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

[Binker]

Well, not really tear, but just my side of the argument, let's say.

- The Story was badly developed: ideas were not fully fleshed out or followed through, themes contradicted each other and came to no real conclusions by the films end, plot devices didn't really work in places etc.

For example:

One of the ideas in the film seems to be - The world needs to be protected from the truth that aliens exist until we are 'ready'...

...and yet Clark doesn't reveal himself in some moment where he has decided 'they are ready now' or even 'I am ready now' like you would expect to be the conclusion of such an assertion.

The truth of the existence of aliens is revealed by the villain, forcing him to come out when the world is NOT ready, when even characters like Perry are still saying 'this should be kept a secret cause the world would go mental if they found out.'

And it's even more confusing since it is the motivator for Clark letting Johnathon die. He let's him die because he trusts his Dad when he says that the world isn't ready and it is life and death level important that they wait until the right time before dropping such a bomb on the human race...

... but Zod then drops that bomb prematurely... so JK basically died in vain, and kind of got proven wrong, because the world DIDN'T implode with the knowledge (that we have seen).

And beyond that, if your going to have that much repeated discourse about how the world will react... at least follow it up by showing how the world reacted. But we got nothing, no world reaction whatsoever.

And no, 'that'll come in the sequel' does not fly. It was required in order to round off the movies themes.

While I do agree that, at least one scene showing a panic by the public (like rioting and such) would've proved what we heard before, I still got a sense that everyone was panicking. Even if we didn't see it from the public's actions on the streets or something, we did see it from the news constantly talking about it, the pastor swallowing really hard when he realized the man he was talking to was the alien they were looking for, and the actions of the military going as far as to arrest Lois just to find out where he is (in the novel, there is an added scene where the General even threatens Lois with execution). Plus, when Superman is with the military for the first time, they were preparing tranquilizers as if he were an animal instead of a person and asking what's going on. Superman even pointed out to Swanwick that they are scared of him, but he wasn't their enemy. So with that in mind, I would think JK was right because people were scared and reacting in the way that they did, and it was expected: they were afraid of the aliens, in turn they didn't know nor understand why one of them was living among us, and was more than happy to give him to them without any knowledge as to why, and the military shot at Superman because they still didn't know what to make of him until the battle was over and his actions.

What you said could go either way, and while I agree that we should've seen the public react, I disagree that we didn't see it at all.

- The characters dialogue is so poor:

Eh. BTW, I didn't feel that way with JK and Clark: Clark acted like a actual teenager would, and had arguments with JK that a real teenager would, and JK offered advice and wisdom that (even with or without my flaws I had).

- The lack of pro active behaviour from Clark:

From what we can see in the film, Clark is wandering about following leads that might add up to some answers about where he is from. While he's doing so, he occasionally stumbles across disasters which he can't help but get involved in and save people... because he can (despite the fact that this goes against everything his father died for...).

And then once the world is threatened, he reluctantly comes out of the closet, still fearing that the people of earth can't be trusted with the truth about him.

There is only one moment in the entire film in which we see Clark actually ACTIVELY discussing wanting to do something more important with his life... and that's in the car during the argument between him and Pa Kent before the tornado.

But since his father dies right after they argue about that, he stops thinking about actively looking for ways to help people. He sticks to hiding like his pa wanted.

How utterly depressing is that? Man I seriously do not like what they did with JK and CK in this film. I really really don't like it.

Well you're wrong on that regard, because Clark was just a drifter, but he still saved lives: he worked a job, but then upon saving the day, he would disappear and start over until the next saving. He was hiding his true identity (which Lois deduced), but was a hero, just mysterious. He was proactive; evidence is with Clark seeing the oil rig on fire and wasting no time to save those still inside.

He was following leads? Actually, that one point when the soldiers mention the ship is the only lead he had.

Another thing is Clark's reluctance after Zod's warning to the world: well, I can't fault him for that because of how people were reacting (back to the first argument), but he was more concerned over proving to the world that he means them no harm and they could trust him. That's why he talked to the pastor, that's why he acted the way he did: he knew Zod was bad, but he wondered on whether Earth would believe him when he says he is not one of them (morals, intentions). Again, as I said above, is what he tries to do when he turns himself in and then says to Swanwick that, yes they're scared, but he wasn't their enemy.

All of this, and this is also one side of the argument over the death of Pa Kent scene, is due to a emotional response and side of things rather than logical. Thinking they're not ready, but feeling maybe they are versus thinking they are ready, but feeling that they're not was what was on, JK's mind sure, but definitely Clark's too.

- Lois Lane Sidekick:

I'm not a fan of what they did with Lois. I think they missed the point of her as a character.

I mean, the first half was fine, and I appreciated a few nuggets of Loisish behavior and dialogue. And I really liked the idea that she finds out his secret and keeps it for him because she sees the good in him. The scene in the desert before boarding the kryptonian ship is one of my absolute favourites ('Thankyou for beleiving in me').

But the minute she steps on that ship, she stops being anything more than a sidekick and damsel/love interest.

They said they wanted to have her be more active role in the story. But Lois has a function of her own... she is the journalist on the front line, that is where she belongs, that's the perspective her character provides.

She doesn't need to become Superman's sidekick and go on the ship with him and shoot lazers and work with Jor-el in order to be useful within the story. She should have HER OWN role in the story, and that role should involve representation of what's going on in the world below as the super powered beings battle above.

As it is, Perry, Lombard and Jenny are the people we have showing us what is going on in Metropolis. And even that feels kind of like a convenient after thought that is only barely included.

There are so many other ways in my imagination of splitting the story so that we see a lot more of what is going on with the people of Metropolis by allowing Lois to actually have a storyline of her own, rather than being piggy backed onto Superman's.

I don't think they missed the point of her character, and in fact I really liked what they did to her. We saw a Lois who was smart, but also a partner (not a sidekick), and a friend to Clark (and Superman). She was the one who protected his secret, which she continued to do so, but also she acted when she was in the cell by placing the key to summon Jor-El, thus freeing her and Superman, and being the one who finds out what to do to stop Zod. The last thing I or anyone else wanted was for her to just be "there"; she was just as important as Superman, but then both were just as just important as everyone else.

- The ending:

I don't like it. I've gone into why a million times, i've provided alternate endings that would have worked just as well and would have meant the movie end on a triumph rather than a defeat.

Because my main problem with the film is how deflating it all feels.

I absolutely want the material taken seriously. And I was looking forward to seeing a 'real world' setting (something I don't think we saw at all personally). But that's not what this was.

This was Snyder/Goyer thinking they'd try to make a point, but making it so badly that it feels more like doing it for controversies sake than actually serving to SHOW a side of the character, and explore the rammifications of actions like that.

This has nothing to do with 'Superman doesn't kill', and it can't be defended with the old repeated 'he had no choice' or 'he's killed before' lines.

It is a criticism of the ending as a creative CHOICE in writing, and the way in which that decision was handled within the material.

I debated on whether to respond to this, but look: there wasn't any choice. Now, I know you don't like that, but it's the truth. Anytime I did think of an alternative, I kept on getting what we got before: a continuous fight with no avail. Heck, if they just punched each other non stop, what are the chances that Zod wouldn't have died from the fight alone, leaving the exhausted Superman as the victor? And like I said to that one guy before: there is no kryptonite, red sun, phantom zone is gone, and no magic: they're not in this film, nor should they be just to change this ending to make people happy.

There is one overall reason why I like the ending, and it is this: Goyer, Snyder, and in the end Nolan too, took a risk in doing this to Superman, knowing full well what the reaction was going to be, regardless of their reasons for it. They had the balls to do this, instead of playing it safe. When was the last time you saw that? I don't think they do that as much anymore.

What I didn't like was Snyder's comments on why this existed. He said that the scene existed as a way of giving an origin to Superman's no killing policy. I'm sorry, but even though I know what he is trying to say, that opens up a part in the brain that makes you go "oh, so Superman probably thought about killing before, but decided to not join the club." I know that's not the case: he didn't kill anyone (please don't bring up the city destruction: two super powered beings fighting in the city will result in damages and casualties, the only thing you could do is limit it), and didn't want to do it when he did it to Zod (something a lot of people miss or ignore), but that's what's going to happen with a comment like that. What I said about the ending, should've come from that guy's mouth instead of what he actually said.

---

Anyway, that's my counterargument. I hope you didn't think I was tearing them away; we had topics, and you gave you're POV, and I did mine, that's all.

Overall, the flaws I had I consider them to be actual flaws because it affected the characters of Jor-El and JK, and thus were plotholes in the story. But for MOS itself: I liked it, and enjoy what I saw. Maybe it's because I was expecting what it could be as far back as 2008, thinking that they would probably do a Superman film that was in many ways a popcorn movie (think Iron Man meets Transformers), so I was setting myself back then on what it could've been. But what we got isn't that at all, nor mindless: what we got was a good Superman movie that succeed in its take and reinvention, and is this generation's STM. I found this Superman more relatable than Smallville's, BTW: which was only exciting in cliff noted videos or POVs, while the series was annoying aggravating as a whole.

So yeah MOS wasn't bad. I just think those who did have a problem with it just got it wrong; the movie makes no attempt in deceiving anyone.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Look, I know that your not trying to be disrespectul (though using words like 'wrong' and phrases like 'you may not like that, but it's true' isn't great), but I don't see this as 'my arguement vs your arguement'.

It's just my opinion, which you asked for. I watch the film (which I have done into double figures now), and these are the things that consistently bother me.

They don't bother you, or you interpret them differently, that's great for you

Doesn't change the ways the film failed for me.

 

[Krumm]

Look, I know that your not trying to be disrespectul (though using words like 'wrong' and phrases like 'you may not like that, but it's true' isn't great), but I don't see this as 'my arguement vs your arguement'.

It's just my opinion, which you asked for. I watch the film (which I have done into double figures now), and these are the things that consistently bother me.

They don't bother you, or you interpret them differently, that's great for you

Doesn't change the ways the film failed for me.

How many times have you seen it?

 

[John-An]

Aha,
You're probably one of the people who missed my question I asked some time ago concerning this. Don't worry, I'll ask you. Superman doesn't kill, sure, but had no choice. There was a good reason for that action, a reason(s) that a lot of people have ignored because that would mean they would have to accept it. So here's a question: what would you have done different? Keep in mind: phantom zone is gone; no kryptonite, no red sun radiation, hell not even magic. You cannot bring in something like that only because it will make you happy.

Keep in mind, after I asked people this before, no one could answer it, thus proving my point.

Okay? Go!

Don't feed the troll my friend!!!

 

[John-An]

Well, not really tear, but just my side of the argument, let's say.



While I do agree that, at least one scene showing a panic by the public (like rioting and such) would've proved what we heard before, I still got a sense that everyone was panicking. Even if we didn't see it from the public's actions on the streets or something, we did see it from the news constantly talking about it, the pastor swallowing really hard when he realized the man he was talking to was the alien they were looking for, and the actions of the military going as far as to arrest Lois just to find out where he is (in the novel, there is an added scene where the General even threatens Lois with execution). Plus, when Superman is with the military for the first time, they were preparing tranquilizers as if he were an animal instead of a person and asking what's going on. Superman even pointed out to Swanwick that they are scared of him, but he wasn't their enemy. So with that in mind, I would think JK was right because people were scared and reacting in the way that they did, and it was expected: they were afraid of the aliens, in turn they didn't know nor understand why one of them was living among us, and was more than happy to give him to them without any knowledge as to why, and the military shot at Superman because they still didn't know what to make of him until the battle was over and his actions.

What you said could go either way, and while I agree that we should've seen the public react, I disagree that we didn't see it at all.



Eh. BTW, I didn't feel that way with JK and Clark: Clark acted like a actual teenager would, and had arguments with JK that a real teenager would, and JK offered advice and wisdom that (even with or without my flaws I had).



Well you're wrong on that regard, because Clark was just a drifter, but he still saved lives: he worked a job, but then upon saving the day, he would disappear and start over until the next saving. He was hiding his true identity (which Lois deduced), but was a hero, just mysterious. He was proactive; evidence is with Clark seeing the oil rig on fire and wasting no time to save those still inside.

He was following leads? Actually, that one point when the soldiers mention the ship is the only lead he had.

Another thing is Clark's reluctance after Zod's warning to the world: well, I can't fault him for that because of how people were reacting (back to the first argument), but he was more concerned over proving to the world that he means them no harm and they could trust him. That's why he talked to the pastor, that's why he acted the way he did: he knew Zod was bad, but he wondered on whether Earth would believe him when he says he is not one of them (morals, intentions). Again, as I said above, is what he tries to do when he turns himself in and then says to Swanwick that, yes they're scared, but he wasn't their enemy.

All of this, and this is also one side of the argument over the death of Pa Kent scene, is due to a emotional response and side of things rather than logical. Thinking they're not ready, but feeling maybe they are versus thinking they are ready, but feeling that they're not was what was on, JK's mind sure, but definitely Clark's too.



I don't think they missed the point of her character, and in fact I really liked what they did to her. We saw a Lois who was smart, but also a partner (not a sidekick), and a friend to Clark (and Superman). She was the one who protected his secret, which she continued to do so, but also she acted when she was in the cell by placing the key to summon Jor-El, thus freeing her and Superman, and being the one who finds out what to do to stop Zod. The last thing I or anyone else wanted was for her to just be "there"; she was just as important as Superman, but then both were just as just important as everyone else.



I debated on whether to respond to this, but look: there wasn't any choice. Now, I know you don't like that, but it's the truth. Anytime I did think of an alternative, I kept on getting what we got before: a continuous fight with no avail. Heck, if they just punched each other non stop, what are the chances that Zod wouldn't have died from the fight alone, leaving the exhausted Superman as the victor? And like I said to that one guy before: there is no kryptonite, red sun, phantom zone is gone, and no magic: they're not in this film, nor should they be just to change this ending to make people happy.

There is one overall reason why I like the ending, and it is this: Goyer, Snyder, and in the end Nolan too, took a risk in doing this to Superman, knowing full well what the reaction was going to be, regardless of their reasons for it. They had the balls to do this, instead of playing it safe. When was the last time you saw that? I don't think they do that as much anymore.

What I didn't like was Snyder's comments on why this existed. He said that the scene existed as a way of giving an origin to Superman's no killing policy. I'm sorry, but even though I know what he is trying to say, that opens up a part in the brain that makes you go "oh, so Superman probably thought about killing before, but decided to not join the club." I know that's not the case: he didn't kill anyone (please don't bring up the city destruction: two super powered beings fighting in the city will result in damages and casualties, the only thing you could do is limit it), and didn't want to do it when he did it to Zod (something a lot of people miss or ignore), but that's what's going to happen with a comment like that. What I said about the ending, should've come from that guy's mouth instead of what he actually said.

---

Anyway, that's my counterargument. I hope you didn't think I was tearing them away; we had topics, and you gave you're POV, and I did mine, that's all.

Overall, the flaws I had I consider them to be actual flaws because it affected the characters of Jor-El and JK, and thus were plotholes in the story. But for MOS itself: I liked it, and enjoy what I saw. Maybe it's because I was expecting what it could be as far back as 2008, thinking that they would probably do a Superman film that was in many ways a popcorn movie (think Iron Man meets Transformers), so I was setting myself back then on what it could've been. But what we got isn't that at all, nor mindless: what we got was a good Superman movie that succeed in its take and reinvention, and is this generation's STM. I found this Superman more relatable than Smallville's, BTW: which was only exciting in cliff noted videos or POVs, while the series was annoying aggravating as a whole.

So yeah MOS wasn't bad. I just think those who did have a problem with it just got it wrong; the movie makes no attempt in deceiving anyone.

(yeah many people think that need to be just bla bla bla bla like in SR and with no base... the story bad developed? I don't think so... I know it has its flaws as you mentioned but as many people claim to have.. NO! the dialoge was ok there were awesome parts on krypton, jk and clark and of course jor-el and supes, lois-perry the dialogue was one of the good things I didn't want jokes everytime.. this movie is different BB style and was one of the best parts of the movie that I loved (that wasn't a comedy full of "rich dialogue" that's why I disagree with some posters here that pretended this to be like STM or some Marvel movies style... which is totally wrong and if they don't see what they want they make bigger the flaws of the movie and the majority with nosense arguments.. I loved the movie as I loved tdkt and some other great movies...

 

[Dagoods]

Aha,
You're probably one of the people who missed my question I asked some time ago concerning this. Don't worry, I'll ask you. Superman doesn't kill, sure, but had no choice. There was a good reason for that action, a reason(s) that a lot of people have ignored because that would mean they would have to accept it. So here's a question: what would you have done different? Keep in mind: phantom zone is gone; no kryptonite, no red sun radiation, hell not even magic. You cannot bring in something like that only because it will make you happy.

Keep in mind, after I asked people this before, no one could answer it, thus proving my point.

Okay? Go!

I would have (as Superman) invited Zod to church and allow him the opportunity to repent!

But I really like this idea:

The best example I have is instead of Clark snapping Zod's neck, he flys with Zod as far away from Zod as possible. Going further and further into deep space, finding a sun taht would weaken them both and heading toward it. Clark's plan is to leave Zod stranded on a planet, ala Khan from Star Trek.

Originally I thought Superman could just throw Zod onto the planet and come back, but an even better idea is Clark thinking he was going to die, and willing to do so to save the people of earth without killing. Then, as he has been on earth for 33 years soaking up yellow sun energy, he has reserve energy he isn't aware of and is able to come back.

I think that would have been a much more powerful ending...showing him being the hero he is famous as being.

 

[Glassjaw]

I don't see why people are so anxious to first hear what hopefuls issues were with the film, and then once they've been expressed, counter argue them. It's not like she's the only one who had major issues with this film.

 

[John-An]

I don't see why people are so anxious to first hear what hopefuls issues were with the film, and then once they've been expressed, counter argue them. It's not like she's the only one who had major issues with this film.

Well if the arguments are not so much valid we can discuss it... some of them were pointless.. but everybody has opinions thought

 

[sf2]

I would have (as Superman) invited Zod to church and allow him the opportunity to repent!

But I really like this idea:
The best example I have is instead of Clark snapping Zod's neck, he flys with Zod as far away from Zod as possible. Going further and further into deep space, finding a sun taht would weaken them both and heading toward it. Clark's plan is to leave Zod stranded on a planet, ala Khan from Star Trek.

Originally I thought Superman could just throw Zod onto the planet and come back, but an even better idea is Clark thinking he was going to die, and willing to do so to save the people of earth without killing. Then, as he has been on earth for 33 years soaking up yellow sun energy, he has reserve energy he isn't aware of and is able to come back.

I think that would have been a much more powerful ending...showing him being the hero he is famous as being.

really??? more powerful ending than what we are having??? are u sure???
and people would question why superman can come back and zod can't. how do you tell that 33 years soaking up energy on the screen? having the narrative voice or text??? how the audience understand that??? then why wasn't he more powerful than the rest of the Kryptonians??? and do Kryptonians need to breathe, how do they breathe in the outerspace???
audience today need everything write on the wall. if not, they would say it far-stretch and suck.

 

[Tempest]

I would have (as Superman) invited Zod to church and allow him the opportunity to repent!

But I really like this idea:

......if he took Zod to a planet where they had no powers, Superman would never be able to return. Besides, how is dumping Zod on a planet that Clark knows nothing about be any better than snapping his neck?

Neck snap, Zod dies instantly.

Superman dumping him on an unknown planet where he has no super strength and leaving him there alone would probably mean that Zod could die a painful death of exposure, from natural disasters he'd have no shelter from, or die from disease or injury, or wild animal attacks, or from starvation or dehydration. Or Zod could just live alone, go insane, and commit suicide.

HOW IS THAT BETTER?

For flips sake. Not to mention the fact that Zod was shooting death rays out of his eyes. How many people might he have killed while Superman dragged him out into space, and how likely would Superman have been able to just hold onto Zod?

Come on.

Superman has been in this kind of position before, where he's had to kill. I don't know why people are acting like it's sloppy writing, when it's been done in the past, and it's GOOD to challenge your character and your audience. My issue isn't that people have a different opinion than mine. It's just that the opinion doesn't make sense.

I just found Superman, Day of Doom, and it had some interesting points in it. I'm sure I'll be told it doesn't count, because the writer/artist has no talent, or it's in a discontinued verse, or whatever **** people come up with to defend their point when they realize they're wrong and it can be proven.

I find it timely, because much of the wangsting about this film has been about death tolls and Superman's lack of care in preventing casualties. This short series addresses these issues.

 

[TheIrishAvenger]

 

[John-An]

......if he took Zod to a planet where they had no powers, Superman would never be able to return. Besides, how is dumping Zod on a planet that Clark knows nothing about be any better than snapping his neck?

Neck snap, Zod dies instantly.

Superman dumping him on an unknown planet where he has no super strength and leaving him there alone would probably mean that Zod could die a painful death of exposure, from natural disasters he'd have no shelter from, or die from disease or injury, or wild animal attacks, or from starvation or dehydration. Or Zod could just live alone, go insane, and commit suicide.

HOW IS THAT BETTER?

For flips sake. Not to mention the fact that Zod was shooting death rays out of his eyes. How many people might he have killed while Superman dragged him out into space, and how likely would Superman have been able to just hold onto Zod?

Come on.

Superman has been in this kind of position before, where he's had to kill. I don't know why people are acting like it's sloppy writing, when it's been done in the past, and it's GOOD to challenge your character and your audience. My issue isn't that people have a different opinion than mine. It's just that the opinion doesn't make sense.

I just found Superman, Day of Doom, and it had some interesting points in it. I'm sure I'll be told it doesn't count, because the writer/artist has no talent, or it's in a discontinued verse, or whatever **** people come up with to defend their point when they realize they're wrong and it can be proven.

I find it timely, because much of the wangsting about this film has been about death tolls and Superman's lack of care in preventing casualties. This short series addresses these issues.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

How many times have you seen it?

Like I said, i'm into double figures. I stopped counting. Maybe 11, 12?

And I know some people may question why i'd keep repeatedly watching something I say I don't like.

But I watch it for the small moments that I did like, or even love. And I put up with the rest, and the fact that I view it overall as a failure, because i'm an addict who was waiting on a fix for years... and even though what I got wasn't pure grade, i'm gonna hit that ****

I don't see why people are so anxious to first hear what hopefuls issues were with the film, and then once they've been expressed, counter argue them. It's not like she's the only one who had major issues with this film.

I have no idea... I guess it's because i've had the biggest turn around. I went from being SO elated to SO devestated that people are curious why I guess.

Why they feel the need to try and argue with me about it I don't know...

But hey, I really should stop making the mistake of answering people at all. I need to let all the defensiveness die down before I start frequenting this side of the forum again.

 

[Tempest]

Like I said, i'm into double figures. I stopped counting. Maybe 11, 12?

And I know some people may question why i'd keep repeatedly watching something I say I don't like.

But I watch it for the small moments that I did like, or even love. And I put up with the rest, and the fact that I view it overall as a failure, because i'm an addict who was waiting on a fix for years... and even though what I got wasn't pure grade, i'm gonna hit that ****



I have no idea... I guess it's because i've had the biggest turn around. I went from being SO elated to SO devestated that people are curious why I guess.

Why they feel the need to try and argue with me about it I don't know...

But hey, I really should stop making the mistake of answering people at all. I need to let all the defensiveness die down before I start frequenting this side of the forum again.

People argue with you because a lot of your complaints don't make a lot of sense.

You defend yourself with the "It's my opinion, you can't argue that", which is a lot like saying that you believe that grass is purple, and that it's your opinion, so lalalalalala.

A lot of your opinions can be refuted with factual, honest introspection on the film and its themes. It feels like you are purposefully digging your heels into the ground, and disliking the film just to say you dislike it.

The main problem is that you focused on the wrong themes of the film. Superman is meant to be a symbol to people; that is his entire character in a nutshell. That isn't the focus of the movie.

The focus of the movie is on Clark's journey to deciding who he is, finding his place in the world, and choosing what kind of man he's going to be. True, he didn't become a bridge between Kryptonians and Humans, nor did he become a leader.

What he did was listen to his Earth parents, listen to his Kryptonian father, listen to Zod...and then he chose who he was going to be.

That was the theme of the film -- the right to be whoever you wanted to be.

Clark has basically flipped the bird to the US military and government. He isn't going to be their puppet, or anyone else's. He's going to save the world his way. And I love that.

 

[Krumm]

Like I said, i'm into double figures. I stopped counting. Maybe 11, 12?

And I know some people may question why i'd keep repeatedly watching something I say I don't like.

But I watch it for the small moments that I did like, or even love. And I put up with the rest, and the fact that I view it overall as a failure, because i'm an addict who was waiting on a fix for years... and even though what I got wasn't pure grade, i'm gonna hit that ****



I have no idea... I guess it's because i've had the biggest turn around. I went from being SO elated to SO devestated that people are curious why I guess.

Why they feel the need to try and argue with me about it I don't know...

But hey, I really should stop making the mistake of answering people at all. I need to let all the defensiveness die down before I start frequenting this side of the forum again.

Well I commend you for making the effort. I liked the movie a lot and have only seen it 4 times.

But I understand why you saw it that many times. While I liked the movie, there are definitely things I don't like and I watch for those reasons just as much as any other. I guess it's just part of being a fan. t:

 

[John-An]

People argue with you because a lot of your complaints don't make a lot of sense.

You defend yourself with the "It's my opinion, you can't argue that", which is a lot like saying that you believe that grass is purple, and that it's your opinion, so lalalalalala.

A lot of your opinions can be refuted with factual, honest introspection on the film and its themes. It feels like you are purposefully digging your heels into the ground, and disliking the film just to say you dislike it.

The main problem is that you focused on the wrong themes of the film. Superman is meant to be a symbol to people; that is his entire character in a nutshell. That isn't the focus of the movie.

The focus of the movie is on Clark's journey to deciding who he is, finding his place in the world, and choosing what kind of man he's going to be. True, he didn't become a bridge between Kryptonians and Humans, nor did he become a leader.

What he did was listen to his Earth parents, listen to his Kryptonian father, listen to Zod...and then he chose who he was going to be.

That was the theme of the film -- the right to be whoever you wanted to be.

Clark has basically flipped the bird to the US military and government. He isn't going to be their puppet, or anyone else's. He's going to save the world his way. And I love that.

Can't agree more with you man

 

[doobie]

I'm more on Hopeful's side of things, I was really excited for the film for a year but ended up being underwhelmed. I went alone to see it on it's first showing in my town too.

I think what was missing for me most was Metropolis - When you think about the way Batman Begins introduced Gotham so powerfully, and let us hear emotional speeches from Bruce's family, the cops, the mob, the corrupt businessmen etc that completely set the scene of what kind of a place Gotham was for Batman to start a war on crime in. And the way Nolan bought the people of Gotham into the story.

I would have loved to see more of Metropolis that made it feel like a place people lived that were reacting to Superman, even little things like shots of the public watching the battles from office windows or Superman interacting with people to show how he cares for them (like Batman in Begins giving the boy his gadget).

I realise Batman only has Gotham and his overseas training to introduce as places whereas Superman has Krypton and Smallville to get through before Metropolis, but then don't wreck it in a huge attack if you're not going to let us get to know it as a real place first. There were times when Metropolis felt like a video game level for Supe and Zod to trash more than a real city you could care about.

I wish Nolan and Goyer had come up with a story that didn't involve Kryptonians destroying Metropolis in a huge attack before Superman settles there or we really get to know the setting. It felt to me like the heart of the movie had been drowned out by blockbuster destruction by the time the buildings were coming down.

 

[jedisprite]

I realise Batman only has Gotham and his overseas training to introduce as places whereas Superman has Krypton and Smallville to get through before Metropolis, but then don't wreck it in a huge attack if you're not going to let us get to know it as a real place first. There were times when Metropolis felt like a video game level for Supe and Zod to trash more than a real city you could care about.

I wish Nolan and Goyer had come up with a story that didn't involve Kryptonians destroying Metropolis in a huge attack before Superman settles there or we really get to know the setting. It felt to me like the heart of the movie had been drowned out by blockbuster destruction by the time the buildings were coming down.

That's a great point that I think should be used for a topic of conversation. My feeling is that the Clark/Superman character is still somewhat foreign to the Metropolis area in this film. It's not until the end of the 3rd act when Clark really needs to be there (in the daily planet) unless he's fighting against Zod etc...

 

[Herolee10]

Good grief, I think I'm about to go crazy with the amount of posts that I've seen from other threads that make it look as though Superman was responsible for the destruction of Metropolis.

I like it how people conveniently forget that it was Zod's Black Zero Ship that laid waste to most of Metropolis, as Superman was like on the other side of the planet trying to destroy the World Engine from destroying the entire Planet.

And honestly, I just love it on how people keep forgetting that their so called favorite superheroes go through the same large scale battles within the comics and even animated shows within a populated area, and yet when "Man of Steel" actually recreates that given environment, people are quick to judge and bash Superman and Snyder for doing something that has already been done several times within the comics.

Did Superman use his heat vision to collapse a building? Did he throw that fire truck into the parking lot that created the explosion, causing it to collapse? Yeah, I'll admit that Superman maybe didn't need to collide into Zod against the building, but aside from that, I really don't see what Superman did wrong in that given battle.

Zod just pretty much told Superman that he was going to make every living human being suffer on the planet and kill Superman himself in order to gain revenge from losing his people.

Also, the whole argument regarding Superman crashing the Scout Ship into the city; I don't think that was Superman's original intention, but given the circumstances, there wasn't much the guy could do since Zod was trying to lay waste to the aircraft that was carrying the only instrument in the world that could send most of the kandorians back to the Phantom Zone.

Also, most of the buildings were more likely evacuated by the time that Superman and Zod started colliding into them since I don't remember seeing on single moving person within those buildings during those moments.

I'd understand if it's not exactly a person's style to see so much of a CGI dependent sequence, but there's no need to bash the character and director for doing something that's natural and happens all the time within the comics.

You know, for Superman just learning how to use his powers in a combative way, the guy should be given more slack that he was still able to defeat Zod and his experienced military crew.

I swear, the double standards against Superman is just ridiculous. Like Cavil also mentioned, I don't see why people don't see Superman as a cool person. He even asked.."Isn't it even cooler doing the right thing?"

Have we become so cynical that we only root for characters that have such darkness attached to them and use unethical approaches to deal with their lives and missions?

 

[NewYorkSpider]

Right from the beginning, I had this horrible sinking feeling of 'this is not a well made film' that just kept growing. I remember sitting there and thinking 'Okay, well it's still a fun movie' and getting ready to forgive it for being a bit dumb... but then when my fan issues started piling on top, it became too much for me to put a positive spin on. I walked out of the cinema in a pretty devastated emotional state

You sound a lot like me during the film. When the opening Krypton sequence took longer than I expected, I had a gut feeling I was gonna be disappointed in the long run. My gut turned out to be right.

 

[doobie]

Problem is the die hard fans of this film can have it both ways - if a cynical critic who hates superheroes doesn't like the movie they can say "well, of course they don't get Superman" and if a fan who loves Supes didn't like it they can say "you went in with too high expectations, this is for new fans".

I'm sick of seeing anyone who felt underwhelmed by the film painted as die hard Donner or Dean Cain fans who went in rigidly demanding to see a version of an old Superman film. Most of the people I see here are fans of the comic character as a whole and just wanted something great - something with the weight and depth the Nolan Bat films.

I thought MOS had potential for greatness but didn't quite get there - I enjoyed it but at the end of the movie I thought it could have been more than it was. Especially as it seemed to be following a Batman Begins style but not doing all of the things that made Begins good.

I know a lot of it is just personal taste, I've always found big flash bang films with a lot of chaos and explosions hard to follow and I was bored by films like Armageddon and Independence Day as a kid. But at the same time I loved Superman comics.

I wish Nolan and Goyer had come up with a story that didn't involve so much city destruction - it's depressing and being done too much by all the other blockbusters, and I wish they had found a way to work in more connection with Clark and the people of Metropolis - it seemed that the role of humanity coming to trust him was only filled by the military, I would have liked more of seeing the people of the city cheer for him or interact with him and show that they see he is the good guy. (or some interaction with Perry and Olsen which I think they should have squeezed in more of instead of setting it up for the next film). And if the city was evacuated they should have shown that and let us see the city has people in it, not just an empty "wrestling set" for Supes and Zod.

 

[jedisprite]

I wish Nolan and Goyer had come up with a story that didn't involve so much city destruction - it's depressing and being done too much by all the other blockbusters, and I wish they had found a way to work in more connection with Clark and the people of Metropolis - it seemed that the role of humanity coming to trust him was only filled by the military, I would have liked more of seeing the people of the city cheer for him or interact with him and show that they see he is the good guy. (or some interaction with Perry and Olsen which I think they should have squeezed in more of instead of setting it up for the next film). And if the city was evacuated they should have shown that and let us see the city has people in it, not just an empty "wrestling set" for Supes and Zod.

I respectfully disagree with your comments about the film having no depth and just appearing to have no context or anything under the surface. The film is loaded with religious allegories and moral conflict. The film also deals with concepts of freedom and nature vs nurture. The abundance of CGI in the 3rd act was not just to show big 'Michael Bay' explosions, the sheer damage done to the city was a direct result of two ultra powerful aliens fighting each other in a quote on quote 'real world' type grounded film. If Superman vs Zod is going to actually happen in real life, it would probably be comparable to the film if not even more exaggerated. When Batman fights Bane at the end of TDKR, you don't want to see big bright panels flashing onto the screen like in the 60's Adam West tv series saying "OUCH" "SMASH" "CLUBEEE" "ZAP" etc... It's almost like Hamlet, you do the whole thing, or don't even attempt to fully be engaged by the plot and characters, the fighting especially really drives the point via the destruction of how powerful the kryptonians actually are. I'd suggest that you check out the movie moan man of steel podcasts on youtube.

 

[Glassjaw]

The abundance of CGI in the 3rd act was not just to show big 'Michael Bay' explosions, the sheer damage done to the city was a direct result of two ultra powerful aliens fighting each other in a quote on quote 'real world' type grounded film. If Superman vs Zod is going to actually happen in real life, it would probably be comparable to the film if not even more exaggerated.

But how is that not comparable to a Michael Bay action section? Take your sentence, replace the word 'aliens' with 'robots' and the statement is true of Transformer films.

It's almost like Hamlet, you do the whole thing, or don't even attempt to fully be engaged by the plot and characters, the fighting especially really drives the point via the destruction of how powerful the kryptonians actually are.

I don't think MoS did the whole thing though. The final battle with the huge amount of destruction is basically that Superman Vs Darkseid fight which got linked alot here before the film came out. I.E it's a sequence straight from a comic book or cartoon. That's why I think it's a sticking point for some people, it's a Superman the Animated Series sequence in a film that is trying to be as 'grounded' and real as possible. When you see these Superhero fights in the WB cartoons, you aren't worried about bystanders because you never see any. They're out of sight, out of mind. You don't sit there thinking 'okay so that's going to take the city 10 years to rebuild from.' I think that's what they were going for in the MoS fight, except because its no longer a cartoon but a film, and we keep being told this is what it would be like if Superman landed here in our world, many people are left wondering what happens to those people. And there's huge destruction, because yea, two kryptonians would totally do that damage. But its still in comic cartoon mode, and then it all stops, and then next time we're in Metropolis, Steve is hitting on Lois trying to get her to go to a ball game. Like wha? You say it's not like a Michael Bay film, but it makes the exact same mistake. Huge action, destruction, but glossed over in the next scene, because who want's to dwell on all that death and destruction right? See how I don't think it does the whole thing?

Don't get me wrong, I love the film, its good, but that's why this stuff stands out from the good stuff.

 

[doobie]

I respectfully disagree with your comments about the film having no depth and just appearing to have no context or anything under the surface. The film is loaded with religious allegories and moral conflict. The film also deals with concepts of freedom and nature vs nurture. .

I agree that all those themes are there, it was deep, thoughtful movie. But, I do think it could have been greater than it was if it fully did justice to the themes it raised,

..and I thought the huge metropolis attacks were a bit un-realised and sketchy with not enough of a feel of what kind of people live in Metropolis, where they are, what they think of Supes and whether they know he is the good guy, etc. They could have made a little more of Perry and Jenny as representing the public - such as before Supes flies off to fight Zod a second where Perry says "I run the Daily Planet, we support heroes like you. I'll tell the people you're on our side" and Jenny cheering. As it was humanity accepting Supe as their hero was all shown through the military characters.

But I guess establishing Metropolis is not as important as Gotham, as the Bat was created in Gotham, swore to fight for Gotham etc. Wheras Superman has already been through Krypton and Smallville and Metropolis is where he ends up. So there is not as much need to meet the mob, the cops, the politicians etc as in a Bat film. I guess what we do know from MOS is that it creates journalists clever enough to find Superman and Villains clever and ambitious enough to have big corps everywhere and that will eventually want to challenge him.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

People argue with you because a lot of your complaints don't make a lot of sense.

You defend yourself with the "It's my opinion, you can't argue that", which is a lot like saying that you believe that grass is purple, and that it's your opinion, so lalalalalala.

A lot of your opinions can be refuted with factual, honest introspection on the film and its themes. It feels like you are purposefully digging your heels into the ground, and disliking the film just to say you dislike it.

The main problem is that you focused on the wrong themes of the film. Superman is meant to be a symbol to people; that is his entire character in a nutshell. That isn't the focus of the movie.

The focus of the movie is on Clark's journey to deciding who he is, finding his place in the world, and choosing what kind of man he's going to be. True, he didn't become a bridge between Kryptonians and Humans, nor did he become a leader.

What he did was listen to his Earth parents, listen to his Kryptonian father, listen to Zod...and then he chose who he was going to be.

That was the theme of the film -- the right to be whoever you wanted to be.

Clark has basically flipped the bird to the US military and government. He isn't going to be their puppet, or anyone else's. He's going to save the world his way. And I love that.

Wow... someone is actually trying to argue that my opinion is not just different from theirs, but WRONG?

The internet

Grass being green = fact. Whether or not a person likes MOS, for whatever reason = opinion.

I should not be having to explain that.

Well I commend you for making the effort. I liked the movie a lot and have only seen it 4 times.

But I understand why you saw it that many times. While I liked the movie, there are definitely things I don't like and I watch for those reasons just as much as any other. I guess it's just part of being a fan. t:

Definitely

I'm more on Hopeful's side of things, I was really excited for the film for a year but ended up being underwhelmed. I went alone to see it on it's first showing in my town too.

I think what was missing for me most was Metropolis - When you think about the way Batman Begins introduced Gotham so powerfully, and let us hear emotional speeches from Bruce's family, the cops, the mob, the corrupt businessmen etc that completely set the scene of what kind of a place Gotham was for Batman to start a war on crime in. And the way Nolan bought the people of Gotham into the story.

I would have loved to see more of Metropolis that made it feel like a place people lived that were reacting to Superman, even little things like shots of the public watching the battles from office windows or Superman interacting with people to show how he cares for them (like Batman in Begins giving the boy his gadget).

I realise Batman only has Gotham and his overseas training to introduce as places whereas Superman has Krypton and Smallville to get through before Metropolis, but then don't wreck it in a huge attack if you're not going to let us get to know it as a real place first. There were times when Metropolis felt like a video game level for Supe and Zod to trash more than a real city you could care about.

I wish Nolan and Goyer had come up with a story that didn't involve Kryptonians destroying Metropolis in a huge attack before Superman settles there or we really get to know the setting. It felt to me like the heart of the movie had been drowned out by blockbuster destruction by the time the buildings were coming down.

Great post

Good grief, I think I'm about to go crazy with the amount of posts that I've seen from other threads that make it look as though Superman was responsible for the destruction of Metropolis.

If it makes you feel any better, that's a complaint i've never really understood.

The only destruction I really feel should have been left out was Superman destroying the scout ship and allowing it to just smash it's way through Metropolis... that one felt a bit reckless.

You sound a lot like me during the film. When the opening Krypton sequence took longer than I expected, I had a gut feeling I was gonna be disappointed in the long run. My gut turned out to be right.

I think half the problem is that they were trying to cram too many ideas and story points that are big enough to be deserving of so much more time, into one small part of a film.

I liked the look of Krypton and the feel of it, but I think trying to tack a mini movie onto the beginning of the film was a mistake. In fact, slotting in a 'little bit of this' and a 'little bit of that' with Superman's mythology and origin from various comics and their own imaginations, meant that NONE of the 'bits' were fleshed out... and all those little bits weren't woven together neatly, they were just cut and pasted next to each other in this really disjointed way.

Seems like Goyer/Snyder couldn't make up their minds which kind of Superman story they wanted to tell, and so the characterisation and the themes become inconsistent.

Problem is the die hard fans of this film can have it both ways - if a cynical critic who hates superheroes doesn't like the movie they can say "well, of course they don't get Superman" and if a fan who loves Supes didn't like it they can say "you went in with too high expectations, this is for new fans".

I'm sick of seeing anyone who felt underwhelmed by the film painted as die hard Donner or Dean Cain fans who went in rigidly demanding to see a version of an old Superman film. Most of the people I see here are fans of the comic character as a whole and just wanted something great - something with the weight and depth the Nolan Bat films.

I thought MOS had potential for greatness but didn't quite get there - I enjoyed it but at the end of the movie I thought it could have been more than it was. Especially as it seemed to be following a Batman Begins style but not doing all of the things that made Begins good.

I know a lot of it is just personal taste, I've always found big flash bang films with a lot of chaos and explosions hard to follow and I was bored by films like Armageddon and Independence Day as a kid. But at the same time I loved Superman comics.

I wish Nolan and Goyer had come up with a story that didn't involve so much city destruction - it's depressing and being done too much by all the other blockbusters, and I wish they had found a way to work in more connection with Clark and the people of Metropolis - it seemed that the role of humanity coming to trust him was only filled by the military, I would have liked more of seeing the people of the city cheer for him or interact with him and show that they see he is the good guy. (or some interaction with Perry and Olsen which I think they should have squeezed in more of instead of setting it up for the next film). And if the city was evacuated they should have shown that and let us see the city has people in it, not just an empty "wrestling set" for Supes and Zod.

Amen. :