Discussion in 'Man of Steel' started by Sluggo, May 14, 2007.
I think you know why what you said was inappropriate.
lighter tone? how? example? within the singer's storyline.
That's 7 days probation. If you do crap like this one more time it will be permanant banning.
Very clear. The tone of the movie was put there for a reason, as they say. At the end Superman was content with his place on Earth and was moving towards brighter days. I have been saying this all along as well.
The dark tone of the film ended right about the time Superman had his arms extended in the crucifix position. Just thought I'd point that out for no reason.
I think there was still a dark and melancholy tone due to the fact that Superman was in a coma. I think it ended while he was speaking to Jason.
Really? I felt the whole scene was very serene. Like the three days between Jesus' death and resurrection. That's the beauty about movies I guess, everyone has a different interpretation.
The next film will be a throw back to Singer's favorite Star Trek film.
Superman vs Kirk
I can see that though, it did have a surreal type quality to it.
The next film should be all Singer, I believe this time we'll see him at work on Superman using his complete vision.
I think comic fans want some substance from the comics, not just superficial images.
Yes, I'm well aware of that. I was just giving Wesyeed an empty meaningless consolation.
So, since when did I stop being a comic fan?
It just seems contradictory to say that he was happier when it should be a gutwrenching experience to know that someone else is raising your child b/c you were a jerk. If he really feels happier now, he's a completely uncaring idiot. Oh, maybe that's who he is in Singer's movies.
That's what scares me....
Sorry, didn't know if you were a comic fan or not. As a big comic fan myself, that's what I like in comic adaptations.
Didn't get that you were just playing with Weyseed. Play away!!
And when the sequel shows Superman watching over Jason, Supes will be labeled a stalker anyway.
EDIT: whatever: smiley is not aimed at you, just as a punctuation to the observation.)
Oh, I'm a comic fan. Just a broke one.
That's why I've never used those sepcific instances against people saying Singer doesn't use the comics as a basis. They're only meant as cute homages.
I guess that's what some people don't like about SR, is that the only comic references are superficial and there is no story substance from the comics and in many ways SR contradicts Superman comics. I know that is at the root of why I dislike SR, Singer's characterization is just so opposite from the comic books in so many ways, that to me it may superficially look like superman, but it is the opposite of his character in a substantive way.
I think by doing this, he is unintentionally telling the audience that he doesn't care about the comics and he only 'gets' the Donner movie version and what he specifically identifies with from those films.
Even though I disagree with your opinion on Supermans characterization, I do understand where your coming from. Putting his mistakes aside, I still see him as what Superman is all about in the comics. But that's just me. You're a whole different human being with a whole different perspective.
I think if you put his mistakes aside you are missing the whole point of Singer's version of the character though. While I'm not defending Singer's version of the character, you can't just 'put aside' what's in the movie. The character is made up of both aspects in the film. If you put those parts aside you are putting aside you are only looking at part of the character and essentially ignoring what Singer wanted to tell you about his version of the character. His version is a character who is different in his personal life than in his public life. I personally can't put it aside b/c it would negate all the conflict in the film and then there's no story. The story Singer told can't happen w/o that conflict that stems from Superman's inability to do the right thing in his personal life.
My experience with SUperman is that he tries to do the right thing in both his personal and public lives, there is no dichotomy between the two, he is not conflicted or ironic in that way.
His mistakes don't completely define him, and both seperate aspects shouldn't and don't cancel out one another. With or without his f**k ups he's still the same guy. But he did make those stuff ups and did set out to straighten everything out. Just like comic book Superman. Infact my problem lies with comic Superman being too perfect.
I think there's a difference between being perfect and doing something that you know is wrong. If there is a question about whether or not something is right and one chooses it, that is something I can understand as an honest mistake. But if one knows it's wrong and does it anyway, then it's not a mistake but really a failure to do what one knows is right.
As far as the f**k us go, in SR I don't think the mistake he made are in Superman's character. I don't think there is eveidence elsewhere to show that they are. He might make mistakes, but the one that Singer chose just aren't part of who Superman is. And he didn't straigten everything out, Jason's life is a mess. He has a whole dysfunctional family now. There's nothing that will ever straighten that out.
If you have a problem with the comic Superman being too perfect, that is who he is and how he has been portrayed and defined.
I do feel the mistakes he makes in SR define who he is and create all the conflict in the film.
I do think to directly contradict something as important as Lois knowing SUperman is also Clark before having a sexual relationship is a great misunderstanding of the character on Singer's part. It completely changes the character and the dynamic of the relationship. It is unrecognizable as the Superman/ Lois relationship. And what it says about Superman's character is not good.
We don't know the full circumstances of him leaving beyond trying to find Krypton.
Really? Jason has Richard and Lois as parents. They both love each other. Superman is his guardian angel (As much as it's eating him up inside). Beyond that he might only suspect Supes is his father.
Uh uh. Wrong. There's plenty of stories that show just how flawed Superman really is. It's just that most stories don't give a damn.
Yes the mistakes created the conflict, no they don't define him. Him wanting to give his life to save the world and stirring others into action are what define him.
Well, if you want to feel that way, that's up to you. But you might want to blame Superman II (Before you post Singer saying it didn't happen that way, save it. Because it still happened just not the "Sleepover in the mylar bed") as well, seeing as how that's what they where building off of.
In the end this line
is what seperates our opinions on the characterization of Superman. I think it's way off the mark, but I'm not going to try and change what you think and there's no point for you to do likewise. Basically opinions and a**holes.
You know, I think a father would only be concerned if his son was happy, rather than being concerned about who he believes to be his father. I think that would make him an uncaring jerk.