BvS Is anyone else not excited about Superman and Batman? I feel nothing but dread. - Part 2

[Reiter]

May I ask why do people come here if you don't think this movie will be good and have no faith in it? It's like going to a theme park when you don't like the rides.

Because we have passion for the characters and hope that they're going to improve on MoS? Did you give up on Ironman after the fiasco of IM2?

 

[hafizbat]

It's nice to see some real, healthy discussion going on. I enjoy seeing the different opinions and how people reply. This is so much better than the perpetual lounging/nonsense going on in the All Things thread.

Great question, Batman

I want to mull it over before I answer the question. But in one sentence, make the movie that the MoS trailers promised us...

 

[dnno1]

Make that all the writers...

Well, that's not true...

Like I said before Superman has killed in the past and it is apparent that you don't really know the character or you have deliberately created a narrow view of his history. So what if Snyder had a copy of All-Star Superman. Har also has a copy of The Dark Knight Returns. That doesn mean he has to follow it to the letter. Even he (and you have) admitted to as much.

 

[Boy Scout]

May I ask why do people come here if you don't think this movie will be good and have no faith in it? It's like going to a theme park when you don't like the rides.

1) I love Superman.

2) I like Henry Cavill.

3) I'm an optimist.

4) I think a lot (if not most) of MOS' problems are surmountable.

5) They got a new writer.

 

[MrsKent26]

Well said.

I find that Costner's Kent showed a lot of concern for the rest of the world. That was his whole point. He had the concern of the wider world on his mind. He wasn't a sociopath, or crazy, or pessimistic. To quote MEN IN BLACK: " A person is smart. PEOPLE are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it. " Jon was attempting to balance the love for his son with a concern for what his son's very existence meant for the wider world.

And again... I don't get why "canon" Superman, who has long held himself to a standard that even though he knows that people suffer and die under tyrants all over the world, yet for the sake of the ideal of human self determination does nothing gets a pass on allowing others to die, but as shown in MOS a similar outlook gets excoriated to high heaven. The end result is the same. Superman allowing people to die. And the argument of it not happening in front of his face seems like weak tea to me, because he can see and hear almost everything. So again... He is aware in the comics that he is allowing terrible suffering and death to take place. For the sake of an ideal, for the sake of the wider world he let's it continue. I don't judge the character harshly there. I don't judge Jon Kent harshly in MOS. I don't think detractors have really allowed themselves to fully imagine having his responsibility and the moral needle he was trying to thread.

I agree. That bold part is especially appropriate.

Sometime I think people neglect to think about just how much Superman's "coming out" would affect the world.

Almost everything would change and many of the changes would theoretically be positive. Change is difficult for people nonetheless (just look at what happens around here when something in these movies isn't like the comics, lol).

The entire power structure of the world would shift with the weight of superman's presence. I wrote this a few weeks back:

I think Superman's impact on the world's political tendencies is a fascinating, but under-explored, topic. If superman is written to be a champion of the oppressed and someone who goes where he's needed, he would most likely be helping out the poor over the very rich. Poor people are arguably more in need of such a figure and are more often oppressed and victimized. Superman's aid to these people may help them gain more political sway and hope for a better life. So, in theory, superman would shift the entire economy and political structure of the world from a focus on the very rich and their influences/preferences to a focus on the oppressed gaining more rights and assistance. This is the complete opposite of how the world current functions; the rich have all the power in today's world, but if superman were real, the oppressed have someone to fight for their cause and this someone cannot be pushed aside, silenced, or "disposed of." It would likely upset and reduce the profits of some very influential people and like Pa Kent said, affect the lives of everyone on this planet.

With changes this extreme, there is bound to be conflicts. The nations of the world would all want a piece of superman because whomever controls superman controls the world and wins all the wars from that point onward.

It's all very well and nice for Pa Kent to be unbridled with his encouragements for Clark, but unless the featured universe is candy-coated and shallow as a kiddy pool, superman's impact would be vast and even if he intentions are good...To quote MEN IN BLACK: " A person is smart. PEOPLE are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it. "

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

He doesnt go beat dictators in other countries because:
1) he cant enforce his will on other people and their countries if they dont want to
2) because of the real life ***storm that would emerge if there was a comic that said that it is ok to go to war and enforce your brand of government to other countries (who incidentally have oil. Poor Egypt and Syria dont, so nobody cares about their protestors getting shot with live ammo).

It's a complicated issue and most writers are simply choosing not to place themselves in that corner and would rather have him fight Brainiac.

The issue in MoS however was whether he should place his wellbeing and cover above the lives of those children. Gee let me think... This is Superman right? Hm.... I dont know...

So again... He is allowing all those children in other countries die, for the sake of an ideal? As long we are being consistent and all, why is that not something to wring our hands about? In comics Superman is shown to have and understanding of the complexities of the world, and human nature. He decided or perhaps life taught him the lesson that as you said, it's a complicated issue that doesn't allow for and easy black or white conclusion. He doesn't want to be BIG BROTHER for the human race, or have on his conscience the unintended consequences of such actions. Still, the end result is as I said inarguable. Superman has ,for decades, it's easy to conclude, allowed death and worse to occur on his watch for the sake of an ideal he has, one which he feels is better for the wider world than actively saving lives. It's a bit interesting to see how some react to this. In MOS I saw the same sort of complexity in Jon Kent. Who knows how the world would react to his son. Pete Ross' mom went to the well of her religion to deal with Clark. Would people start to worship Clark? Would they see him as a messiah? As a demonic force? How would they act on such beliefs? How would Clark react to their actions? That's just the tip of the iceberg. Jon expressed the belief that one day Clark could come out and reveal himself to the world. ("One day you're going to look at these gifts as a blessing. And when that day comes you're going to have to make a choice. Whether to stand proud in front of the human race or not.") But that time wasn't when he was a child and along with worrying about the implications his son's existence had on the world he also was worried about his son for his son's sake as well. I'm happy that they didn't just have Pa Kent be a down home aphorism machine. I'd rather see morality be described as a struggle than a simple up/down, black/white thing. For myself, I've found in life it's exactly that, and appreciate seeing something like the mythos of Superman reflect that in some way.

 

[Reiter]

60 year old comics and that one time he faced an unstoppable monster? Come on. I have no problem with WW decapitating monsters (and i mention her because she does it all the time), but monsters are one thing, people, and more importantly the last people of your extinct race are another.

I think it would be great if they kept Zod in the Phantom Zone and SM would visit and talk with him. But their Zod was a bit of a shouting lunatic.

 

[Jekecy]

That's my biggest problem with the movie. I could forgive everything else, but at the end of the day, the DC universe's parallel of Jesus only became a hero when he was forced to. If it hadnt been for Zod or that spaceship in the arctic, he would have spent his life flipping burgers and catching crabs wondering about his origins.

I mean, he reached 33 and he apparently had no life. No purpose in life. "Maybe i will fish the answer to my origin out of the ocean along with the crabs, who knows?"

It would be underscoring what he had spent his lifetime doing however; constantly saving people and then moving on in fear of being revealed. He was already doing heroics, on a smaller scale, at the risk of his own livelihood.

And if you consider what Superman is to the grand scheme of things in the world, would it not take a worldwide disaster to summon the initiative in becoming the public face of a god-like savior? It would be inappropriate for anything less.

Morrison's take is a great throwback to the character's original stories, but it was also representative of a zeitgeist which clearly isn't something Snyder or Goyer were interested in covering. They opted for a grander introduction and I see no fault with that particular direction.

 

[Reiter]

I agree. That bold part is especially appropriate.

Sometime I think people neglect to think about just how much Superman's "coming out" would affect the world.

Almost everything would change and many of the changes would theoretically be positive. Change is difficult for people nonetheless (just look at what happens around here when something in these movies isn't like the comics, lol).

The entire power structure of the world would shift with the weight of superman's presence. I wrote this a few weeks back:

I think Superman's impact on the world's political tendencies is a fascinating, but under-explored, topic. If superman is written to be a champion of the oppressed and someone who goes where he's needed, he would most likely be helping out the poor over the very rich. Poor people are arguably more in need of such a figure and are more often oppressed and victimized. Superman's aid to these people may help them gain more political sway and hope for a better life. So, in theory, superman would shift the entire economy and political structure of the world from a focus on the very rich and their influences/preferences to a focus on the oppressed gaining more rights and assistance. This is the complete opposite of how the world current functions; the rich have all the power in today's world, but if superman were real, the oppressed have someone to fight for their cause and this someone cannot be pushed aside, silenced, or "disposed of." It would likely upset and reduce the profits of some very influential people and like Pa Kent said, affect the lives of everyone on this planet.

With changes this extreme, there is bound to be conflicts. The nations of the world would all want a piece of superman because whomever controls superman controls the world and wins all the wars from that point onward.

It's all very well and nice for Pa Kent to be unbridled with his encouragements for Clark, but unless the featured universe is candy-coated and shallow as a kiddy pool, superman's impact would be vast and even if he intentions are good...To quote MEN IN BLACK: " A person is smart. PEOPLE are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it. "

At the end of the day you're paying 7-8 euros (dont know how much you guys pay in the US) to watch magic flying man beat other magic flying men, or space robot that shrinks cities, or man with a radioactive rock heart. If you're that interested in real life economics and politics, maybe you should be watching a different kind of movie.

I dont mean that comics are crap, i love them, but this is a very specific type of comic and if you drown it in that stuff you'll end up with an Anjelina Jolie - Michael Moore movie which isnt the point. TDK (the widely recognized as the best comic book movie) was about crime and terrorism and ideas, but all told through the epik battles of a man dressed as a bat fighting a freaking clown.

 

[matt47]

Because we have passion for the characters and hope that they're going to improve on MoS? Did you give up on Ironman after the fiasco of IM2?

I was more so talking about the people that has no faith in the next movie.
I didn't think IM2 was that terrible, sure it wasn't good but not awful.

 

[Lencho01]

That's my biggest problem with the movie. I could forgive everything else, but at the end of the day, the DC universe's parallel of Jesus only became a hero when he was forced to. If it hadnt been for Zod or that spaceship in the arctic, he would have spent his life flipping burgers and catching crabs wondering about his origins.

I mean, he reached 33 and he apparently had no life. No purpose in life. "Maybe i will fish the answer to my origin out of the ocean along with the crabs, who knows?"

This is why i like Morrison's Action Comics origin (and forgive me if i've busted your testicles with Morrison, but he's the go-to writer when it comes to the character) where we see a young, happy go lucky Clark who doesnt give a *** about what anyone thinks, or what the government will do to him. They cant catch him, he's freaking Superman, so evil beware, he's coming for you!

And the best part about it? It's uplifting, it's exciting, it's optimistic!

Yeah, I took issue with his age as well. I'm surprised they didn't go the Birthright route of having him travel around the world as a journalist. From what I've been told, the novelization had him up North because that key was somehow signaling him to go there. That's why just by chance, he was in the are to find that old scout ship (also overhearing those military dudes talking when they probably shouldn't have). But, in the film, his life just seemed aimless at that point and just taking up random jobs.

I've said before that I would've liked to have seen that New 52/original version of Superman where he grows up, loses the Kents, and decides to it's time to clean things up (without killing). And with time, he learns that being so brash isn't going to fully work so he mellows out. Oh, and keep the social justice aspect and transition to the bigger/cosmic/champion of the world stuff too.

Also, going back to the Superman being the real him and "Clark Kent" being an act would've been fun to see. Especially if you explore the idea that the only people who know who he really is were the Kents (and eventually Batman, Robin, and Alfred). Everyone else is just dealing with half of him. Just some interesting explorations of the character, why he is the way he is, and the relationships he chooses to have with people that could be done. But, it would of course depend on a specific version, which Snyder and co. don't seem to be going for...

http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=28270975&postcount=678

http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=28271455&postcount=704

 

[MrsKent26]

At the end of the day you're paying 7-8 euros (dont know how much you guys pay in the US) to watch magic flying man beat other magic flying men, or space robot that shrinks cities, or man with a radioactive rock heart. If you're that interested in real life economics and politics, maybe you should be watching a different kind of movie.

I dont mean that comics are crap, i love them, but this is a very specific type of comic and if you drown it in that stuff you'll end up with an Anjelina Jolie - Michael Moore movie which isnt the point. TDK (the widely recognized as the best comic book movie) was about crime and terrorism and ideas, but all told through the epik battles of a man dressed as a bat fighting a freaking clown.

Ok....that's a tad contradictory.

Comics can't be both deep/meaningful and filled with fun action? If this kind of stuff was combined with action and some Daily planet fun, you get Superman's version of The Dark Knight. That's exactly what that movie did. It combined real life issues and comic book elements.

 

[matt47]

1) I love Superman.

2) I like Henry Cavill.

3) I'm an optimist.

4) I think a lot (if not most) of MOS' problems are surmountable.

5) They got a new writer.

1) But not THIS interpretation of him right?

2. I wonder if there is a person who doesn't.

3) "If DOJ ignores MOS as much as TDK ignored BB, I'd be willing to do the same, provided I end up liking the movie. I seriously doubt that'll happen, though." Not very optimistic..

4) Can I ask what your problems were with it?

5) Yeah that is a plus. Even though I liked MoS' script, I loved Argo's more, so having Terrio on board is great. ARGO F**K YOURSELF t: so funny.

 

[Reiter]

It would be underscoring what he had spent his lifetime doing however; constantly saving people and then moving on in fear of being revealed. He was already doing heroics, on a smaller scale, at the risk of his own livelihood.

And if you consider what Superman is to the grand scheme of things in the world, would it not take a worldwide disaster to summon the initiative in becoming the public face of a god-like savior? It would be inappropriate for anything less.

He saved people that happened to be on his way. He didnt actively seek out and help people.

Morrison's take is a great throwback to the character's original stories, but it was also representative of a zeitgeist which clearly isn't something Snyder or Goyer were interested in covering.

I dont think anyone has ever written him like that, at least not in the last few decades. Morrison took those old stories and used them to create a superman who is a hero of the people, a Bruce Springsteen of sorts.

They opted for a grander introduction and I see no fault with that particular direction.

What do you mean by grander? Morrison had him face Luthor and Brainiac in his first story.

At first he gets beaten by Luthor by... a bullet train. Get it? Faster than a bullet, more powerful than a locomotive? Damn that was awesome!

 

[Reiter]

Yeah, I took issue with his age as well. I'm surprised they didn't go the Birthright route of having him travel around the world as a journalist. From what I've been told, the novelization had him up North because that key was somehow signaling him to go there. That's why just by chance, he was in the are to find that old scout ship (also overhearing those military dudes talking when they probably shouldn't have). But, in the film, his life just seemed aimless at that point and just taking up random jobs.

I've said before that I would've liked to have seen that New 52/original version of Superman where he grows up, loses the Kents, and decides to it's time to clean things up (without killing). And with time, he learns that being so brash isn't going to fully work so he mellows out. Oh, and keep the social justice aspect and transition to the bigger/cosmic/champion of the world stuff too.

That's exactly what i want.

Ok....that's a tad contradictory.

Comics can't be both deep/meaningful and filled with fun action? If this kind of stuff was combined with action and some Daily planet fun, you get Superman's version of The Dark Knight. That's exactly what that movie did. It combined real life issues and comic book elements.

You asked for a deep analysis of social and economical ramifications from his existence.

 

[Jekecy]

He saved people that happened to be on his way. He didnt actively seek out and help people.

Superman isn't much of a patroller as someone like Batman is. One of the most memorable tropes of the mythos is Clark hearing danger from afar and having to change identities to save someone. Given his abilities he'd have to be working 24/7 non-stop. There's always trouble around in the world. But he needs to have some semblance of a life as well.

What do you mean by grander? Morrison had him face Luthor and Brainiac in his first story.

Grander in terms of what it took to get him from Clark Kent to Superman.

 

[MrsKent26]

You asked for a deep analysis of social and economical ramifications from his existence.

I don't see anything wrong with asking for that. I'm an amateur and I could conceive it. Why couldn't Hollywood? I don't see why comic book movies can't have depth, action, and a little fun here and there.

 

[Reiter]

http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=28270975&postcount=678

http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=28271455&postcount=704

I just finished reading these. Really nice! Thanks for sharing!

 

[Reiter]

Superman isn't much of a patroller as someone like Batman is. One of the most memorable tropes of the mythos is Clark hearing danger from afar and having to change identities to save someone. Given his abilities he'd have to be working 24/7 non-stop. There's always trouble around in the world. But he needs to have some semblance of a life as well.

Well yeah, but when some other story shows a Superman in his early 20ies putting a pair of jeans and his baby blanket around his shoulders and seeking out and destroying evil, you have admire it. A mopey 33 year old who doesnt know what to do with himself besides perform the occasional miracle cant compare.

Obviously he should have a normal life, the point is that he should have decided by now: "i'm a good guy with powers and injustice pisses me off. So guess what, i'm gonna be a superhero. The government? Good luck trying to catch me!"

Grander in terms of what it took to get him from Clark Kent to Superman.

I think this is the first story that Clark needed some event to force him into becoming a superhero. From what i've read he just does it by himself, because he's a nice guy.

I don't see anything wrong with asking for that. I'm an amateur and I could conceive it. Why couldn't Hollywood? I don't see why comic book movies can't have depth, action, and a little fun here and there.

I think i misunderstood. Apologies.

 

[Lencho01]

I just finished reading these. Really nice! Thanks for sharing!

No problem.

 

[WBwins]

Okay I liked MOS-gave it a 7/10.But it has some flaws.A good number of this flaws where just unnecessary mistakes.Movie had GREAT ideas and a Fantastic cast but it was hurt by bad writing and execution.Yes Goyer is clearly an ideas man.

Anyways below is the list.
1. Overtly long kryptonian sequence: There was no reason why this sequence had to be long. This is the Superman movie not the Jorel movie. We only needed the basics didn’t need to see all the spaceship battles just because it was cool to see. They didn’t further the plot.

2. Terrible Info dump: In the Fotress scene, we have a terrible info dump that basically rehashes the information we received in the krypton opening.I understand the audience would need to be reminded of the info but it was just too much and felt clunky. The movie needed to drum mini info dumps throughout the story on kryptonian mythos-rather than a huge one in the beginning and midde.

3. Codex plot:The reason Zod attacks Earth is to get Kalel.In otheworlds Kalels presence on earth is what attracts danger to earth.So you have a situation where it is Superman who puts the world in Danger-He brought kryptonian war to earth in the first place.Superman saving the earth is no longer heroic.Its just him cleaning his mess.It would have been better if Zod reasons for attacking earth was for earth not Codex/Kal.
Worse the Earth knows this thanks to the broadcast so they shod forever blame him for the Invasion.
4. Bioengineering plot: The whole thing about Clark being the only non engineered Kryptonian was pointless. It just made Clark extra special for no reason.

5. Fate of Colonies: Thousands of years ago, Kryptonians journeyed to space to establish colonies. The Colonies are now dead and Krypton abandoned Spacetravel. Question is why?The movie gives no explanation.Now to be fair this could be explained in a sequel-In fact it would make for an awesome sequel to have a plot reveolving around the ancient Pioneers

6. Reactive Superman:The Birthright Clark is Proactive in saving people-hes travelling the world to seeking peoplein need of help and saves them.The MOS Clark is reactive in saving people-he only saves them if he happens to be where people need his help.
The problem with a Reactive Superman is that hes not heroic,hes just a decent guy.The Proactive Superman is a hero-one who journeys the world for the sole purpose of helping people despute the fact hes an outsider.By going for the reactive Clark you cant convey Supermans love for Mankind adequately.This is the reason why people get the impression MOS supes didn’t care that much.

7. Does the world really need Superman?:Gotham is not a normal City.If it was it wouldn’t need Batman. The City of Gotham is a City riddled with Crime and Maniacs of course it needs Batman.Similarly if the world in Superman is normal,then it doesn’t need Superman.A world that needs Superman is one that is frequently plagued with Diasasters of every kind.Thts not the world presented in MOS. We are presented with a pretty normal world-One that doesn’t really need a hero till Zod shows up and then reverts back to not needing Superman when Zod is defeated.See the Problem

8.Fathers Plot: Now MOS had pretty good ideas with the Fathers plot. One ofClarks Fathers wants him to hide his powers, and refrain from using them to help people because they’ll fear him. The Other Father wants Clark to be an Ideal for the people of Earth an Inspiration,a source of Hope to the people of Earth. So Clark has to choose which father he wants to follow. Thats a Great Character Drama oppurtunity
The Problem however is that Jonathan Kent is the Father who wants Clark to hide his powers and not help people.This is so very VERY WRONG. Jonathan Kent is supposed to be the Father who gives Clarks his morals, the one who teaches Clark to be a hero,the one teaches him to use his God given gifts to help People. Jonathan kent teaching Clark to be hero showcases that it is his humanity that makes him a Hero.
Instead in this movie he is actually a hindrance to Clark being an hero.
Instead we have Jorel be the Father that teaches Clark to be a Hero in this movie ,Jorel his dead Alien Father. -That’s messed up and Contrary to Superman.
If there should be father who is against Clark being a hero,it should be Jorel.He sent his son to earth to continue the Kryptonian race ,not risk his life for lesser beings. Jonathan kent however should be the one who molds Clark into the hero

9. Bad Character arc: Clarks character arc does not sufficiently explain him becoming Superman.Jonathan Kent raises his son not to use his powers to help people.Yet We are presented with a Clark who is eager to help people-Why?Makes no sense.Then Clark goes into exile hiding his powers to hnor his dying wish.All it takes his Ghost dad to talk him out.WTF.And then he wears the suit why?what is the suit purpose?

10.Lack of Character moments:.The issue with the action in this movie wasn't that it was too much-I thought it was perfect.The problem is that is that they were not sufficiently interspersed with character moments and so looked mindless.the movie needed more character moments-in fact the movie was strongest in this moments.
Superman needed more dialog and to do that he needed more people to relate with-more character moments.

11. Lack of Uplifting moments:There were no uplifting”Superman is here to save the day moments in the film”.This is Superman!The Batman movie had more uplifting moments.Batman!

12.World Reaction: The movie made such a big deal about the Worlds reaction to an Alien and barely showed it!In fact we never see much of the worlds reaction to anything not even the destruction of Metropolis.

13. Secret Identity:Worst kept secret identity ever.Truly.
14. Humor:Movie needed some lighthearted meoments interspersed with it.We needed
15. Not enough Superman saving People


I'm currently writing a revised Storyline for MOS that addresses this flaws and shows how close MOs had been to beating Superman the movie.Will post likely next friday

 

[Boy Scout]

1) But not THIS interpretation of him right?

I don't love him, but I don't dislike him, either.

2. I wonder if there is a person who doesn't.

I'm sure you'll find someone if you look hard enough.

3) "If DOJ ignores MOS as much as TDK ignored BB, I'd be willing to do the same, provided I end up liking the movie. I seriously doubt that'll happen, though." Not very optimistic..

Pretty sure I know myself better than you. I was also speaking generally.

4) Can I ask what your problems were with it?

Read through this thread; you'll find a couple. I don't have the patience or energy to list them all right now.

5) Yeah that is a plus. Even though I liked MoS' script, I loved Argo's more, so having Terrio on board is great. ARGO F**K YOURSELF t: so funny.

I've never seen Argo. I'm just hoping Terrio will live up to the hype.

See? There's your optimism.

 

[matt47]

Okay I liked MOS-gave it a 7/10.But it has some flaws.A good number of this flaws where just unnecessary mistakes.Movie had GREAT ideas and a Fantastic cast but it was hurt by bad writing and execution.Yes Goyer is clearly an ideas man.

Anyways below is the list.
1. Overtly long kryptonian sequence: There was no reason why this sequence had to be long. This is the Superman movie not the Jorel movie. We only needed the basics didn’t need to see all the spaceship battles just because it was cool to see. They didn’t further the plot.

2. Terrible Info dump: In the Fotress scene, we have a terrible info dump that basically rehashes the information we received in the krypton opening.I understand the audience would need to be reminded of the info but it was just too much and felt clunky. The movie needed to drum mini info dumps throughout the story on kryptonian mythos-rather than a huge one in the beginning and midde.

3. Codex plot:The reason Zod attacks Earth is to get Kalel.In otheworlds Kalels presence on earth is what attracts danger to earth.So you have a situation where it is Superman who puts the world in Danger-He brought kryptonian war to earth in the first place.Superman saving the earth is no longer heroic.Its just him cleaning his mess.It would have been better if Zod reasons for attacking earth was for earth not Codex/Kal.
Worse the Earth knows this thanks to the broadcast so they shod forever blame him for the Invasion.
4. Bioengineering plot: The whole thing about Clark being the only non engineered Kryptonian was pointless. It just made Clark extra special for no reason.

5. Fate of Colonies: Thousands of years ago, Kryptonians journeyed to space to establish colonies. The Colonies are now dead and Krypton abandoned Spacetravel. Question is why?The movie gives no explanation.Now to be fair this could be explained in a sequel-In fact it would make for an awesome sequel to have a plot reveolving around the ancient Pioneers

6. Reactive Superman:The Birthright Clark is Proactive in saving people-hes travelling the world to seeking peoplein need of help and saves them.The MOS Clark is reactive in saving people-he only saves them if he happens to be where people need his help.
The problem with a Reactive Superman is that hes not heroic,hes just a decent guy.The Proactive Superman is a hero-one who journeys the world for the sole purpose of helping people despute the fact hes an outsider.By going for the reactive Clark you cant convey Supermans love for Mankind adequately.This is the reason why people get the impression MOS supes didn’t care that much.

7. Does the world really need Superman?:Gotham is not a normal City.If it was it wouldn’t need Batman. The City of Gotham is a City riddled with Crime and Maniacs of course it needs Batman.Similarly if the world in Superman is normal,then it doesn’t need Superman.A world that needs Superman is one that is frequently plagued with Diasasters of every kind.Thts not the world presented in MOS. We are presented with a pretty normal world-One that doesn’t really need a hero till Zod shows up and then reverts back to not needing Superman when Zod is defeated.See the Problem

8.Fathers Plot: Now MOS had pretty good ideas with the Fathers plot. One ofClarks Fathers wants him to hide his powers, and refrain from using them to help people because they’ll fear him. The Other Father wants Clark to be an Ideal for the people of Earth an Inspiration,a source of Hope to the people of Earth. So Clark has to choose which father he wants to follow. Thats a Great Character Drama oppurtunity
The Problem however is that Jonathan Kent is the Father who wants Clark to hide his powers and not help people.This is so very VERY WRONG. Jonathan Kent is supposed to be the Father who gives Clarks his morals, the one who teaches Clark to be a hero,the one teaches him to use his God given gifts to help People. Jonathan kent teaching Clark to be hero showcases that it is his humanity that makes him a Hero.
Instead in this movie he is actually a hindrance to Clark being an hero.
Instead we have Jorel be the Father that teaches Clark to be a Hero in this movie ,Jorel his dead Alien Father. -That’s messed up and Contrary to Superman.
If there should be father who is against Clark being a hero,it should be Jorel.He sent his son to earth to continue the Kryptonian race ,not risk his life for lesser beings. Jonathan kent however should be the one who molds Clark into the hero

9. Bad Character arc: Clarks character arc does not sufficiently explain him becoming Superman.Jonathan Kent raises his son not to use his powers to help people.Yet We are presented with a Clark who is eager to help people-Why?Makes no sense.Then Clark goes into exile hiding his powers to hnor his dying wish.All it takes his Ghost dad to talk him out.WTF.And then he wears the suit why?what is the suit purpose?

10.Lack of Character moments:.The issue with the action in this movie wasn't that it was too much-I thought it was perfect.The problem is that is that they were not sufficiently interspersed with character moments and so looked mindless.the movie needed more character moments-in fact the movie was strongest in this moments.
Superman needed more dialog and to do that he needed more people to relate with-more character moments.

11. Lack of Uplifting moments:There were no uplifting”Superman is here to save the day moments in the film”.This is Superman!The Batman movie had more uplifting moments.Batman!

12.World Reaction: The movie made such a big deal about the Worlds reaction to an Alien and barely showed it!In fact we never see much of the worlds reaction to anything not even the destruction of Metropolis.

13. Secret Identity:Worst kept secret identity ever.Truly.
14. Humor:Movie needed some lighthearted meoments interspersed with it.We needed Jim olsen
15. Not enough Superman saving People

1. It introduced us to Jor el who did play a big part in the movie, where Superman came from, the main villain, the codex and Kryptonian technology. Plus, it was just awesome to see Krypton finally.

2. If they left the fortress scene out and just had Kal say, “Okay cool, your my bad…where’s my suit?” it wouldn’t have made sense and if that happened everyone would complain that Kal didn’t even care about his past.

3. If Kal really didn’t want to save Earth he would have said yes to Zod’s plan and destroyed Earth with him. Plus, the Codex was a good plot device because it gave Zod a reason to go to Kal.

4. It had a point. It showed why Zod was so crazy and narrow minded.

5. Yeah I still don't really know why they stopped the exploration. Maybe someone else does?

6. Well, in the beginning of the film Clark is trying to found out who he is. His father told him to.

7. Well I think that in the future there will be more and more villains for him to fight.

8. Jonathon was all for Clark becoming a hero, when the time was right. “you have to decide what kind of man you want to grow up to be Clark because whoever that man is, he’s gonna change the world.”

9. Clark doesn’t go into exile, he’s on a journey of discovering who he is, then, when he finds out who he is, his father (Jor) tells him to be a beacon of hope for Earth and to show them the good path.

10. Jor el Vs Zod – Jor El won’t give up on his son and Zod won’t give up on finding the codex.
First Flight scene – Clark finding out his true strength and what he can be.
Smallville fight – Shows that without their helmets, the krptyonians are screwed. Superman shows that he is there to protect the people, Colonel Hardy shows that he’s a badass and won’t quit.
Terraforming scene – Character moment for Perry, Steve and Jenny. Superman saving the world and finally becoming the hero of earth, again, Colonel Hardy won’t quit and Hamilton knowing what to do.
Zod Vs Superman – Superman killing Zod was an emotional scene and will play out in other movies to come.

11. These are just mine; Superman being born, Clark finding out who he is, first flight scene, when Superman destroying the world engine, Superman showing up just at the nick of time destroying Zod’s ship just before it shot down the aircraft.

12. He saw a bit like on the news and radios n such but don’t we know that this will probably be the main plot to the next movie? Why else would Batman and Superman be fighting?

13. No arguing that, Superman’s has always been.

14. It did have a few chuckly moments sprinkled into the movie.

15. Oh man…not this again…HERE WE GO!
Oil Rig – 8 people
School Bus – around 20 people
Bar scene – Sort of saves for from being felt up by a drunk guy, 1
Scout Ship – 1
Black Zero – 1
Kent Farm – 1
Smallville – 3 (plus the whole town)
World Engine – The whole damn world
Metropolis fight – 5
So…that’s about 40 people not including the rest of the planet.

 

[dnno1]

1) I love Superman.

2) I like Henry Cavill.

3) I'm an optimist.

4) I think a lot (if not most) of MOS' problems are surmountable.

5) They got a new writer.

It doesn't look like you have no faith I. This move from your post.

 

[Boy Scout]

It doesn't look like you have no faith I. This move from your post.

EDIT: Sorry, read that wrong.

It's not that I don't have faith; I'm just not expecting much. I don't think it'll be worse than MOS, but I won't be surprised if it isn't better.