soon to bring in Batman". However John Byrne's reboot of Superman in the comics in 1986 with the Man of Steel mini-series brought in Batman in I think it was volume 3. If you can bring in Batman so soon in the comics, why not on film? Batman and Superman get paired together a lot in the comics, so really the most amazing thing is that they have not yet shared a film together, and for all the live-action TV shows that have had Superman none have ever had Batman. Although they did make two references to Batman in L&C, my favorite was in "Ultrawoman" where Clark's powers have been transferred to Lois, but he still shows up on the scene of trouble. One of the antagonists says to the other "Superman didn't fly on the scene, he walked on, he didn't blow out the flames, he tried putting them out with a tarp. I am telling you, he has all the Superpowers of Batman."

 

[John Lambert]

Yeah I don't know about that. The world would be scared of him either way I think. They also may see him as a savior or ally if he reveals himself in normal times by saving lots of people and they may lump him in with those scary aliens if he reveals himself when the world was being threatened by them. Isn't that what happened initially? Stanwick said to fire on them all in Smallville. Even at the end they still felt the need to keep tabs on him, which shows they still didn't completely trust him.

I think the theory is that no matter when Superman showed up, people would fire on him. It is a different theory on how people will react to Superman.

This is one of the problems with doing a reboot. If you do it too close to past incarnations, people will complain that it just feels like the same movie, and not want to see it. If you change it too much, people will gripe that it is not the same.

On the other hand, Clark did save people on the oil rig and in other instances. So how does he decide that when is a big enough chance to save people.

On the other hand, Clark has not even at the end of MOS come up with a full theory of a disguise, and clearly not a workable way to change. Of coruse, in STM realistically Clark should have been exposed by 3 people on his first changing before going off to catch Lois. There should be people claiming "I saw Clark Kent change into Superman".

Fighting Zod he was generally out of sight of people, the same with going after the World Engine. The methods of changing and how to present a full secret identity are still in the future. They dealt with enough in this film.

 

[John Lambert]

"This man is not our enemy" wasn't his first reaction, his first reaction was firing on all, including the one " in blue". He could easily have told them no, not the one in blue, I trust him, but he didn't. They might have hit him anyways but at least they wouldn't have been aiming at him.

True, but would a major save by Superman have convinced the military that he was on their side? It didn't in Lois and Clark. Superman saves 100 or so people on a shuttle going to the space station, that is sponsored by an international consortium of governments. What is the reaction. US military is after him thinking he is the front man for an invasion.

 

[John Lambert]

And Goyer is writing te sequel, so, yay. Lex Luther will create a threat to fight Superman from Batmans tech which goes out of his control. So both batman and superman will be fighting something that they are partially responsible for. Fantastic. I really hope it's nothing like that. The more I think about mos the more furious I get at Goyer and Snyder and the more horrified they're left on their own for batman superman.

To say Superman is responsible in MOS is a type of responsibility that makes no sense. He had no idea Zod would learn anything from his finding the space craft. Also, it is not his fault that Zod acts on the signal, nor his fault that Zod is a deranged killer. No one with any sense of logic would ever blame Clark for Zod coming to earth.

 

[John Lambert]

As true as that may be it still doesn't change the fact that if he hadn't set off that distress signal, thousands of people would still be alive. Like the world would have been better off if he didn't exist. It just leaves a bad taste. And just because stuff like this happens a lot in other movies, doesn't make it something that should just be overlooked or accepted. It kind of gives off the impression that more people would be alive if not for these 'heroes'.

If Zod was not a crazy killer, people would still be alive. Superman did all he could to dissuade Zod. He is not responsible for Zod's actions. I would hate to live in a world that apportions blame by your methods.

 

[John Lambert]

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?

Why don't you act in a rational way where you mother's life is being threatened. Actually if you want to blame someone for being wreckless it needs to be the military for turning Smallville into full war zone. More damage was done by military missiles in Smallville than by Kryptonians.