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

[TheFlamingCoco]

The question is why can't superman be the indirect cause and still be a hero. This is part of the preconception issue that has been going around. The man has to be a saint in his cause before we can consider the characterization successful.

Example. Nolan Batman is a hero. People walk out of that film talking about all his heroic acts. Saving people, saving gotham..etc.

Ignoring the debate of whether the League attacking gotham over the span of the trilogy in the way they did being his fault(it's a debate). Joker's motivation seems to be grounded in Bruce Wayne's above the law decision making. More over, that stuff with Dent and Rachel in particular is very much on our heroes hands.
(plus Bruce caused his parents death, let's be honest here, but where do we draw the line).

It could be argued that superman caused(and saved) more death but that's not the point. The question is why does superman have to be entirely faultless to be considered a great hero?
This film and Zack, I don't envy their position.....the deck was stacked against them.

The NUKE, though, is Bruce's fault. And people aren't laying into TDKR for that particular reason (they are for quite a few other reasons, though.)

 

[roach]

I think there is a lot of subconscious hate towards WB and regardless of what they do they will be hated.
WB is growing their shared universe and they get hated on a lot because they aren't doing it just like Marvel.
Marvel comes out with a TV show and is hailed as brilliant.
WB says they are going to do a Flash show and people hate the idea.

it's almost comical sometimes.
We blame Superman for the actions of General Zod and the Kryptonians. Yet no one is blaming Shield for finding the Tesseract and messing with it. Is anyone blaming Tony for treating Killian(White Mandarin) like a *****e thus making him all evil and stuff? How many people died in the other Marvel movies? Do we blame the heroes? How many people died at the end of X3?
So why is Superman the only one to receive the blame of the actions of his villains?

 

[hopefuldreamer]

I think there is a lot of subconscious hate towards WB and regardless of what they do they will be hated.
WB is growing their shared universe and they get hated on a lot because they aren't doing it just like Marvel.
Marvel comes out with a TV show and is hailed as brilliant.
WB says they are going to do a Flash show and people hate the idea.

it's almost comical sometimes.
We blame Superman for the actions of General Zod and the Kryptonians. Yet no one is blaming Shield for finding the Tesseract and messing with it. Is anyone blaming Tony for treating Killian(White Mandarin) like a *****e thus making him all evil and stuff? How many people died in the other Marvel movies? Do we blame the heroes? How many people died at the end of X3?
So why is Superman the only one to receive the blame of the actions of his villains?

I don't know about anyone else, but it's not about ME blaming him for Zod. It's about how responsible HE feels.

I know that when I went into this movie, as was the same for so many posters, I wanted to see Superman become Superman before the alien threat hit.

Because I'm not a fan of the Earth One style of storytelling where becoming a superhero is something he does reluctantly, and only because he HAS to because he thinks is the reason that the world is in danger in the first place.

Why don't I care about SHIELD's responsibility in finding the Tesseract?

Because it didn't play a part in SHEILD's origin. That organisation was built pro actively, without guilt or responsibility as a motivator - it was built because the people involved wanted to find a better way to protect people.

Tony Stark on the other hand, like Spiderman as well, is actually a character who is driven by his own sense of being responsible for the things that are happening. That's actually a part of the character and a regular theme of their stories.

It's just not Superman.

But that's one of the reasons I see MOS as quite a Marvelised film in some ways.

 

[roach]

But we saw him being Superman before the threat hit...he saved the kids on the bus and he saved the guys on the oil rig. He doesn't do it reluctantly or because the world was in danger. He just didn't do it in the suit. He didn't set out to be a superhero. The events of this movie set him being a superhero in motion.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

But we saw him being Superman before the threat hit...he saved the kids on the bus and he saved the guys on the oil rig. He doesn't do it reluctantly or because the world was in danger. He just didn't do it in the suit. He didn't set out to be a superhero. The events of this movie set him being a superhero in motion.

As i've said before, those are acts of heroism and they are great, don't get me wrong. It's better than nothing. It's better than him sculking around avoiding intervening with disasters and just letting people die (not counting his father of course...).

But all those saves where 'right place right time'.

When I say I wanted to see him become Superman before Zod arrived, I just mean I wanted to see him LOOKING for ways to help people/save people. To see that he knew using what he had to help other people was what he wanted to do with his life, he just had to find a safe way to do it.

Not just reacting to situations that unfolded around him.

Of course, that's hard to do when they wrote a story in which JK taught him that using his gifts to save people was NOT what he should do - until there was some magical uneffible moment in which the world was 'ready'.

 

[tomoe]

I think there is a lot of subconscious hate towards WB and regardless of what they do they will be hated.
WB is growing their shared universe and they get hated on a lot because they aren't doing it just like Marvel.
Marvel comes out with a TV show and is hailed as brilliant.
WB says they are going to do a Flash show and people hate the idea.

it's almost comical sometimes.
We blame Superman for the actions of General Zod and the Kryptonians. Yet no one is blaming Shield for finding the Tesseract and messing with it. Is anyone blaming Tony for treating Killian(White Mandarin) like a *****e thus making him all evil and stuff? How many people died in the other Marvel movies? Do we blame the heroes? How many people died at the end of X3?
So why is Superman the only one to receive the blame of the actions of his villains?

I don't think it's subconscious hate or anything like that. The difference with Marvel is that most of their movies have been good to excellent, with a few exceptions. They actually seem to really care about their characters. Wb has only fully succeeded with Batman. MOS was a mixed bag and GL was a bomb. Wonder Woman didn't even happen. I get the feeling WB doesn't have a real plan with their comic book characters and can't tell who's good or who's bad when it comes to writing or directing despite the fact that their resumes are there for the world to see. And they can't seem to tell whether a movie is good or bad either and don't seem to care much about their comic characters as long as their movie make money. That's the impression I get anyways.

As for Marvel heroes having some part in their villains, it seems like more people died in MOS than all the Marvel movies combined. And this is the reason Superman's part in it is much harder to let go.

 

[Marvin]

As i've said before, those are acts of heroism and they are great, don't get me wrong. It's better than nothing. It's better than him sculking around avoiding intervening with disasters and just letting people die (not counting his father of course...).

But all those saves where 'right place right time'.

When I say I wanted to see him become Superman before Zod arrived, I just mean I wanted to see him LOOKING for ways to help people/save people. To see that he knew using what he had to help other people was what he wanted to do with his life, he just had to find a safe way to do it.

Not just reacting to situations that unfolded around him.

Of course, that's hard to do when they wrote a story in which JK taught him that using his gifts to save people was NOT what he should do - until there was some magical uneffible moment in which the world was 'ready'.

To be honest this seems like a superficial need.

Superman in general has always only saved people after "hearing" or "being told" of their distress. That's not too far removed from him being on a fishing boat and hearing about a distress call. Him doing acts in his suit seems to be a talking point that's making it's rounds. I personally don't get it.

In Earth one, he literally saved no one but a cat before Dday in metropolis, in MOS we hear he's been saving people all over the globe and get this next part, never sticking around to bask in the glory of it all. At the start of the film, he's a bearded drifter that never smiles, saves everyone within ear shot and doesn't know where he's from or why he's here. At the end, he's found his place, he smiles more and the beard's gone. Good little arc there, In the category of heroism the only thing that has changed is that he has a costume, a name, and smiles for the camera. I'm curious why him stopping an oil rig from falling in costume as opposed to out, is so much more desired? Ignoring the mess it adds to this stories arc it just seems a little superficial. Wanting him to come to the realization of how to be a more traditional practicing superhero before aliens invade as opposed to after is akin to a coming of age story about a lawyer that opens a practice earlier as opposed to just helping people with his law skills and rhetoric where ever he can....

The part of MOS that really needs to be assessed is when Lois threatens Clark with the predicament his heroic instincts put him it. It was during the graveyard scene when he told her that he would just disappear again. She said something along the lines of, you'll pop up again, people will need saving and you won't be able to ignore it.
Superman.
It's right there, it may not be good enough for everyone, but it sucks to hear it so trashed.

This reminds me of those montages at the end of some of these stories where they interview people and half the crowd acknowledges the heroism and his blight and another group of people suggest it's his fault and that he shouldn't wear a mask or that he didn't save enough people. I can't believe it but Nolan did it again, his third movie in which the audience is actively involved lol.

 

[roach]

I don't think it's subconscious hate or anything like that. The difference with Marvel is that most of their movies have been good to excellent, with a few exceptions. They actually seem to really care about their characters. Wb has only fully succeeded with Batman. MOS was a mixed bag and GL was a bomb. Wonder Woman didn't even happen. I get the feeling WB doesn't have a real plan with their comic book characters and can't tell who's good or who's bad when it comes to writing or directing despite the fact that their resumes are there for the world to see. And they can't seem to tell whether a movie is good or bad either and don't seem to care much about their comic characters as long as their movie make money. That's the impression I get anyways.

If people could tell a good movie or a bad movie (and honestly we aren't even talking good or bad movie but movies the audience wants to see) then all we would have coming out are bad movies. Yes they have had bombs but technically MOS is the start of their joined universe. Everything WB is doing is right...for them. Sure it would have been good for the fans to hear their 10 year plan of DC movies but I think they need to be slow and steady right now.Batman/Superman is the right move. It hinges their universe on those two..much like the comics.

As for Marvel heroes having some part in their villains, it seems like more people died in MOS than all the Marvel movies combined. And this is the reason Superman's part in it is much harder to let go.

Not one of the Marvel heroes was dealing with a foe that was trying to kill all life on the planet.

 

[tomoe]

Not one of the Marvel heroes was dealing with a foe that was trying to kill all life on the planet.

None of the Marvel heroes attracted a baddie that tried to kill all life on the planet.

 

[Tempest]

None of the Marvel heroes attracted a baddie that tried to kill all life on the planet.

They have boring villains in Marvel, apparently. Or boring heroes. You haven't hit your stride if you don't attract Big Evils who want to destroy you, the planet, and everything on it.

 

[tomoe]

They have boring villains in Marvel, apparently. Or boring heroes. You haven't hit your stride if you don't attract Big Evils who want to destroy you, the planet, and everything on it.

Which means it's best for heroes to retire once they hit their stride, else they will start doing more harm than good.

I do agree about Marvel having boring heroes. Except for Loki, who is awesome. But I didn't find Zod particularly compelling either.

 

[Tempest]

Which means it's best for heroes to retire once they hit their stride, else they will start doing more harm than good.

I do agree about Marvel having boring heroes. Except for Loki, who is awesome. But I didn't find Zod particularly compelling either.

Loki in the comic books or Loki in the film? Because nothing would make me happier than if Loki-of-the-Film got chucked off a cliff.

But honestly, I don't know where your love of comic books and superheroes come from. I've rewatched a ton of episodes of JL, I've been catching up on comic books, re-reading the canon of Superman (and Batman), and I don't honestly know what part of comic books you actually like, because there's usually a great big villain who hates on the hero, who is trying to wreck the city, all which culminates in a huge battle where a lot of the city gets destroyed or damaged.

I mean, the only really shocking thing that happened in MOS was not that Superman killed, but how he killed. It was a more physical way to deal out death. Maybe that's why it bothers people so much.

My theater gasped when Superman did that. I gasped too -- and my immediate response was, "Wow, they went there! They really did it!" Then I was all swept up in the beautiful moment right after, but I still get goosebumps when I think of that scene.

All super-villains are silly. Zod was a little better than some, because they gave him a compelling reason to be the way he was. I could understand his desires and needs, and I understood his grief, and that last, violent encounter with Clark. And the movie achieved something for me that is very rare; sympathy for the antagonists.

 

[tomoe]

Loki in the comic books or Loki in the film? Because nothing would make me happier than if Loki-of-the-Film got chucked off a cliff.

But honestly, I don't know where your love of comic books and superheroes come from. I've rewatched a ton of episodes of JL, I've been catching up on comic books, re-reading the canon of Superman (and Batman), and I don't honestly know what part of comic books you actually like, because there's usually a great big villain who hates on the hero, who is trying to wreck the city, all which culminates in a huge battle where a lot of the city gets destroyed or damaged.

I mean, the only really shocking thing that happened in MOS was not that Superman killed, but how he killed. It was a more physical way to deal out death. Maybe that's why it bothers people so much.

My theater gasped when Superman did that. I gasped too -- and my immediate response was, "Wow, they went there! They really did it!" Then I was all swept up in the beautiful moment right after, but I still get goosebumps when I think of that scene.

All super-villains are silly. Zod was a little better than some, because they gave him a compelling reason to be the way he was. I could understand his desires and needs, and I understood his grief, and that last, violent encounter with Clark. And the movie achieved something for me that is very rare; sympathy for the antagonists.

Well, we just disagree on Loki then. I found him way more sympathetic and interesting than Zod. I was really looking forward to seeing Shannon's performance after hearing how great he was in roles like these but ended up disappointed in how flat he came across in the movie. Yes, his motives were understandable and all, but I didn't really feel much for him at all.

And I have no problem with a villain who hates on the hero or the movie or comic ending with a big bashfest between the two resulting in parts of city being destroyed. That is indeed how most of these things go. It is how it's executed that matters. I didn't have too big a problem with the Zod Superman fight; that wasn't where the biggest death toll occurred. I didn't particularly like that Superman had to kill, but can accept there was no other choice. But Superman being involved in Zod coming and killing thousands is really hard to swallow for me. It tells me the world would have been better without him, instead of the opposite. Yes the villain has come about because of the hero in other stories and movies too but when has it resulted in the loss of thousands and maybe hundreds of thousands of lives?

 

[TheIrishAvenger]

Double Negative VFX worker Ged Wright showreel with HD snippets from the third act. vimeo.com/71609809

 

[TheIrishAvenger]

Found a steelbook on Amazon Germany, the same place the TDKR cowl steelbook first appeared last year so this is probably the steelbook for many regions.

http://www.amazon.de/Man-of-Steel-3...5953&creativeASIN=B00DYW7EL4&m=A3JWKAKR8XB7XF

 

[John Lambert]

As i've said before, those are acts of heroism and they are great, don't get me wrong. It's better than nothing. It's better than him sculking around avoiding intervening with disasters and just letting people die (not counting his father of course...).

But all those saves where 'right place right time'.

When I say I wanted to see him become Superman before Zod arrived, I just mean I wanted to see him LOOKING for ways to help people/save people. To see that he knew using what he had to help other people was what he wanted to do with his life, he just had to find a safe way to do it.

Not just reacting to situations that unfolded around him.

Of course, that's hard to do when they wrote a story in which JK taught him that using his gifts to save people was NOT what he should do - until there was some magical uneffible moment in which the world was 'ready'.

But in general Superman saves are "right place, right time". In STM, if he had not been there at the "Daily Planet" when Lois's helicopter was crashing, would he have saved her? In fact in SM2 that is how Lois figures it out, most Superman saves occur when Clark is actually close by to begin with.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

But in general Superman saves are "right place, right time". In STM, if he had not been there at the "Daily Planet" when Lois's helicopter was crashing, would he have saved her? In fact in SM2 that is how Lois figures it out, most Superman saves occur when Clark is actually close by to begin with.

Owned!

 

[The Guard]

When I say I wanted to see him become Superman before Zod arrived, I just mean I wanted to see him LOOKING for ways to help people/save people. To see that he knew using what he had to help other people was what he wanted to do with his life, he just had to find a safe way to do it.

We kind of did, we just didn't see him do it in the suit. We saw that Superman had traveled the world putting himself in situations where his abilities were required.

I would like to point out though, If he becomes Superman before Zod arrives, there's a bit less impact and drama to the idea of whether Superman can be trusted and where he comes from and so on, which was a key theme of the film and a key portion of the film's story.

Not just reacting to situations that unfolded around him.

Given his powers, Superman is pretty much always reacting to situations that unfold around him, though, isn't he? That's kind of the point of the character. That he can.

 

[Lead Cenobite]

But in general Superman saves are "right place, right time". In STM, if he had not been there at the "Daily Planet" when Lois's helicopter was crashing, would he have saved her? In fact in SM2 that is how Lois figures it out, most Superman saves occur when Clark is actually close by to begin with.

Possibly if he were in earshot, which seems to encompass a fairly long distance for him.

 

[John Lambert]

Possibly if he were in earshot, which seems to encompass a fairly long distance for him.

I guess that works as long as Lois and he are both in Metropolis. However, the biggest problem with hearing a cry for help is not how far can Superman hear. We can even say, well yes, if he really heard and processed everything even for a mile in the heart of Metropolis's 12 million people (that is the number they give in L&C, it works unless somewhere else some other number gets thrown out), but he only notices it beyond a certain point if someone yells "help Superman". The big problem is that the speed of sound is fairly low, so even if he can move at close to the speed of light, it will be a long time before he hears a cry for help beyond a certain distance.

 

[Lead Cenobite]

In spite of the speed of sound and the limited distance it travels, Superman has sometimes been depicted as being able to hear things happening on the other side of the world.

 

[John Lambert]

In spite of the speed of sound and the limited distance it travels, Superman has sometimes been depicted as being able to hear things happening on the other side of the world.

I hope they take a somewhat realistic approach to this issue in MOS 2. L&C had a lot of issues with its physics, how fast CK/SM moved should have been causing sonic booms in enclosed spaces, and they had the line where Clark says to Lois "you were running back into a nuclear explosion", ignoring the fact that with a nuclear explosion running won't really change anything for you. However, in L&C most of the time when Superman does long distant saves it involves hearing about it on a radio or TV and responding.

 

[John-An]

Well, we just disagree on Loki then. I found him way more sympathetic and interesting than Zod. I was really looking forward to seeing Shannon's performance after hearing how great he was in roles like these but ended up disappointed in how flat he came across in the movie. Yes, his motives were understandable and all, but I didn't really feel much for him at all.

And I have no problem with a villain who hates on the hero or the movie or comic ending with a big bashfest between the two resulting in parts of city being destroyed. That is indeed how most of these things go. It is how it's executed that matters. I didn't have too big a problem with the Zod Superman fight; that wasn't where the biggest death toll occurred. I didn't particularly like that Superman had to kill, but can accept there was no other choice. But Superman being involved in Zod coming and killing thousands is really hard to swallow for me. It tells me the world would have been better without him, instead of the opposite. Yes the villain has come about because of the hero in other stories and movies too but when has it resulted in the loss of thousands and maybe hundreds of thousands of lives?

Loki more interesting than Zod? Loki has a really good reason to the invasion a child's desire... MOS Zod was badass not the typical villain that only shout and doen't want anything but destroying the hero HE HAD A PURPOSE... and how badass zod was? Having Faora as his Sub-commander. I mean this movie gave us a unique villain ( a general that no matter the consecuences he has an obejctive) smth that Loki seemed doesn't have... only yeah invade but the purpose didn't convince me... sorry... for me Loki's movie character wasn't a threat neither in avengers nor Thor didn't convince me... on the other hand kryptonians on MOS were a difficult
Loki had charisma (tom's was great) I give you that but as a villain is pretty bad IMO...

the only great villains from Marvel were Sebastian Shaw and from DC Zod, Joker, Ras-alGhul, Bane

 

[John-An]

Loki in the comic books or Loki in the film? Because nothing would make me happier than if Loki-of-the-Film got chucked off a cliff.

But honestly, I don't know where your love of comic books and superheroes come from. I've rewatched a ton of episodes of JL, I've been catching up on comic books, re-reading the canon of Superman (and Batman), and I don't honestly know what part of comic books you actually like, because there's usually a great big villain who hates on the hero, who is trying to wreck the city, all which culminates in a huge battle where a lot of the city gets destroyed or damaged.

I mean, the only really shocking thing that happened in MOS was not that Superman killed, but how he killed. It was a more physical way to deal out death. Maybe that's why it bothers people so much.

My theater gasped when Superman did that. I gasped too -- and my immediate response was, "Wow, they went there! They really did it!" Then I was all swept up in the beautiful moment right after, but I still get goosebumps when I think of that scene.

All super-villains are silly. Zod was a little better than some, because they gave him a compelling reason to be the way he was. I could understand his desires and needs, and I understood his grief, and that last, violent encounter with Clark. And the movie achieved something for me that is very rare; sympathy for the antagonists.

Well said.. Agreed this movie gave us as sympathy for the antagonists.. they felt the krypton destruction and the purpose made them more interesting.. something like many of the characters.. I felt that with Ras al ghul... I feel nothing like that with Loki (was good, better than other marvel villains in the mcu), just only as one as much villains that we´ve seen..
for me Sebastian Shaw, ZOD and army, Joker, Bane and Ras Al Ghul were the best comic book villains...

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

^ I actually felt for Loki and Zod, but not for Ra's and Bane.