What are your complaints? What would you do differently? *SPOILERS* - Part 1

[Dagenspear]

Didn't Lois show her character and that Clark CAN trust her when she chose to scuttle the story? Sorry, I just don't see your point.

That's not character development. We get no indication of her ethics to determine whether or not she has or would do that.

 

[Dagenspear]

first, big ups to you for having the balls to put your ideas out there.
People here can be quick to **** on other people's ideas.
We can disagree without being discourteous. I don't agree
with a lot of what you say, but hey, good on you for the effort.




Interesting, could be achieved thru flashbacks in a subsequent film, great way to bring back Shannon as Zod. I definitely agree that Brainiac should
be a future SM villain.



Hmmmmm. To be honest the way Snyder let it play out in the film worked for me.
I loved the depiction of Krypton, it really did give the impression of a dying world on the brink of destruction. The codex stuff probably could have been tightened up a little bit overall, but I was okay with it.
The fact that Krypton was doomed, that its core was collapsing, just like its civilization was (hence the short civil war and genetic stagnation) added a real sense of urgency to everything Jor El did.
Most important, it was because the Kryptonians had put genetic controls and limits on themselves, that was part of the problem, that they really did destroy themselves - that of itself was an improvement on the original story (like in SM the movie, they were just stupid about the end of Krypton, but in MOS, they caused it themselves). That really worked for me, as in Jor El wasn't just wanting Kal to escape from the doomed planet but to escape from the restrictions of Kryptonian culture that doomed its civilization.


So, have to disagree with you there. Plus, when Lara arrived on Earth she'd become indestructible and would probably survive - given that on Earth Superman can pretty much die and come back to life, that might not work.

the Lois telling the story technique was used a little bit during MOS, when she's tracking him down. I suppose her winning her first Pulitzer for telling Superman's story might be a good story element. I kind of like it that she put the story out there, but after meeting Clark decided to pull it, made her more human and relatable.




hmmm. I didn't find the Jonathan death scene completely satisfactory either. I feel like there's just a few little tweaks that would have made it better - it did seem like it was. I mean, if Clark had run out there at super-speed, would people really have gone "Wow a super-fast alien !" no, they were a bit too busy cowering under the overpass and being terrified by the tornado. It just felt like Snyder had to tweak it, in some ways the death of Pa Kent in the original was powerful, because it highlighted that while Clark had godlike powers, he didn't have the power to bring back the dead (well, not until the end of the film, but let's not go there).
I think your idea has some merit, and totally agree some tweaking was certainly needed on that scene. It was okay in the film, but with a little work they could have made it incredibly powerful !



Before I saw MOS, I was totally "Superman does not kill " but when I saw MOS, within the context of the story, I had to admit it made total sense.
He didn't kill Zod to save that family, he killed Zod to save humanity - as Zod was planning to wipe us out.
I haven't heard a single suggestion about what he could have done instead that would have effectively solved the problem.

However, with a bit of re-writing, as in if Zod vs Supes was happening simultaneously with Col Hardy's bombing run on the Kryptonian ship, then maybe Supes could have punched Zod and knocked him into the black hole before it closed.

Regardless, the way it turned out worked for me. I was okay with Superman killing Zod, it was a tough choice and he didn't want to do it,
and was deeply affected by it - and hopefully they'll expand on that in
later films. I think it was Goyer saying that sometimes the right thing to
do is also the hardest thing to do, and there are consequences to making that choice.

To anyone who says "Superman does not murder" First, Superman has killed in the comics. Second, in pretty much every common law country, killing someone else, if defending others from being killed by them is a form of self-defence, which is a justification for use of force on another.
As such, no court would find Superman guilty of murder.
So, is Superman a murderer for killing Zod ? No he is not.




I actually liked that they dealt with the "Lois is fooled by the glasses" thing from the first moment, by having her find him. I thought it was a good way of having them meet - she tracks him down. In fact, her knowing who he was, and deciding not to out him made her a much better character.

I haven't liked any of the versions of Lois on-screen so far, but Amy Adams brought intelligence and guts to the role. Definitely the best acted and best written Lois Lane.

So, essentially, I disagree, but I respect the idea. That last line was perfect, Welcome to the planet. Nice.




yeah, even a few scenes of rebuilding would have been good, something to show the interval between Zod's death and the final scene.
Something at least that the world realises that there's still an alien in their midst. Avengers did a good job of this, so MOS didn't need to do a media montage, it could have been more subtle. However, they did do it, it needed to be less jarring of a transition.



Yeah, but realistically, I don't think they knew where they were going to go until MOS had come out, and they'd got idea of how people reacted to it.
They'd have to have a crystal ball to really think through those things, especially Luthor and Kryptonite.

Besides, that post-credit scenes stuff is what we've come to expect from
Marvel, I think DC/WB can afford to be different (although the post-credits scene in Green Lantern was better than most of the film).

Personally, I think Marvel is trying to do a bit too much with its post credits scenes. I mean, at the end of the Wolverine, that scene with Xavier and Magneto, that's long enough to tack on to the end of the film. Post-credits scenes should be short.

The Avengers post-credit scene, with Thanos, was good. That **** with the Collector after Thor TDW, was awful !


Would need a really good actor to play him, as generally Jimmy is Superman's most annoying sidekick.

So all in all, I would let the movie mostly stand as is, without putting in most of your changes, but I think you have a point there.

Even the best movies have a few flaws. I loved MOS, but I agree that some tweaks would have made it even better.

cheers

See, this is a discussion that I can do, because some of this your opinion. For instance: You don't mind the concept of their laziness being their undoing. I've never liked that idea. I always need more than that. It's why I gave Zod more background and why I had them be tricked instead. TAS greatly influenced my thoughts here. Some of the things I think you misundestood. The rules of the movie show that a dead kryptonian is still dead and doesn't come back to life. And I was operating under the idea of the sun giving kryptonians their powers, which is why I specified the probe crashing at night. So when Lara died, she wouldn't come back. And I meant she wins her first pulitzer at the end of the movie. She would still halt the story mid-way through. And she would recognize him. For some reason, this seems to get lost in translation. The glasses do not fool her at the end. That's point of it. She only knows him as Superman, until he reveals himself as Clark. And it wouldn't limit her abilities because she would actually come close, which would be why he'd have to ask her stop. It creates this fantastic moment for Clark's character where he gets to trust her with who he is. It's Clark's moment and he deserves. He trusts this one person enough to make the choice to reveal his identity. The theme is choice. And he makes that choice. Her finding out strips Clark of that choice and of the great character moment he should have when he reveals himself to her. I'm not sure why you went so far with Zod's death. I didn't say I was in protest of it. I just think it should've been done differently and developed more before and after, hence my idea for why Clark joins the Daily Planet. I've heard the simultaneous idea before and I agree with it. Thanks.

 

[BH/HHH]

It's Clark's secret. She has no right to that information unless he chooses to divulge it to her. That moment where he trusts someone completely with everything that he is is vital to Clark as a character and to the person he trusts it with. It's unbelievably insulting to both characters. And you missed that I said she would come close but he would ask her not to go into it. It doesn't effect her abilities at all. The whole movie is one giant loose end. What I did isn't a loose end, as he wouldn't be in the story. A loose end would be for the opening sequence to be about Brainiac and then have him never brought up again in the story after that. Which isn't what I did. It's a set-up for future adventures. Which only enhances the movie-going experience and engages the audience even more with their curiousity. I'm also just gonna say that I heinously dislike Lois being generically pre-packaged. It's just another way the superhero movie industry is insulting love-interests. Lois has nothing to develop into. She has nothing to offer as a character to her development.

that's your opinion though not fact and the point of Man of Steel is what if Superman existed in our world today? This also applies to his supporting characters and I think Lois figuring it out on her own was brilliant. It wasn't by chance, she didn't look an idiot been fooled by a pair of glasses, she did it by doing what she does best been a journalist.

This film had no need to set up any future adventures. Brainiac should be set up in his own movie not before. The film was by no means at all a loose end, it was a story about a journey. The journey of an alien trying to figure out his place in our world and by the end he has figured that out. There's nothing loose at all.

It seems you are faulting the film fir not ben what you wanted which is fine but to think like that before a film you will continuously be disappointed.

 

[Dagenspear]

that's your opinion though not fact and the point of Man of Steel is what if Superman existed in our world today? This also applies to his supporting characters and I think Lois figuring it out on her own was brilliant. It wasn't by chance, she didn't look an idiot been fooled by a pair of glasses, she did it by doing what she does best been a journalist.

This film had no need to set up any future adventures. Brainiac should be set up in his own movie not before. The film was by no means at all a loose end, it was a story about a journey. The journey of an alien trying to figure out his place in our world and by the end he has figured that out. There's nothing loose at all.

It seems you are faulting the film fir not ben what you wanted which is fine but to think like that before a film you will continuously be disappointed.

No. I'm faulting it after I've seen it. I had no expectations for this movie at all. You seem to be allowing this movie to cloud your judgement against its faults. And it's a fact that Lois has no right to Clark's secret and that it should be his choice to tell her. Lois would not be effected at all by the change, as I specifically stated she would recognize him at the end and him asking her to stop is because she's so good that she's actually close to finding out, so she still doesn't look bad. The difference is Clark gets this great moment, and Lois learning the truth is actually about the person it should be about: Clark. Brainiac deserves to be built up. And an incomplete arc and theme is a loose end.

 

[BH/HHH]

No. I'm faulting it after I've seen it. I had no expectations for this movie at all. You seem to be allowing this movie to cloud your judgement against its faults. And it's a fact that Lois has no right to Clark's secret and that it should be his choice to tell her. Lois would not be effected at all by the change, as I specifically stated she would recognize him at the end and him asking her to stop is because she's so good that she's actually close to finding out, so she still doesn't look bad. The difference is Clark gets this great moment, and Lois learning the truth is actually about the person it should be about: Clark. Brainiac deserves to be built up. And an incomplete arc and theme is a loose end.

Its not a fact at all, I can't even talk to you if this is how you're gonna be. Nothing is fact.

I'm not letting anything cloud my judgement. I know the film has faults like every single film that exists but just because it doesn't do things that you wanted like set up Brainiac for no reason that is not a fault of the film.

 

[Batmannerism]

I'm not sure why you went so far with Zod's death. I didn't say I was in protest of it. I just think it should've been done differently and developed more before and after, hence my idea for why Clark joins the Daily Planet. I've heard the simultaneous idea before and I agree with it. Thanks.

Oh that stuff about Zod's so-called murder, that wasn't aimed at you, that was a bit of a rant in general, I saw a tagline on someone's post at how MOS was an abomination because Superman doesn't murder. It annoyed me, because Superman didn't murder Zod, not in any legal sense.

The rest is just opinions, as you said.

As far as the Lois stuff, like I said, this was the first time I actually enjoyed Lois Lane as a character ( Terri Hatcher, Margot Kidder, Kate Bosworth and all the animated ones just came off as annoying), whereas Adams was quite sympathetic but also gutsy. I really, really liked the way her story played out in MOS, so I'd be very reticient to change it.

As for Krypton, again it just really really worked for me. A really dramatic kick ass start to the film - I wouldn't put any more in for fear of undermining what was there.

As for the Brainiac thing, I reckon it could be done in a flashback of future MOs films - like Maybe Kal gets ahold of Zod's command key, from the crashed spaceship, and talks to ghost Zod, who tells him about Brainiac,
the worst menace Krypton ever faced.

Now as for the Kryptonians laziness, if that's what you meant. I would characterize it as folly, you know that because they removed their own ability to think outside the box (except for Jor El) they couldn't see the danger or other solutions.

That lack of ability to see other ways of doing things lead directly to Zod's attempt at genocide. Which also lead to his own destruction.

Maybe some of the stuff you suggested will get dealt with in S v B, particularly the world's reaction to Superman.

cheers.

 

[Isearch4dope]

Would've liked to see a more grounded and realistic interpretation of a Superman. I wanted to actually be in awe of his strength, speed, flight etc. For his powers to have had real impact his very physical existence or being should have been built up and be a major part of the films focus as it relates to our present earth, universe and all we've come to know of it.

All the important physical details were treated like background filler in favor of the story but with a character like Superman as well as any other superhuman being, these details and his interaction with humans, objects and earth itself should have been explored and given a lot more attention to properly sell it to the viewers. This way when Superman stops an extremely heavy object from falling (Oil Rig collapse) we can appreciate and actually get behind such power because we have a more than surface level understanding of exactly what it's about and how it exists in relation to the world we know and is consistent with it's own laws. Likewise how can a man that can hold up that collapsing Oil Rig be pushed down by a regular human (unsuspectingly I know but still) a few moments earlier. After walking out of the theater I want to be able to say that if that specific superhuman existed maybe that's exactly how he would be in our world. The appeal for me in live adaptations (this is what gave DC it's breakthrough and heightened it's appeal because it asked serious questions relating to our reality starting with BB and TDK which could have been taken further IMO) when it comes to superheroes is how well filmmakers can make me believe that this is a plausible enough version of how it would go down if one of these things were real. I believe Superman was the perfect hero to start asking the question of "what if so and so existed and how would it impact the world in all aspects" seriously but as it turns out it was barely even addressed properly and was just there at a surface level.

The only reason they are super is because we are humans (this is the aspect being challenged the least and is taking a backseat to the psychology of the heroes)....exploring that divide efficiently and why it exists IMO can add important layers in pushing superhero cinema to new heights and actually make them less pretentious.

 

[STARMAN]

Would have liked a little less Krypton and a little more Superman/Lois interaction.

 

[Batmannerism]

I would have liked this film to be less awesome, because now I have unrealistically high expectations for Snyder's next outing with the Last son of Krypton. Come on Snyder you hit this one out of the park, how are you going to top that ?

 

[MydnightPhoenix]

Would recast Lois and give her a little mor attitude. More interaction between Lois and Clark. Jonathan's death is completely redone. Clark is everywhere in Smallville trying to help people and stay inconspicuous and doesn't realize his father is in trouble. When he does realize it he rushes to save him but doesn't get there in time.
Show more scenes of Supes trying to save people in the city, just to please those who seriously had a problem with that aspect.
Clark isn't a directionless nomad traveling the world, but is a freelance writer or blogger traveling the world which would better explain his job at the DP at the end.
A different design for baby Kal Els spaceship.

 

[kguillou]

I definitely wanted more Clark and Lois. Or even more Clark. Grown up Clark that is. I wanted to see more of his life as a drifter and the people he interacted with. For example more of Clark and that waitress he defended at the restaurant. Its such a small thing but so very important as Clark was quiet for much of the film.

 

[Batmannerism]

Would keep everything the same except......in the Tornado scene,
use Dylan Sprayberry instead of Henry Cavill. It would work much better, the idea of young Clark not being able to keep his secret and rescue Jonathan. (this was someone else's idea, but I'm borrowing it, cheers)
The kid did a great job as young teenage Clark, and could have easily pulled off that scene.

I think that small change would make the scene more moving. I was okay with it as it was, but I think that with a tweak or two it could have been incredibly powerful.

(and maybe a shot of all the people watching the tornado approach, because I almost felt that Clark could have run out there and saved his dad, as people seemed to be cowering and too worried about their own
survival to notice - a bit like the school bus )

Otherwise, MOS was mega awesomeness !

 

[Superman_200]

Would keep everything the same except......in the Tornado scene,
use Dylan Sprayberry instead of Henry Cavill.

That is my favorite idea as far as a change to the movie goes. That would have been better than a grown up man put in that situation.

 

[Rodrigo90]

2 biggest complaints.

Glossing over Zod's death and the fact the film ended 2 minutes after that.

Lois being driven to the Kent farm and yelling Clark to Superman, in front of cops...
If Lex wanted to find out who Superman was in the sequel, all he'd have to do is go to Smallville. The bread crumbs are there

 

[Willi Berg]

I still watch this movie a lot and something I would've liked to have seen was just more of the other citizens on Krypton reacting to the world falling down around them. It has been depicted since the earliest comics plus the Donner movie. We only really see the council and some of the military. The Krypton scenes really do fit in a lot of info. in a short amount of time, but it would've been good to see other people not directly involved in the Jor-El/Lara/Zod drama react to their world ending.

 

[WBwins]

Okay I liked this movie-gave it a 7/10.But it has some flaws.A good number of this flaws where just unnecessary mistakes.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.It just took a chunk of the movie that could have been used for character development

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.

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 action is that they were not sufficiently interspersed with character moments and the movie needed more of them-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

 

[Batmannerism]

Interesting. Here's looking at some of those complaints from a different angle. Not saying you're wrong, but there's another way of looking at those
things, because stuff you may not have liked was precisely what some others may have really enjoyed.


1. Long kryptonian sequence:

An awesome action sequence on a reimagined Krypton that broke with the visual tradition of previous films. Furthermore it set up the future conflict between Zod and Superman, and was a better explanation for why Krypton was destroyed than any previous film or comic book - basically they ruined their own environment and their society stagnated due to eugenics. They destroyed themselves.

2. Exposition well acted out by strong performers:

A visually engaging, and well-timed exposition sequence that allowed Cavill and Crowe to share the screen, and was at least as good, if not better than the Marlon Brando acid-trip, from Superman the movie. Furthermore, it was absolutely necessary for Clark to learn about and connect with his origins, it was a turning point in the story, and for the character, who if you noticed Cavill plays with more confidence from that point onward (note, after this point we see Superman start to smile, something young Clark didn't do).


3. Codex plot and Biogineering plot:

An interesting way to make Superman literally the "Last Son of Krypton" but also for him to make it possible for Krypton live again - this of course fed Zod's madness and made the motivation for him coming to Earth completely understandable.

Furthermore, the very fact of his "natural" birth made Clark able to choose his own future, something kryptonians are incapable of doing.


5. Fate of Colonies:
Again, no way for Zod to restart Krypton without Kal El, thus reinforcing the need to get to Earth, and further developed the history of Krypton as mentioned by Jor El, in the opening and exposition scenes - nice sense of continuity. Also explains where Zod got the world engine, as he certainly didn't bring it back from the Phantom Zone.



6. Reactive Superman:
This film was a different interpretation of Superman, he's a very conflicted character who doesn't know his place in the world. Also, he's trying to hide his true identity and abilities from the world, as suggested by Jonathan Kent, until the world is ready. As such, if he goes out looking for trouble, he has a greater chance of exposing himself.

In fact, the depiction of him as a regular guy who is just trying to work out his place in the world, and helps out when he can, makes him more relatable. He's not a saint, he's just a guy....until he finds out that it's his role to save the world.
The story of the hero who hides from his destiny is a very old one, but its been around a long time, because it's a classic.


7. Does the world really need Superman?:

Luckily Clark was there when that oil rig was on fire, and those kids went into the river (and we can surmise that there were more events like that in his childhood, which Pete's mom hinted at).

True, Superman has to rise up to face Zod, and Zod is on Earth looking for Superman. It's a bit circular. However, the idea is that Superman changes everything, once he's out in the open the world changes, and other super-heroes start appearing.
This argument could be, and often is applied to Batman as well since his worst enemy, the Joker, only exists because he does.
It's true that this crisis was truly "A job for Superman" but then does the world need him afterwards, this is a comic book movie, and as such some new threat is sure to emerge.

8.Fathers Plot:

Man of Steel took the Father's plot from Superman the movie and turned it on its head. Jor El told Kal that he was forbidden to interfere in human history, but here he wants Kal to actively lead humanity towards a better tomorrow. In fact it's suggested that he wanted Kal to re-start Krypton, but in peaceful coexistance with humans.

As far as Jonathan Kent, he didn't have the benefit of knowing about Clark's true origins, other than that he was an alien. That whole speech about how the world would change if Clark's origins were ever discovered, was true. Jonathan could see the big picture.

Perhaps Jonathan's death could have been done a bit differently, perhaps using teenage Clark (Dylan Spraybury) would have worked better. But if nothing else it shows us that Superman's Earth parents raised him to be capable of loving other people and caring for them.


9. Great Character arc:

Clark has been rescuing people from his early teens, sometimes against his father's advice. He continues to do so in adulthood, as he wanders the Earth, trying to find a place to fit in.

Finally, he meets his true father and his world changes. He returns "home" smiling for the first time, happy at last -not only does he know who he really is, but why he's here in the first place.

The hero is later forced to make a choice between his original people and his adopted home. A tough choice that affects him deeply.


At the end of the film he's completely accepted his destiny, hence the double meaning of the words "Welcome to the Planet"

And the suit, well at last he's got some clothing that will survive all the heroics (unlike his pants after the oil rig fire).


10.Great Character moments:.
-

- The bus crash, no dialogue necessary, just a few looks and you know everything you need to about what those kids were thinking.

- "You're the answer son"

- Clark/Kal meets Jor El "Kal....that's my name ?" first smile in the film.

- Flight, nothing is easy for Clark, even learning to fly. Again no dialogue necessary, an epic voice-over and Cavill's expressions.

- "I found them, my parents, my people."

- "Take a leap of faith."

- " A good death is it's own reward."


- "And now I have no people..." utter despair



11 Uplifting moments:

It was great seeing Clark develop from troubled loner into superhero. That was uplifting.

Especially seeing Superman learn to fly. That was awesome.

Particularly from a kid who was picked on and bullied to standing up for himself (and his planet).

Those character moments listed above were pretty uplifting.



12.World Reaction:
Saved something for subsequent films. Although a little bit of reaction would have gone a long way, we're left guessing and that's something to look forward to in the sequel.



13. Secret Identity:

Fantastic, they got rid of the ridiculous idea that an investigative journalist is fooled by a suit and pair of glasses.

The very fact that Lois discovered Clark, and calls him "Clark" vastly improves her as a character, and makes so much more sense for their relationship.

All of Smallville probably know about Clark Kent.



14. Humor:

A much more serious Superman, someone burdened by his gifts and who carries enormous responsibility. It makes him a bit more heroic that he bears these burdens and is still a regular guy.

There are a few light moments, but they're few and far between. It's a departure from previous films, but it still works.

15. Superman saving People

In this film Superman saves Lois Lane at least twice, a busload of kids, a bunch of oil roughnecks, a helicopter gunner, a family in a train station, and of course the entire human race.

Superman literally saves the world, well at least humanity from extinction. Pretty good for his first film.


In fact that he's a jeans-wearing-budweiser-drinking-manual labour job-watching NFL-helping mom with the dishes-beard and chest hair sporting-Superman is a fantastic change. A total departure from the suit wearing bumbling Clark Kent, who was brilliantly portrayed by Chris Reeve (and absolutely ruined by Brandon Routh).

Big ups to Snyder/Nolan and co for having the balls to do something different with Superman -that's what re-interpretations/reimaginings are all about (like the newer Battlestar Galactica) they make us look at our heroes in a new way.


If you didn't like the film, fair call, I respect your opinion.
These are just some suggestions about an alternate interpretation of the things you list as weaknesses or mistakes - because for some people, they were what made the movie great.

 

[Human Torch]

2 biggest complaints.

Glossing over Zod's death and the fact the film ended 2 minutes after that.

Lois being driven to the Kent farm and yelling Clark to Superman, in front of cops...
If Lex wanted to find out who Superman was in the sequel, all he'd have to do is go to Smallville. The bread crumbs are there

Hell,there are full sandwich slices there.Seems like everybody and their brother could figure out who he was.

 

[Nemeres]

One thing that makes me grimace with how STUPID it is every time I watch the film is:

Lara knows the planet is doomed. So not only does she do NOTHING to convince people they should evacuate, but while Zod is being sent to the Phantom Zone all she does is stand there... right after she just heard him vow that he will find and probably hurt her son, and while knowing that being sent off planet will enable him to stay alive and possibly fulfill his threat one day. So why does she do diddly? Why doesn't she even try to save herself to go after her son and make sure he survives, or to take care of him, like a friggin MOTHER would do?

She doesn't know he'll land at the Kents. For all she knows he could be found by horrible people who will eff him up psychologically or experiment on him during his vulnerable baby stage. In past tellings of the Superman origin she doesn't go because she either wants to stay and die with her husband or because there are no time or resources available for her to board the ship, or one of her own. NONE of those possibilities were applicable here, she could have easily saved herself. But the script comes up with the super convenient (and ridiculous) explanation that "Krypton's destiny is entwined" with that of the Kryptonians. Which means what? Why is Jor-El's idea of "saving" Krypton just recreating it somewhere else while letting millions die? Who the hell is he to make that call? I'm just beyond iffy about these Jor-El and Lara and their stupid as **** motivations, they're so muddled and make no sense at all. Great job, Goyer/Snyder.

 

[Batmannerism]

One thing that makes me grimace with how STUPID it is every time I watch the film is:

Lara knows the planet is doomed. So not only does she do NOTHING to convince people they should evacuate, but while Zod is being sent to the Phantom Zone all she does is stand there... right after she just heard him vow that he will find and probably hurt her son, and while knowing that being sent off planet will enable him to stay alive and possibly fulfill his threat one day. So why does she do diddly? Why doesn't she even try to save herself to go after her son and make sure he survives, or to take care of him, like a friggin MOTHER would do?

She doesn't know he'll land at the Kents. For all she knows he could be found by horrible people who will eff him up psychologically or experiment on him during his vulnerable baby stage. In past tellings of the Superman origin she doesn't go because she either wants to stay and die with her husband or because there are no time or resources available for her to board the ship, or one of her own. NONE of those possibilities were applicable here, she could have easily saved herself. But the script comes up with the super convenient (and ridiculous) explanation that "Krypton's destiny is entwined" with that of the Kryptonians. Which means what? Why is Jor-El's idea of "saving" Krypton just recreating it somewhere else while letting millions die? Who the hell is he to make that call? I'm just beyond iffy about these Jor-El and Lara and their stupid as **** motivations, they're so muddled and make no sense at all. Great job, Goyer/Snyder.

Please don't take offence at this but all of these things were explained in the
film.

Why doesn't Lara go ? The film very clearly explains that.

First, Lara doesn't go because she can't . There's only 1 ship, remember how Krypton abandoned interstellar travel ( which is why Jor El had to build it in his living room).

Even Zod's ship wasn't designed for interstellar travel, that's why he had to modify it.

This is also why the council are so incredulous at Jor El's attempt to convince them to try and save the planet, because they don't have any spaceships capable of doing so.


Also, as you point out, there isn't time, which is why Jor El says "Everyone here is already dead." because he knows there simply isn't time to evacuate the planet, nor the resources. I mean, Jor El discovers that Krypton is doomed, then there's a brief civil war, really how much time has she got to work out a way off Krypton.

As far as convincing people, well Jor El didn't have much luck convincing the council that harvesting the planet's core, as an energy source, would destroy the planet, so really what chance has Lara got ? And he was Krypton's greatest scientist.

Plus, she's in mourning for Jor El, who was murdered right in front of her.
One thing she's clinging to is faith in Jor El's plan.
That look she gives him when Zod begs her not to launch the ship, shows that it's a hard choice for her, but she trusts Jor El.

Jor El's whole plan was to send Kal to a world that Krypton had already explored, he knew the scoutship was there. With the codex, Kal could re-start Krypton, but to coexist with the inhabitants of Earth.

I mean, how did they know the Earth was there in the first place and that it was orbiting a yellow star ?.....because Kryptonians had explored that part of the galaxy (and things don't change that much, astrologically speaking, even in 20,000 years).

Now if you don't like these as motivations, that's a fair call, I respect your opinion. But saying they don't make sense, I disagree with you there. In fact one of the things about the characters in MOS is that their motivations do make sense, they're a bit twisted at times, particularly Zod's, but they make sense.


I hope you enjoyed the rest of the film, and if not, again I respect your opinion.

 

[Nemeres]

Spoiler

Please don't take offence at this but all of these things were explained in the
film.

Why doesn't Lara go ? The film very clearly explains that.

First, Lara doesn't go because she can't . There's only 1 ship, remember how Krypton abandoned interstellar travel ( which is why Jor El had to build it in his living room).

Even Zod's ship wasn't designed for interstellar travel, that's why he had to modify it.

This is also why the council are so incredulous at Jor El's attempt to convince them to try and save the planet, because they don't have any spaceships capable of doing so.


Also, as you point out, there isn't time, which is why Jor El says "Everyone here is already dead." because he knows there simply isn't time to evacuate the planet, nor the resources. I mean, Jor El discovers that Krypton is doomed, then there's a brief civil war, really how much time has she got to work out a way off Krypton.

As far as convincing people, well Jor El didn't have much luck convincing the council that harvesting the planet's core, as an energy source, would destroy the planet, so really what chance has Lara got ? And he was Krypton's greatest scientist.

Plus, she's in mourning for Jor El, who was murdered right in front of her.
One thing she's clinging to is faith in Jor El's plan.
That look she gives him when Zod begs her not to launch the ship, shows that it's a hard choice for her, but she trusts Jor El.

Jor El's whole plan was to send Kal to a world that Krypton had already explored, he knew the scoutship was there. With the codex, Kal could re-start Krypton, but to coexist with the inhabitants of Earth.

I mean, how did they know the Earth was there in the first place and that it was orbiting a yellow star ?.....because Kryptonians had explored that part of the galaxy (and things don't change that much, astrologically speaking, even in 20,000 years).

Now if you don't like these as motivations, that's a fair call, I respect your opinion. But saying they don't make sense, I disagree with you there. In fact one of the things about the characters in MOS is that their motivations do make sense, they're a bit twisted at times, particularly Zod's, but they make sense.


I hope you enjoyed the rest of the film, and if not, again I respect your opinion.

I won’t take any offense, don’t worry about that.

Here’s the thing. If this wasn’t a Superman film – if people didn’t know beforehand that this baby’s birth parents were supposed to die – Lara’s motivations would be questionable in a waaay more evident manner. Between the moment they send the baby away and her own death she had a) time; and b) absolutely no guarantee that her son would have a good life. Is the movie trying to portray her as an indifferent mother? Probably not. And I doubt Kal-El’s and Zod’s Phantom Drives were the only two in the planet. So why didn’t she make an effort to get one for herself and go after her son? Why does she do NOTHING? This isn’t hyperbole; she quite literally does nothing. No, I don’t want a Superman movie where Lara survives and makes it to Earth. I just want a genuinely good reason for why she doesn’t.

Also, Zod makes a vengeful vow right in front of her. “I will find him,” he promises, and you can tell that ain’t no joke, man. And sorry, the movie makes absolutely no effort to explain the following: being sent off planet will keep him ALIVE while she and everyone else remains dead. She KNOWS this. And she can probably put two and two together and know that once Krypton blows up, the tech that keeps the Phantom Zone locked will fade away… which it DOES. So how can she give herself into death so passively after having just heard that someone’s going after her son with a vengeance? Well, she does do one thing. She sheds a tear. She doesn't protest, she doesn't appeal, she shows no sign that she's aware of the huge logic blunder that constitutes letting a criminal – and Kal-El's avowed enemy and potential killer – live while she and everyone else dies. But hey, she does cry.

To sum up, why would they make Lara such a – forgive me – STUPID character?

(I’ll answer my own question. This whole thing is a result of an overcomplication of the Superman origin story, product of the extra mythology Snyder and Goyer wanted to put in (like the codex) and the plot mechanics necessary for the story they wanted to tell. But with the final result being so muddled, I just don’t think those alterations were at all worth the effort.)

Thanks for respecting my opinion, I’ll easily do the same with yours. This is nothing to get offended about.

 

[Batmannerism]

I won’t take any offense, don’t worry about that.

Here’s the thing. If this wasn’t a Superman film – if people didn’t know beforehand that this baby’s birth parents were supposed to die – Lara’s motivations would be questionable in a waaay more evident manner. Between the moment they send the baby away and her own death she had a) time; and b) absolutely no guarantee that her son would have a good life.

True, but that criticism could also be levelled at Lara in the comic book and previous film versions of Superman. I don't understand your particular problem with this version. If anything Lara's reasons for not doing anything make more sense - in 1978 Jor El promised that neither he nor Lara would leave Krypton, should that stop her ?

Is the movie trying to portray her as an indifferent mother? Probably not. And I doubt Kal-El’s and Zod’s Phantom Drives were the only two in the planet. So why didn’t she make an effort to get one for herself and go after her son? Why does she do NOTHING? This isn’t hyperbole; she quite literally does nothing. No, I don’t want a Superman movie where Lara survives and makes it to Earth. I just want a genuinely good reason for why she doesn’t.

Indifferent ? Remember these lines ?
"We'll never get to see him walk, never hear him say our names. I can't do it."
" Lara, Krypton is doomed. Out there, among the stars, he will LIVE."

That's not indifference, that's faith and hope. Which is what the story of
Superman is all about.

Personally, the film's explanation makes perfect sense to me.
Simply put, there were no interstellar space craft available. Who designed both Zod's and Kal El's ships.....Jor El, who's dead. And (if he hadn't been murdered) would he have had enough time to build another one before Krypton exploded, probably not.

When Zod's prison ship lifts off to head for the Phantom Zone, how many other ships do we see in orbit ? None. Why, because the Kryptonians stopped building them. Can we think of any countries on Earth who used to have the most advanced space-orbital craft, and now don't because they couldn't afford to maintain them ?

Would Lara know that the destruction of Krypton was going to free Zod ? I suspect not, but I don't have much to base that on, so just an impression really.

I don't think Zod knew either, as he was expecting to be damned there "for eternity" in his own words.

Also, Zod makes a vengeful vow right in front of her. “I will find him,” he promises, and you can tell that ain’t no joke, man. And sorry, the movie makes absolutely no effort to explain the following: being sent off planet will keep him ALIVE while she and everyone else remains dead. She KNOWS this. And she can probably put two and two together and know that once Krypton blows up, the tech that keeps the Phantom Zone locked will fade away… which it DOES. So how can she give herself into death so passively after having just heard that someone’s going after her son with a vengeance? Well, she does do one thing. She sheds a tear. She doesn't protest, she doesn't appeal, she shows no sign that she's aware of the huge logic blunder that constitutes letting a criminal – and Kal-El's avowed enemy and potential killer – live while she and everyone else dies. But hey, she does cry.

To sum up, why would they make Lara such a – forgive me – STUPID character?

(I’ll answer my own question. This whole thing is a result of an overcomplication of the Superman origin story, product of the extra mythology Snyder and Goyer wanted to put in (like the codex) and the plot mechanics necessary for the story they wanted to tell. But with the final result being so muddled, I just don’t think those alterations were at all worth the effort.)

Thanks for respecting my opinion, I’ll easily do the same with yours. This is nothing to get offended about.

Fair enough. I guess for some people it works and some it doesn't. I still disagree with you, but respect your opinion.
Probably the main reason I still have difficulty understanding your criticism, is because it's just a given that Lara does not try to leave Krypton, in any version of the story. Personally, I think MOS does a better version of explaining why than any of the previous films or comics. However, if it doesn't work for you, fair enough. Sometimes there's just stuff about films that bugs people.

For example. No matter how rationally people explain it to me, I cannot accept Superman (in Superman Returns) is stupid enough to land on a continent made largely of the one substance that can kill him, when it was created by the one person who's used that substance against him and knows of his vulnerability to it, and stole the technology from Superman in the first place. I just can't believe Superman is a moron.
Sure, he charges in headlong, in the comics all the time, but even then he isn't that stupid. Well not IMO.

cheers.

 

[Nemeres]

Probably the main reason I still have difficulty understanding your criticism, is because it's just a given that Lara does not try to leave Krypton, in any version of the story.

Yes, but this is the first time I can think of where Jor-El dies before Lara, so the excuse that she’ll stay on the planet to die with him is out the window. Again, all I’m asking is that they find another one, and a good one, for her to stay and die, but the script fails at finding one and actually expects you not to notice. Even if another Phantom Drive was unavailable, she could still theoretically resort to the Phantom Zone? Which was also an idea in the comics, and could also have been used to save the population. So the people aren’t really as doomed as Jor-El says, I guess, since space travel is not the only option.

What’s the excuse Jor-El uses to not try to save himself and Lara, or to not see evacuation as a legitimate option? “Your mother, Lara, and I were a product of the failures of our world as much as Zod was. It's hard to explain.” (Yeah, I’ll bet it is.) Maybe it would make more sense if they clarified that statement, but they don’t, AT ALL. I have no idea why that means they couldn’t come to Earth with him. That’s all I'd like: for it to make sense, for the characters’ actions and motivations to not be so questionable so that they don’t look as dumb or inactive as they do.

Quite simply, I see the whole Krypton bit as Goyer/Snyder trying to get themselves out of a narrative pickle and hoping people don’t realize that they're winging it, and actually expecting them not to care.

Personally, I think MOS does a better version of explaining why than any of the previous films or comics. However, if it doesn't work for you, fair enough. Sometimes there's just stuff about films that bugs people.

You brought up the theme of hope earlier. And to me it seems like there’s nothing less hopeful that foregoing the chance for survival and letting yourself be engulfed by flames, as Lara does… while there was the chance you could have made it if you tried. That’s abandoning hope. The script makes it so that it can be interpreted that way, and that’s where its weakness lies. For a much more “hopeful” handling of the Jor-El/Lara deaths, see Birthright, for instance.

 

[Batmannerism]

Yes, but this is the first time I can think of where Jor-El dies before Lara, so the excuse that she’ll stay on the planet to die with him is out the window. Again, all I’m asking is that they find another one, and a good one, for her to stay and die, but the script fails at finding one and actually expects you not to notice. Even if another Phantom Drive was unavailable, she could still theoretically resort to the Phantom Zone? Which was also an idea in the comics, and could also have been used to save the population. So the people aren’t really as doomed as Jor-El says, I guess, since space travel is not the only option.

What’s the excuse Jor-El uses to not try to save himself and Lara, or to not see evacuation as a legitimate option? “Your mother, Lara, and I were a product of the failures of our world as much as Zod was. It's hard to explain.” (Yeah, I’ll bet it is.) Maybe it would make more sense if they clarified that statement, but they don’t, AT ALL. I have no idea why that means they couldn’t come to Earth with him. That’s all I'd like: for it to make sense, for the characters’ actions and motivations to not be so questionable so that they don’t look as dumb or inactive as they do.

Quite simply, I see the whole Krypton bit as Goyer/Snyder trying to get themselves out of a narrative pickle and hoping people don’t realize that they're winging it, and actually expecting them not to care.



You brought up the theme of hope earlier. And to me it seems like there’s nothing less hopeful that foregoing the chance for survival and letting yourself be engulfed by flames, as Lara does… while there was the chance you could have made it if you tried. That’s abandoning hope. The script makes it so that it can be interpreted that way, and that’s where its weakness lies. For a much more “hopeful” handling of the Jor-El/Lara deaths, see Birthright, for instance.

Ah well, it is agree to disagree then. It's an interesting complaint to raise, and very specific, whereas most people who didn't like MOS have either a list or just sound off in general about lack of humour, or too much action, or neck snapping or whatever. Fair enough.

 

[allthingsuper]

Superman's battles were WAAAAY to destructive. Compare with TASM2, where Spidey's first priority in the action scenes was protecting surrounding civilians. Say what you want about that movie, but they got the HERO aspect of Spider-Man right.

Spoiler

Also compare to the Flash pilot. During Barry's first showdown with Clyde Mardon, a random civilian gets killed. Barry really feels ad about this, blames himself for not being able to save the guy, and even considers giving up . He feels this guilty about the death of a complete stranger.

In MoS, Clark never once showed any regret for all of the deaths that occurred in those action scenes. We needed more moments where he saved civilians during those fights, like in Superman 2, or TASM2. That's my opinion, anyway.