I have to agree. A Superman movie that had Jor-el giving the suit to Clark, that shows Zod's trial on Krypton, who promises a revenge against Jor-el's son and does after being released from the Phantom Zone, that has the S as a family crest, THAT is truly original, never seen before in any Superman movie.
Er, I meant more of the idea that Clark was a reluctant hero, cautious of showing himself to the world. I admit to not having seen or read every origin story, but I've only seen it in Earth One and MOS.
Since we are writing about Superman, there are of course, certain similarities to the comics we're going to see. But as far as character development and motivations, the writers have a lot of room to play with, which is what I was referring to -- if you had read my post a little more carefully.
You're right, what's the point of making a superhero movie if we don't despise everything that is the superhero's history.
I don't despise Superman's history. I'm just tired of seeing the same things rehashed. I want a new perspective -- not necessarily an entire change in his history, but a new approach to the character. MOS gave that to me.
Anyways, I was asking for things within the movie. Specifically Pa Kent's speech who is barely addressed after being said. He talks about the world being "ready" for Clark's super-powers... and nothing of that happened. We don't get to know when the moment is or what it means; we just see that the world was urgently needing someone to defend it. That could be urgent, but not necessarily being "ready."
As I've noted many times over, people have latched onto that one snippet of Jonathan's speech, and nothing else. That's the main problem. Jonathan talked about the world -- but he spoke more about Clark being ready, as a man, to bear the responsibilities of his powers. He refers to that time as when Clark is a man, not a child. Besides the need to keep the secret, he needed Clark to be ready to face the consequences of the use of his power. He says it several times in the film. Martha Kent also mentions it in the cemetery to Clark.
NOW, to be fair, it's Perry who reiterates the claim that the world may not be ready for someone like Superman.
The world was not ready for Superman, no. Clark wasn't ready to be a public superhero either. He was just barely ready to take on the bad guys -- but I believe his strength of character was very much ready to handle the difficulties that he is going to have to face from this time forward.
Well, Superman doesn't get tired like the rest of us.
That wasn't my point. My point was that Clark had these humble jobs that let him get in the trenches with very ordinary people. People who have rough lives, exhausting work, who don't make a lot of money or have a lot of money.
It enabled him to see people in some of the most difficult of circumstances, who manage to be good and heroic. Like the fishing guy who 'saved' him from getting squashed. Like the Coast Guard, risking everything to save the oil rig workers. Like Chrissy, who tells him to not worry, even though the cost of him leaving is probably going to be having her body pawed at like it's a toy.
Clark gains his understanding and love of humanity from working and being around them, even if he isn't totally a part of their community.
Oh, but I could see that. It's just that it doesn't have anything to do with what I said.
My mistake then.
MOS was kind of doomed both ways, in a way. A more introspective origin would be met by some with an "origin again?" mentality, while this more action-oriented approach feels like a step back from the post 2005 movies. Speaking of which, I feel that if MOS was made before BB and DIDN'T feature the Superman character, it'd be acclaimed by critics and audiences alike.
I think a lot of the criticisms are "THIS ISN'T THE MOVIE I WANT" rather than "this is a bad movie." People have an internal mold for a Superman movie that they don't have for, say Thor or pretty much every other Superman movie.
PLUS, it has a flawed script and spotty editing. :/
The bolded part. Yes. Which segues nicely into the next part of my post:
Disliking something is entitlement?
Disliking MOS because it isn't your own particular vision of Superman, or because it didn't choose the comics or films you wanted to see adapted is not the same as disliking a film based on genuine problems like editing, camerawork, etc.
There WERE issues in MOS. I freely admit that. There are issues in pretty much every film I've ever seen. However, the general issues with the film seem to lean towards, "This isn't my Superman". The actual problems with the film are then used to prop up the claims of just how terrible the film is, and are used as defense to shred Goyer and Snyder to pieces, and act as if they can't make films.
Sorry, but no. "Your Superman", or someone else's Superman is an entitlement issue, not an actual problem with the script.
And any time the phrase "They'd better make it more...." comes into play, you know we've hit the entitlements full on. As if your opinion should matter to the writers, especially when MOS was a success, no matter how much you try to make things appear to be negative.
Fans do not get input into writing films for a reason. If they did, MOS would have sucked, because it would have been boring, choppier than ever, and full of silly one-liners that make "Release the
kraken world engine" look like Shakespeare.
The point I'm making is that the complaints aren't based fairly on the writing of Goyer. The complaints are largely rooted in the entitlement belief of 'true fans' that think their own particular version of Superman should have been on the big screen.
