What are your complaints? What would you do differently? *SPOILERS*

[pr0xyt0xin]

Also, Pa Kent says "the world isn't ready" implying that one day the world will be ready, Perry White says something similar. Knowing the things Clark can do, he may have assumed that his son would outlive most humans.

He didn't want his son to NEVER do great things. He wanted to teach his son to wait until the world was ready. Which, unfortunately Clark couldnt do, as fate (Zod) had other plans.

 

[Ozymandias]

Something minor I noticed yesterday in my third viewing: When Lois first looks at scans of the scout ship under the ice, she asks if it's a Soviet era submarine. Colonel Hardy tells her that it's highly doubtful because the Russians never built anything that big.

And yet, later on when Lois is reading aloud her story to Perry White, she says what Hardy and his crew had surmised to be a Soviet submarine was actually something else. Except Hardy told her it wasn't a submarine. No one besides Lois suggested that it could be.

 

[BlueLantern]

Dishonest journalism is their way of putting realism into it. I kid. It was odd.

 

[The Guard]

Why do you keep insisting that there was no investment on my behalf? Do you have ANY idea how much I was looking forward to this film? How much I wanted to love it? Look at some of posts in the days leading up to the film. I was GUSHING over Snyder. I f'n LOVED Watchmen. I thought he'd the PERFECT director for this movie. I was wrong.

I'm not talking about looking forward to a movie.

By your logic, I can make a short film right now about a boy losing his father and no matter what you are GUARANTEED to cry because that image alone resonates with you in a certain way. I could even play clown music in the background and shoot the father from the waist down so you don't see his face. Now if for whatever reason you don't cry after watching my movie, then it's YOUR fault somehow? Not mine? Lol. You sound like a filmmaker's wet dream. They get a pass no matter what.

Umm...no. I never said anything of the sort. I said that people having emotional reactions depends both on a filmmaker's prowess AND the person watching the movie and their experiences/investment.

Not sure where you get this phantom logic from.

Because he was a one dimensional character who doesn't do a single thing but lecture, and whose dialogue was severely ham fisted. He doesn't have a presence in the movie because he's in it for a few minutes at best. And when we finally do say goodbye to his character from a narrative standpoint... he's reintroduced AGAIN in another flashback at an earlier point in Clark's life. AMATEUR storytelling.

How on Earth was he a one dimensional character?

And he did a lot more than lecture. He ACTED in his son's best interests.

Ham fisted?

Eh. Matter of opinion.

As is the idea that showing Costner (introducing him?) again at the end of the film is somehow amateur. That was a beautiful moment that tied Clark's heritages together and honored the classic idea of Superman.

 

[metaphysician]

Kal should have used it's possible destruction as a bargaining chip.

This. "You are the one forcing a choice, Zod! Either I destroy Krypton's future, or you destroy Earth! I will not allow Earth to be destroyed. . . but I would save *both* of them, if you would let me!"

 

[Skrilla31]

Umm...no. I never said anything of the sort. I said that people having emotional reactions depends both on a filmmaker's prowess AND the person watching the movie and their experiences/investment.

Not sure where you get this phantom logic from.

There are lots of people out there - die hard Superman fans even - who claim they were unable to emotionally invest in this film.

In your opinion, who's fault is that. Theirs? Or Snyder's and Goyer's?

 

[The Guard]

And there are lots of people who were able to.

It's no one's "fault". For whatever reason, they just didn't have an emotional reaction. Emotions are not simple things. We don't usually get to choose how we feel. Only how we react to those feelings.

 

[Skrilla31]

And there are lots of people who were able to.

It's no one's "fault". For whatever reason, they just didn't have an emotional reaction. Emotions are not simple things. We don't usually get to choose how we feel. Only how we react to those feelings.

And a better filmmaker would have gotten an emotional reaction.

 

[bullets]

Also, Pa Kent says "the world isn't ready" implying that one day the world will be ready, Perry White says something similar. Knowing the things Clark can do, he may have assumed that his son would outlive most humans.

He didn't want his son to NEVER do great things. He wanted to teach his son to wait until the world was ready. Which, unfortunately Clark couldnt do, as fate (Zod) had other plans.

I think he wanted Clark to grow into a man before making those type of decisions. It wouldn't be wise to release a 12 year old Superman into the world.

 

[The Guard]

I did have some key complaints. Three, in particular.

A lack of development of Metropolis, The Daily Planet, and the name "Superman".

The Daily Planet is kind of just a newspaper in the movie. There's nothing really given to us about what it means in the grander scheme of things. Would have liked to have seen the Daily Planet contextualized a little bit better. Hopefully we get some more of that in the sequel, as Clark himself gets to know the Daily Planet, then so can we.

As far as Metropolis goes, I thought it looked great. I thought that it made for a believeable city. But I missed the kind of development that Gotham City got in BATMAN BEGINS as a city fallen on hard times, dealing with corruption, etc. Now, I do understand why they didn't go that route here, as structurally, the movie didn't really take place in Metropolis that much, and it wasn't Superman's home yet, and it wasn't really Lois' story focal point, either, it was just kind of where Perry was located. They contextualized Krypton and the Kryptonian race instead, and I don't feel like we missed out much there, because there were some fantastic concepts therein. But I do hope to see more of the significance of Metropolis in the sequel. And if we get a good amount of that, especially as it relates to Lex Luthor, then I think it will absolutely make up for not getting it in this film.

And as for Superman's namesake...look, we all know why he's called Superman. But in this movie, he's just kind of called "Superman". Now, common sense tells me why this is, but I've always wanted to see the concept of the name, its origins as a term on Earth, as well as the underlying elements of it, including some of the more sinister aspects of it, explored. We didn't get much of anything like that here. I don't know that Superman has even adopted the name himself. Which is an interesting take on it. And again, if this is explored in a sequel, it will make up for it not being delved into much here.

 

[The Guard]

And a better filmmaker would have gotten an emotional reaction.

No. That's not the way it works.

I've seen some truly incredible films and had no strong emotional reaction to them, simply because I don't only approach film on a soley emotional level, and was perhaps more interested in the intellectual or structural aspects at the time. Many critics and film fans have said the same over the years.

Does that mean the filmmaker failed? No, of course not. It means for whatever reason, I didn't have an emotional reaction.

 

[Tony Stark]

Seriously, can you read? I've been quite clear in stating that this was the case in Batman Begins too.

I was invested from the off. Why? Because Batman Begins takes the time to establish the city from the moment it's introduced.

Chris Nolan himself said that Gotham City is almost another character itself in the films and he intended it from the first film itself.

Which is really odd in this film, because both Smallville and Metropolis are afterthoughts. I don't even think they are mentioned by name in the film (although I could have missed it). The only clue is the water tower in Smallvile and a tactical display showing Metropolis.

 

[spider-neil]

I did have some key complaints. Three, in particular.

A lack of development of Metropolis, The Daily Planet, and the name "Superman".

To be fair, you could get all of that in sequel as the whole world demands answers as to 'Who is Superman?'

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

I did have some key complaints. Three, in particular.

A lack of development of Metropolis, The Daily Planet, and the name "Superman".

The Daily Planet is kind of just a newspaper. There's nothing really given to us about what it means in the grander scheme of things. Would have liked to have seen the Daily Planet contextualized a little bit better. Hopefully we get some more of that in the sequel, as Clark himself gets to know the Daily Planet, then so can we.

As far as Metropolis goes, I thought it looked great. I thought that it made for a believeable city. But I missed the kind of development that Gotham City got in BATMAN BEGINS as a city. Now, I do understand why didn't go that route here, as structurally, the movie didn't really take place in Metropolis that much, and it wasn't Superman's home yet, and it wasn't really Lois' story focal point, either, it was just kind of where Perry was located. I do hope to see more of this in the sequel. And if we get a good amount of it in the sequel, especially as it relates to Lex Luthor, then I think it will absolutely make up for not getting it in this film.

And as for Superman's namesake...look, we all know why he's called Superman. But in this movie, he's just kind of called "Superman". Now, common sense tells me why this is, but I've always wanted to see the concept of the name, its origins as a term on Earth, as well as the underlying elements of it, including some of the more sinister aspects of it, explored. We didn't get much of anything like that here. I don't know that Superman has even adopted the name himself. Which is an interesting take on it. And again, if this is explored in a sequel, it will make up for it not being delved into much here.

Well, maybe... I do agree they shouldve done more than mention it in passing. "That's what they're calling him..."

But they tried this in Superman Earth One and it was kinda silly. Let my find you the scan.

is that kinda what you wanted? I think what we got was fine. I dont like the idea of Clark or Ma or Pa naming him Superman. I like it to be just a term that catches on.

As for your other complaints... sequel!

 

[Skrilla31]

No. That's not the way it works.

I've seen some truly incredible films and had no strong emotional reaction to them, simply because I don't only approach film on a soley emotional level, and was perhaps more interested in the intellectual or structural aspects at the time. Many critics and film fans have said the same over the years.

Does that mean the filmmaker failed? No, of course not. It means for whatever reason, I didn't have an emotional reaction.

You are severely underestimating the power a filmmaker has over his audience, and it appears you have a gross misunderstanding of what it takes to make a great movie. You make it sound as if a good story will tell itself.

If a film failed to make you react in any way, shape, or form... then you couldn't have thought it was that incredible. Please give me an example of this.

 

[The Guard]

I'm talking more about the concept of "The Superman", and what that means in relation to Earth's history, and especially to Zod, what with his complaints about degenerate bloodlines.

And the thing about those complaints is...despite being key aspects of the Superman mythos, they're minor, because I absolutely get what they're doing. They introduced Superman and his background, they're going to introduce his larger mythos in the sequel. Which is kind of a brilliant move and allows for each film to focus on something different, given that the concepts are so sprawling in a sense.

 

[BlueLantern]

I think this whole concept of 'it'll happen in the sequel' is a bit weak because Goyer through his works with Chris Nolan has been known to put his all in every film.

Hell, if they could stage an alien invasion, a trope normally saved for sequels, straight into the first film, they could've developed the other factors more too.

I don't buy it.

 

[The Guard]

You are severely underestimating the power a filmmaker has over his audience, and it appears you have a gross misunderstanding of what it takes to make a great movie. You make it sound as if a good story will tell itself.

No, I'm not underestimating the potential power filmmakers have, and I understand intimately what it takes to make a great movie. But like I said, I understand that it takes two to tango.

Except that I didn't make it sound like that...because I never said that.

I never said anything like that.

Maybe you should read what I say VS ignoring the context of my statements entirely.

If a film failed to make you react in any way, shape, or form... then you couldn't have thought it was that incredible. Please give me an example of this.

I never said it failed to make me react.

I said I have seen films where I have not had purely emotional reactions.

The examples are numerous. You name a film you had a strong emotional reaction to, and odds are, someone didn't.

You and I don't see eye to eye in this, and I'm not going to jump through hoops so you can try to understand how someone could have a difference life experience.

 

[spider-neil]

I definitely enjoyed MoS more on my second viewing. I think I was too down on the movie because I really didn't like the long drawn at fight at the end and it's (the fight) at the end so that's what you leave the cinema with. But on second viewing for me it reminded me what I really liked about the movie. The first 2 acts are quite heart felt and touching.

SR didn't have enough action and MoS had too much, they need to find a happy medium for the sequel.

 

[The Guard]

I think this whole concept of 'it'll happen in the sequel' is a bit weak because Goyer through his works with Chris Nolan has been known to put his all in every film.

Hell, if they could stage an alien invasion, a trope normally saved for sequels, straight into the first film, they could've developed the other factors more too.

I don't buy it.

It doesn't so much matter whether you bought it. It's right there in the structure of the film.

The focus of this movie was on Krypton, Earth as a whole, how the two people related, and Superman as a character.

They developed Krypton. They developed a rookie Superman. They developed the ideas about Superman's interaction with Earth and the First Contact elements with the Kryptonians.

Had they not done so, they would have had the time to develop Metropolis, The Daily Planet, and other concepts more related to a fully formed Superman. It's a question of what the filmmaker's chose to focus on, not an inability to handle storytelling and theme.

 

[Tony Stark]

I'm talking more about the concept of "The Superman", and what that means in relation to Earth's history, and especially to Zod, what with his complaints about degenerate bloodlines.

And the thing about those complaints is...despite being key aspects of the Superman mythos, they're minor, because I absolutely get what they're doing. They introduced Superman and his background, they're going to introduce his larger mythos in the sequel. Which is kind of a brilliant move and allows for each film to focus on something different, given that the concepts are so sprawling in a sense.

Glad you brought up the degenerate bloodlines. Yet another totally unused non-developed story line that made no sense.

As I said Mario Puzo put Zod's motivations in one line:

"The council must be unanimous Jor-El. It has now therefore become your decision. You alone will condemn us and you alone will be held responsible by me for your actions."

Sometimes simple is better.

 

[The Guard]

Eh...the moments we got with Zod form a pretty complete picture about his motivations as a character, I think.

The lines in SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE pretty much just tell you that Zod hates Jor-El and his family.

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

I think this whole concept of 'it'll happen in the sequel' is a bit weak because Goyer through his works with Chris Nolan has been known to put his all in every film.

Hell, if they could stage an alien invasion, a trope normally saved for sequels, straight into the first film, they could've developed the other factors more too.

I don't buy it.

When you're Christopher Nolan you can make three standalone movies that work (nearly) perfectly together.

When you're any other mere mortal of a director, you have to plant some seeds and wait for them to grow.

 

[Lionbush]

You are severely underestimating the power a filmmaker has over his audience, and it appears you have a gross misunderstanding of what it takes to make a great movie. You make it sound as if a good story will tell itself.

If a film failed to make you react in any way, shape, or form... then you couldn't have thought it was that incredible. Please give me an example of this.

Sorry but that is just tripe. I love the LOTR trilogy, but it's not a film I get emotionally involved in to a great extent other than I already know the characters from the books. Still, great films they are.

To be honest reading your comments on J Kent/Costner just baffles me. There were two times I had tears rolling down my face were during scenes with him. The first with Clark in the shed when he says 'You are my son' in response to Clark wanting to continue pretending to be his son, in order to hide.

The second was at the end, when you could see the pride on his face with Clark running around with a cape on. Maybe because I am a father myself and I could relate to the way JK was feeling looking at his son thinking 'You are going to be something special'. It takes a great actor to potray that without speaking, and Costner did it.

Of all the films I have seen ever, this film made me well up the most I have ever done. When it hit the emotional aspects, it did so better than a lot of the great fims out there. It's problems don't lie with the emotion.

 

[The Guard]

Hey, even Chris Nolan chose to focus on certain aspects of Batman's career and elements of Gotham in each film.