|
pentyne posted:The issue with this is that everything that made TDK a great award winning movie was that in all of the chaos and madness, Batman is still just a normal human who through training and technology is able to be a superhero. He suffers, struggles, and deals with his limitations. Superman just punches things harder and harder until the problem is solved. You can't take the same approach and reach anything remotely good. Rrriiiiiiggghhhhtttt. That's really not why TDK is a great award winning movie. And if all people got out of this movie goes to show that all Superman does is punch things until the problem is solved then, yeah, it failed and missed the point of Superman miserably.
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 06:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 22:36 |
|
|
octoroon posted:Yeah, I can't be the only one who thought that the after-killing-Zod scream of anguish was somewhere in the same category of cheesiness as Darth Vader's NOOOOOOOOO. I personally thought it was great.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 06:58
|
|
|
Deadpool posted:I personally thought it was great. I did too. It conveyed the feeling that he realized he was the only kryptonian left
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 07:01
|
|
|
Rageaholic Monkey posted:That's not the only decision that I disagreed with, just one example. Throughout the entire movie, I was thinking "this editing is loving horrible". Had it been edited differently, I might have enjoyed the movie substantially more. That's nothing to do with editing, that's just framing. I really enjoyed this movie, and one of the reasons I enjoyed it was because it didn't make the typical Superman mistake of boring us to death with the same Superman origin story that is in almost every other adaptation. This is also the only Superman story I've seen that actually satisfies the postmodern questions about Superman, instead of trying to awkwardly make him a moralistic god and just doubling down with strawmen whenever this is called into question. Part of the reason that there is an extended Krypton sequence is because they wanted to breathe life into Krypton instead of making it a far-away idea in Superman's head. Show, don't tell. That the Kryptonian punishment for genocide is to be encased in a penis and shot into an anus leading to Space Hell perfectly captures how screwed up they are. This is completely bizarre, and is topped off by Zod's objection being "You lack the joy of purpose!" It's a totally wacked-out nightmare of science fiction extremism clashing against each other, and it's our first big clue that Zod is nominally sentient at best. ImpAtom posted:It was poorly earned, as people said. All the villains went on about how Superman's morality was his weakness but we never see any example of that. It isn't like Superman is holding back in his fights. He initiates a plan to loving suck the enemy forces into a giant black hole without a moment's hesitation. It's like they're playing the Superman Doesn't Kill card based off audience expectations instead of actually doing it. Superman's enemies in this film are explicitly amoral and are not self-aware of the fact that they are hopelessly fixated on destruction, because that's all they know. They were grown in vats and are scientific nightmares designed for a singular purpose. Their great weakness is that they dive headlong into destruction and self-destruction rather than, say, establishing a colony on Mars, or any number of other solutions, all of which would be very easy for them given the technology at their disposal. They're so obsessive about purpose that even something basic like procreation eludes and horrifies them. They're interested in perpetuating a status quo that doesn't even exist anymore. There needs to be a galactic baby vat atop a sea of skeletons, because that's how things are, you see. A creature making decisions based on morals makes no sense to them, lacks singular "purpose," and is therefore weak.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 07:02
|
|
|
I'd just like to point out how loving awesome Faora is in this. Just awesome. Loved her character.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 07:05
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:Superman's enemies in this film are explicitly amoral and are not self-aware of the fact that they are hopelessly fixated on destruction, because that's all they know. They were grown in vats and are scientific nightmares designed for a singular purpose. Their great weakness is that they dive headlong into destruction and self-destruction rather than, say, establishing a colony on Mars, or any number of other solutions, all of which would be very easy for them given the technology at their disposal. They're so obsessive about purpose that even something basic like procreation eludes and horrifies them. They're interested in perpetuating a status quo that doesn't even exist anymore. There needs to be a galactic baby vat atop a sea of skeletons, because that's how things are, you see. A creature making decisions based on morals makes no sense to them, lacks singular "purpose," and is therefore weak. But that has nothing to do with Superman's ideals and Superman's morality. The giant final scream is played as Superman doing something that horrifies and shames him, but only really makes sense within the context of what we know of Superman outside of the film. It's a scene that clearly was come up as a shocking and dramatic interpretation on the original story where Superman killed Zod (and indeed I believe Zod quotes the comic directly) but with very different context. This is a Superman who didn't flinch at the idea of a plan that killed before. It certainly isn't a case where he should be uncaring about it, but the "on his knees, weeping into Lois's arms" scene felt like it came from a different movie with different buildup. It isn't a bad scene on its own but it is a poor fit for this particular film. I admittedly felt that way about most of the Zod fight though. It's a visually stunning fight but it feels hollow and empty.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 07:09
|
|
|
Also just got back from this and also don't know where to start. Ten minutes into the movie I was already saying that I was going to see it again. 20 minutes into the movie I made up my mind to own it. 30 minutes later I was thinking about *when* I could see it again. 2 hours later I was in heated discussions with my date about how good it was. 3 hours later I am making my first post in CD about a movie of any kind. I am still trying to wrap my mind around why I liked it so much. I guess the first thing is I think the whole paramount comic book machine are a bunch of complete fuckups and I was kind of waiting for the cinematic poo poo to splatter on the screen like every other superman movie. So I was sitting down getting ready to get right back up and walk out because I didn't like any of the previous versions. I was disabused of that notion in the first few minutes. Then as a long time superman reader I was waiting for what element of the superman story/legacy they would screw up and sat in awe as I felt like they nailed each one. I mean they really nailed them. Then as each character element was expounded on they had heavyweights (Russel crowe/Kevin Costner) putting in great efforts and not just mailing it in(like every other Superman movie). Yes there were bad elements. My date really didnt like Amy Adams as LL or any female in the movie really and went on a Lean In rant. And...I don't disagree with her really. I thought there was too much reliance on shaky camera to distract from proper shotframing or careful CGI or other mistakes. Yes Zod was underdeveloped. Yes I still have a hard time with a civilization of that scope and advancement failing. And I really have a hard time with not being able to make a 3 person rocket ship and always will. But for fucks sake, we were so happy it wasn't garbage and that they nailed element after element that we didn't care about the mistakes. octoroon posted:I guess I let myself expect too much because this one totally didn't live up to my expectations. Whoever was comparing this to the Dark Knight reboot in terms of quality... ugh. I hope noone else took that as a barometer because they will be sorely disappointed. We went in with the opposite expectation...that it was going to completely suck. I never thought it was going to be a Dark Knight style reboot because the stories are so different and they have hosed it up so many times in the past. And how were they going to handle the "'Murica gently caress yeah" aspect of Superman? I didn't see how they would do it at all but they did.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 07:12
|
|
|
pentyne posted:I felt like the movie really wanted to be The Dark Knight and pulled it off for about 2/3rds of the way through before losing it and finishing more as Batman Begins. I agree with the first part of this but I get the feeling the whole no killing mythos is exactly what they are challenging. Hes a young, damaged Superman and in that situation he reacted and killed Zod to save a family but also for anger. I thought the scream after he did that was incredibly powerful in that showed how immediately and intensely that choice effected him and I bet you its going to be something that is used to develop this notion of "no killing", that moment when he did that will be the trauma and reasoning for never doing that again. Somewhat similar in the way Batman let Raz die but not then later saved the Joker. This portrayal of the mythos makes makes Superman so much more real to me. Hes learning how to be what we have come to know as "Superman" as opposed to just being Superman. I assume the wanton destruction of Metropolis is going to be a point of the sequel, I really dont see them ignoring that. Again, aside from comics like All Star and Birthright, I really dont care much for the Superman mythos and I really thought this film did a good job playing with idea of Superman being actually a person, with emotions and a not so great childhood. How are you supposed to deal with the fact that you are simultaneously the reason this destruction happens and the only thing that can stop it? Theres so much room to explore, in my opinion, some pretty fascinating aspects of Superman in a semi-grounded universe. And I really thought they managed to simultaneously deliver the insane superman punches things type action I know me and many other people have wanted to see, while introducing a lot of themes to explore. Thats definitely exactly how I feel about Batman Begins so Im really hoping they take the same opportunity as TDK and go deep with the ideas they introduced in the prior film. I wasnt too thrilled about Begins when it first came out, but when I saw it in the context of TDK I really appreciated it a lot more and Im hoping its the same case here. S.J. posted:I'd just like to point out how loving awesome Faora is in this. Just awesome. Loved her character. This is one of the small things about this movie I loved so much. I cant even remember the last time a secondary villain/henchmen type character felt like an actual threat. I was definitely more threatened by her than Zod at points in this film.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 07:15
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:This is a Superman who didn't flinch at the idea of a plan that killed before. I think you missed something. The singularity wasn't designed to kill the other Kryptonians. It sent them back to the Phantom Zone. Also again folks. Not killing is not part of the Superman mythos. He has killed before. He has killed Zod before. This is not something new.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 07:17
|
|
|
Even so, the whole audience I was part of had a collective gasp followed by some intense silence afterwards.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 07:23
|
|
|
In the last scene, is it implied that Zod did killed the family? If it is then it changes the superman's source of greif from having to kill to failing to save.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 07:24
|
|
|
gohmak posted:In the last scene, is it implied that Zod did killed the family ? No.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 07:24
|
|
|
Deadpool posted:I think you missed something. The singularity wasn't designed to kill the other Kryptonians. It sent them back to the Phantom Zone. The way it was framed is that it was taking advantage of their previous Phantom Zone stuff + the setup to create a singularity. The military guy even says that it's a good death before he triggers it. If it wasn't intended as death then so be it, but they still failed to present the idea in a way that sold his entire fight with Zod.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 07:24
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:It was poorly earned, as people said. All the villains went on about how Superman's morality was his weakness but we never see any example of that. It isn't like Superman is holding back in his fights. He initiates a plan to loving suck the enemy forces into a giant black hole without a moment's hesitation. It's like they're playing the Superman Doesn't Kill card based off audience expectations instead of actually doing it. I actually saw this more a combination of being effected by that being really his first conflict with the idea of directly killing for the sake of saving other lives and that he just killed the last Kryptonian(well, last in this dimension Kryptonian) and now he truly is alone. I felt it was sort of the entire emotional impact on his character exploding all at once because he was too busy having to punch bad guys and finally was able to release everything and essentially yell,"Oh my god this SUUUUUUUUUUCKS" I felt it actually was the emotional, cathartic release of such a physically symbolic fight sequence. I was inspired by Superman in this film, but I also felt pretty bad for him. I dont know if Id want to be Superman, I dont know if I could handle it. That to me is the core of this film. Also punching and explosions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 07:24
|
|
|
Deadpool posted:I think you missed something. The singularity wasn't designed to kill the other Kryptonians. It sent them back to the Phantom Zone. The only instant of that I remember was the Superman:Exile story from 1989. Somehow Superman crossed over to another dimension where Zod and his 2 cronies had arrived and wiped out humans. Superman beats them and they swear they'll find a way to his Earth and do the same so he reluctantly kills them with kryptonite (or sent them to the phantom zone, can't remember) But the guilt over doing it causes him to leave Earth and explore the Universe in self reflection.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 07:25
|
|
|
Just got back from seeing this and honestly it's all I really wanted from a superman movie. I definitely think a good 10 to 20 minutes could've been cut out of the first half but otherwise I really enjoyed it. As others have said I thought the idea of superman killing the only other kryptonian (at least to his knowledge) to save a few humans was incredibly powerful, including his grief immediately afterwards. I thought that it was really obvious that he wasn't so much mourning zod so much as he was freaking out about the fact that he just killed the only other kryptonian besides him (until faora gets out of the phantom zone anyway). Also, during the first fight scene between clark and the two kryptonians I looked to my friend towards the end of it and said "I've never been so glad to see a train thrown at superman before." The movie really delivered on what I think a superman movie should feel like action wise.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 07:26
|
|
|
AccountSupervisor posted:I was inspired by Superman in this film, but I also felt pretty bad for him. I dont know if Id want to be Superman, I dont know if I could handle it. That to me is the core of this film. Also punching and explosions. I don't know how anyone could be inspired by Superman in this film. I kind of thought that was the point. He was kind of pathetic. He hadn't remotely grown into the person Jor-El was trying to force him to be. It's an interesting idea to present a Superman who is basically kind of sad and pitiable while being held up as someone who should be something more. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 07:28 on Jun 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 07:26
|
|
|
S.J. posted:Even so, the whole audience I was part of had a collective gasp followed by some intense silence afterwards. Thats pretty much how my audience was too. There was an entire row of young boys and girls who flipped their poo poo that happened, like somebody had jump scared them. There was some clapping, but a lot of people also seem pretty startled by that moment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 07:27
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:The way it was framed is that it was taking advantage of their previous Phantom Zone stuff + the setup to create a singularity. The military guy even says that it's a good death before he triggers it. If it wasn't intended as death then so be it, but they still failed to present the idea in a way that sold his entire fight with Zod. The military guy says that because he's a human about to crash his airplane and die in order to make the plan work. Jor-El clearly pointed out that use of the Phantom Drives would send them back the Phantom Zone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 07:28
|
|
|
Deadpool posted:The military guy says that because he's a human about to crash his airplane and die in order to make the plan work. Jor-El clearly pointed out that use of the Phantom Drives would send them back the Phantom Zone. Well, then that makes it even less sensible. They didn't confront the idea of Superman killing or not killing at all. Ending on that is completely unearned.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 07:29
|
|
|
S.J. posted:And he doesn't have perfect insight or answers, either, which seems pretty obvious. He's just trying to do the best he can, but he's flawed and scared and there's only so much he can do. This is how I the character came off to me as well. He wasn't intended to be like past portrayals but instead a scared, well-meaning father dealing with a troubled, adopted son. ImpAtom posted:There's not really any way to call his paranoia justified when he kills himself. The paranoia was justified from the perspective of the Kents when a woman freaks out and calls him a gift from God, and later as an adult, the military fires on him. Clark revealing his powers would change the whole world and risk him being taken away, and that scared his parents. I don't know, it just didn't bother me. I thought it felt realistic and relatable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 07:29
|
|
|
I've been a huge Superman fan since I was a kid, and this was definitely a homage to the way I perceive the character: as the ultimate human being, and not in terms of peak physical perfection but rather in terms of humility and simple morality. I loved it, personally. I got bored with all the explosions for a little while, but the first two-thirds of the movie were for me incredibly emotionally fulfilling. I can see why people wouldn't like it, particularly if they don't feel the same way about Superman that I do, but I had a big dopey grin on my face the whole time. That scene where he loving PUNCHES ZOD FOREVER for threatening MA KENT. That might've been my favorite. That's Superman, right there. Don't you gently caress with his mom.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 07:30
|
|
|
Hollis posted:Look guys I think we can all agree that the film is Of how unchecked masculinity can lead to the destruction of earth, that by rejecting our father figures and embracing our female self that we become a whole person. Superman ultimately is the first openly transgender Superhero. Superman is intended to be both the father and mother to a new race. He is the bridge between the feminine and the masculine. gently caress yeah, this is it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 07:32
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:I don't know how anyone could be inspired by Superman in this film. I kind of thought that was the point. He was kind of pathetic. He hadn't remotely grown into the person Jor-El was trying to force him to be. It's an interesting idea to present a Superman who is basically kind of sad and pitiable while being held up as someone who should be something more. I wouldnt call him pathetic, its more of like seeing someone having to deal with something really really heavy and you say "Man, I wouldnt want to be that guy" but because he is this god and has super powers, you simultaneously want to be him, but then see the kind of poo poo youd have to deal with in order to posses that responsibility and power. I guess if I were to define it, Superman in this world would be inspiring in the way that he made me reflect upon myself in a way where I found I was asking "Could I be Superman?" and then admiring the guy for having to kind of be this incredibly conflicted, dualistic, damaged God figure who, if they were "perfect" could be an actual benevolent God to these people but beause hes a living biological creature with emotions, he cant be perfect and his mistake have TREMENDOUS impacts on the world. I dont know if I could handle that. Isn't that why he kind of disappears every now and then in various comics? And I also find it interesting that he hasnt grown into the person Jor-El wanted, hes just starting that journey. Thats why I thought this idea of a flawed Superman worked thematically in context with his actions throughout the film. AccountSupervisor fucked around with this message at 07:38 on Jun 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 07:35
|
|
|
Seems like the government should be able to figure out who Superman is. I wonder if they could roll with the idea of Superman being Clark an open secret that nobody can do much about because he's basically a Greek God on Earth. Probably not what they're going do, but it would be an interesting departure. A more realistic setting where he's both loved and feared, a relationship much like the Greeks had with their Gods and Heroes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 07:38
|
|
|
I really hope they don't stick to Earth as the focus of the next superman movie. Bring in Apokolips and have him fight Darkseid. If you want to do a punch out brawl with a hero and a villain give us one that can seriously mess up Superman and pose a real threat.Charlz Guybon posted:Seems like the government should be able to figure out who Superman is. "I want them to be afraid of how much they love me"
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 07:39
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Well, then that makes it even less sensible. They didn't confront the idea of Superman killing or not killing at all. Ending on that is completely unearned. The singularity was originally planned as a bombing that would not involve a kamikaze attack, the plan was very clearly spelled out as something to send them back to the phantom zone, which is more or less stasis. Not sure what's unclear here but you need your basic plot details right before you get into this. This film deals more clearly with Superman's "no killing" albatross than most anything else I've seen or read.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 07:40
|
|
|
Rageaholic Monkey posted:This is pretty much exactly what I was thinking when I left the theater. Except Batman Begins was still better than this. I always had issues with Nolan's Batman films, and I honestly thought TDK was a hugely overrated film, with the hero taking a backseat to a scene-chewing, omnipotent character actor. In fact, the involvement of Nolan and Goyer were a couple of reasons I was kind of worried about this movie before I saw it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 07:45
|
|
|
AccountSupervisor posted:I wouldnt call him pathetic, its more of like seeing someone having to deal with something really really heavy and you say "Man, I wouldnt want to be that guy" but because he is this god and has super powers, you simultaneously want to be him, but then see the kind of poo poo youd have to deal with in order to posses that responsibility. I think being a comic reader may color my perception of this. One of my absolute favorite Superman stories is not, strictly, a Superman story. It's titled Superman: Secret Identity and covers the story a boy (jokingly named Clark Kent by his parents) who wakes up one day with Superman's powers and has to deal with that. It's an incredibly human story, dealing with people's mistrust of him, his concerns about trusting others, the horrible lengths people might go to if they discover his powers, and ultimately the reasons he goes through what he does. It is, to me, the ideal of a 'human' Superman story. Man of Steel, in comparison, feels to me like a very cynical story. It takes Jor-El and shows him as an amazing, idealistic, hopeful person who directly quotes All-Star Superman, but then shows that he was wrong about his son, or at least that his son has a ton of growing to do to live up to his father's excessive expectations. The bravest and most self-sacrificing people we see are human beings who, before they even know Superman exists, are willing to throw their lives away to protect people. Clark's adoptive father is a paranoid and shallow man who teaches Clark to fear others. The people who are his closest friends in the comics are... well, they still are, but in sad and kind of bitter ways. Pete Ross isn't a senator. He's an IHOP Manager. In MoS Jor-El represents the ideal of Superman and the film spends its time breaking it down. Superman talks about how the symbol on his chest means "hope." Lois points out that, no, on Earth it doesn't mean that. It's just an S. That's sort of the film in nutshell. Superman's symbol isn't a symbol of hope and inspiration. It's a mundane letter. It is a story that exists to break down the traditional Superman mythos. It goes out of its way to do it in fact. Lois discovers who Clark Kent is before he even joins the Planet. Superman kills Zod. (Which is comic-accurate but outside of public perception, most people view him as having a Batman-style no-kill rule.) Metropolis is massively destroyed by the fighting. The humans who do amazing things do so on their own, without mimicing Superman. Even small things, like Zod killing Jor-El long before Krypton is destroyed, exist to take the simple words that Grant Morrison used at the start of All-Star Superman and break them. God drat, Lex Luthor is going to be interesting in this universe. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 07:56 on Jun 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 07:48
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:
I definitely got that feeling when he was just hovering above the military when he was going to surrender. He looked down right scary in that moment, but in an awe inspiring/fear of the unknown way. The way they framed that scene through the perspective of the people on the ground gave it a terrifying quality similar to The Day the Earth Stood Still. Thats the same way I felt when the older version of the redhead bully sees Superman crash through his building and he looks at him and you can see a look of recognition on his face. Imagine the impact of that moment, realizing that this Superman, this alien God is Clark Kent, the dorky picked on kid you grew up with in Kansas. Little scenes and moments like that, where they framed the events of this film through the eyes of people on the ground were really fantastic and helped establish the realism the film strived for.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 07:54
|
|
|
AccountSupervisor posted:I definitely got that feeling when he was just hovering above the military when he was going to surrender. He looked down right scary in that moment, but in an awe inspiring/fear of the unknown way. The way they framed that scene through the perspective of the people on the ground gave it a terrifying quality similar to The Day the Earth Stood Still. Superman in this film is really terrifying. You don't want to be within a mile when he's going at it with somebody. I thought this was very good. Superman pitching someone through a series of skyscrapers wasn't "ultimate Superman power level!", it was Superman getting started.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 07:58
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:I think being a comic reader may color my perception of this. See, I liked all of this because as opposed to Superman inspiring us to be something that we are not but could be, he makes us realize what we are and should be. We are already capable of being these amazing creatures Jor-El says we can be and through the existence of Superman and the events that follow his arrival, some have come to exhibit and realize that. Its very much an allegory to 9/11 in that regard, but in a great way in that while this horrible tragedy happened and in turn caused a lot of awful awful things to be done by its victims, there was this moment during and after the events where you saw how selfless and great humans could act in the face of such horror. That was the entire point of the scene where Perry saves Jenny, I thought. AccountSupervisor fucked around with this message at 08:07 on Jun 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 08:00
|
|
|
One thing I realized after seeing this movie was that the colors of the suit didn't seem desaturated like I thought they were in the trailers and promo imagery, which was nice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 08:01
|
|
|
I'll say this short and sweet. The negative reviews actually made this better than I was expecting. The script is actually better at plotting than I thought it would be, but has real problems with pathos and getting the audience to give a poo poo beyond the superficial level of "hey it's Modern Age Superman, and he's mostly correct!". The problem lies in the editing and some of the direction, which led to some bad takes and poor pacing. More in-depth words to follow: First, the negative: The biggest problem with this movie is that it clearly builds off of an audience's expectation of Superman instead of acting as a movie that re-introduces and re-establishes Superman. For all its faults, which are many, Batman Begins was clearly made to function as a way to introduce Batman to someone who knew absolutely nothing about Batman. Man of Steel falls prey to so many shortcuts at pathos simply because we, as the audience, are expected to know Superman. These shortcuts include: * Why Jor-El and Lar-El can't come with Kal on their own ship is waved away as a weird matter of ego, and Kal-El doesn't even question it. * Killing Zod is a big deal because we know Superman isn't a violent man and "doesn't kill", even though we're never actually shown that Clark abhors violence/killing--we're only shown that Pa Kent taught him not to hit back when provoked. * We're supposed to care about Perry White and Jenny Olsen and Steve Lombard because we know who they are, or at most because they're clearly nice-ish people. * Metropolis is important because... it's where Superman ends up living--I mean if the goal was to freak Clark out about killing people in general they could have easily positioned the ships on co-ordinates where both ends would be on a city. * The suit is what Clark wears instead of something else because... it's what he wears as Superman... * Pa Kent dies because... well he dies in at least half of the version of Superman I've seen. I mean the script tries really hard to give it significance and I think I see what they were going for, but it fell flat on its face to me. Honestly I even loved the "Your not my real Dad" line as a bit of much-needed character for Clark, but the rest of the scene was easily my least favorite part of the whole movie. * We never see Clark having to talk about how he's first discovering he's different because we know from prior Superman knowledge that he was told to keep his powers secret. * The military agrees to trust Superman tenatively because we know they do in the comics. Superman literally just fucks over their attempts to keep an eye on him and says "I'm not a bad guy, but we play on my terms." Why the ever-loving gently caress doesn't the General rightly point out that if he insists on that he's every bit as much of a despot as Zod, just a beneveloent despot, and that trust/transparency needs to work both ways if Superman wants to share Earth with humanity. "I'm not saying we need to spy on you, but you can't expect us to let you act without any kind of oversight even if there isn't any way for us to enforce that oversight." "That's fair and that's true. You will need to trust me for the time being but I'll be in touch and we can work something out." See that? I just wrote that off the cuff of my sleeve and already we've got a juicy and quick conversation that'd reveal a lot about Superman's character and address this glaring issue that contributes to the notion that superhero movies are all pseudo-fascist power fantasy drivel. The second biggest problem, as has been discussed a lot, is that the overall theme of class, choice, and calling doesn't really work. Goyer makes a good attempt at making Pa Kent and Jor-El voices of philosophy but never actually makes Clark an active participant in the process of evaluating them beyond what we expect him to do. This is a huge flaw relative to Batman Begins, where Bruce goes through multiple clear stages of development before we finally see him mature into his Batman identity well over an hour into the flick. While it didn't bother me personally I can also see why the many exposition dump scenes would bother a reviewer. This however, may also be symptomatic of the huge problems of pacing and editing. I actually didn't have a problem with how the first act was structured on a macro level honestly, even if I don't think it was the best way to tell the story, but the way Snyder and his team would cut 'economically' at certain times to cut to the point of a scene in-between drawing out a bunch of special effects or set pieces way longer than necessary--like from Jor-El crash-landing his mount onto his home/lab to cutting right to him about to put Clark into the rocket--was noticeable. The scene of Clark having trouble controlling his senses was a powerful piece of Superman mythos that has cropped up a lot in the modern age, and while I loved Diane Lane's Ma Kent so much I felt that the pacing was just... really off and didn't give the scene the weight it needed to. Then at the end of the movie we have Clark kill Zod, and Lois comforts him, and then BAM MOTHERFUCKER HE'S FINE AGAIN AND HE'S KILLING US DRONES OOH-YEAH!. That was a loving terrible way to structure the denouement, and I know as much firsthand about editing as any shmuck you'd find on the street. Then of course there's the glaring problem of the third act where Superman and the Kryptonians just barrel through SO MUCH CIVILIAN TERRITORY. I mean I was trying. I really was. I was really looking for any rationale but in the end there just isn't one-- a fuckton of people died in that third act to senseless wanton destruction and it never gets addressed at all. AT ALL. I mean gently caress it, I could at least give it some leeway if they addressed it, but the way they don't is just so loving childish and upsetting, especially for a movie with aspirations to say something about the character of Superman. Oh sure the one life he willingly takes is a big deal for five seconds, but we never once even see how he reacts to all the collateral. When someone asks me why I don't like Zach Snyder as a director despite his clear and obvious talents and skills? poo poo. Like. This. Lastly there were some weird scenes where the acting was just really off, and I can only guess that was due to direction and not the actors because for every awkward line read there's a scene where that same actor just kills it. The big one for me was when Superman relays his plan to drop a Phantom Zone bomb into the ship. Henry Cavill is just doing this terrible Fleschier reels "BOMBASTIC AUTHORITY" voice and all I could think was "THAT was the best take you got out of this guy? He's already proven he's better than that." Even Christopher Reeve and Brandon Routh had a bit of this problem--it's like they just don't know how to act like field commanders so they come across like actors. To contrast this look at how Chris Evans kills it as Captain America in the Marvel movies-- you might not believe he's a god amongst mortals with a deep unearthly authoritative voice but he does convince you that he's a major voice of authority on the combat field-- I was always so pleased to see how Evans nails that aspect of the character and Superman shares it, so it was extra-disappointing to see Cavill stumble. Oh, and the bit where some random dickhead to Clark finds his truck impaled with phone poles felt like a bad scene from an early draft. Still much better than the equivalent "I've got to get me one of these" from Batman Begins. Now, the positive: The good news is that most of the actors kill it in their roles, and the naturalistic style of direction for the most part works the way most Superman fans knew it would. I was genuinely surprised how much I loved Russell Crowe. The sci-fi approach and elements were also definitely the right way to go, as Superman is a very sci-fi heavy hero and his films should take root in the form of those "first contact" stories. Any scene with Ma Kent was gold from start to finish, and while I thought the whole Jor-El uses a natural mount on Krypton because he's so natural and against the harsh engineering of Kryptonian culture theme was ham-fisted the overall presentation of Krypton was fantastic. The scenes with Zod calling out Kal-El on all screens, the priest, the schoolbus, Jor-El leading Lois Lane out of Zod's ship, and Clark exploring the Kyrptonian Scout Ship in the Arctic were all fantastic. Also the script was wise enough to recognize that both Smallville and Lois would instantly see through Clark's attempts to disguise himself. That was refreshing. I know that having this section seems so short means like I don't have much praise to give the movie, but honestly the amount of praise density per word here is thick. I mean really thick. I really have a lot of respect and admiration for what this movie gets right, even with all that it gets wrong. In fact it's only because there's so much it does amazing that I'm so disappointed in the rest. Lastly, things that seemed to bother goons/critics but didn't bother me and I'm a big honking Superman fan, so take such criticisms you see with a grain of salt: * Superman killing Zod * Superman riding up a gravity beam to defeat the terraforming machine. * The Birthing Cortex and Superman destroying the Genesis ship. * Lois and Clark's relationship * Lois' relevance to the plot * "He saved us." * Jenny Olsen * The action sequences being too prominent *The product placement, although IHOP needed to back the gently caress off after a while mind the walrus fucked around with this message at 08:11 on Jun 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 08:03
|
|
|
AccountSupervisor posted:See, I liked all of this because as opposed to Superman inspiring us to be something that we are not but could be, he makes us realize what we are and should be. Yeah, but as I said, the point of the film is that he doesn't do that. The people we see inspired during the 9/11-imagery are people who have never met Superman, and have never seen him aside from maybe briefly on television after his arrest. He didn't inspire anyone. These people are great because that is who they already are. The military is willing to take on godlike beings because it is what they do. (Kind of oo-rah but so it goes.) Even when down to just a knife, they don't give up and don't flinch. Lois Lane is a prize-winning journalist and not even a God can keep his secrets from her. All these people are amazing before the existence of Superman. He has no impact on their bravery or their courage or their greatness. mind the walrus posted:
This is also part of the Mythos-breaking, thinking about it. Perry is a black man and Jimmy is a woman. That was unexpected and cool. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 08:08 on Jun 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 08:05
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Yeah, but as I said, the point of the film is that he doesn't do that. The people we see inspired during the 9/11-imagery are people who have never met Superman, and have never seen him aside from maybe briefly on television after his arrest. He didn't inspire anyone. These people are great because that is who they already are. The military is willing to take on godlike beings because it is what they do. (Kind of oo-rah but so it goes.) Even when down to just a knife, they don't give up and don't flinch. Lois Lane is a prize-winning journalist and not even a God can keep his secrets from her. All these people are amazing before the existence of Superman. He has no impact on their bravery or their courage or their greatness.] This is exactly what Im saying though.... Im not saying Superman has to have any direct face to face moment with these people. Plus you are forgetting there are very deliberate lines from Perry when he first reads the story and then later begins to believe it that established his connection to this Superman. I thought they clearly established some kind of panicked awe in his character when he realized what was going on during the cities destruction and his sort of acceptance of the situation led to him exhibit his heroism. Same with Christopher Melonis character, the Smallville fight was in fact a direct interaction with Superman that later reminded him to be brave and selfless. Superman didnt create that bravery, he just gave it a context to exist. Thats what I find so fascinating about this take on the mythos. It was not 100% the direct actions of Superman that led to these people exhibiting selfless qualities, it was literally just the circumstances of his existence and arrival into this world. His presence is God like in that hes almost a force of nature, it is simultaneously a source of immense life saving power but also immense destructive power. Only this is a person, just like us, with feelings just like ours and so we can for a moment imagine what it might be like to be a God....and its pretty scary. AccountSupervisor fucked around with this message at 08:20 on Jun 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 08:17
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Yeah, but as I said, the point of the film is that he doesn't do that. The people we see inspired during the 9/11-imagery are people who have never met Superman, and have never seen him aside from maybe briefly on television after his arrest. He didn't inspire anyone. These people are great because that is who they already are. The military is willing to take on godlike beings because it is what they do. (Kind of oo-rah but so it goes.) Even when down to just a knife, they don't give up and don't flinch. Lois Lane is a prize-winning journalist and not even a God can keep his secrets from her. All these people are amazing before the existence of Superman. He has no impact on their bravery or their courage or their greatness. I would have liked to have seen all the stuff on Krypton cut because everyone going to see a Superman movie knows he came to Earth from Krypton, you don't have to show it for 20 minutes, plus trim the flashbacks and the jobbing across America scenes and flesh out the Daily Planet crew. In all versions of Superman they are really emphasized and given a distinct voice and feel to them. It felt like it was a check box for "things this movie must include" that they paid lip service to initially but wrote themselves into a corner and were forced to give them meaningless screen time staring at disasters and running from them, then stoically trying to save female intern. The military commanders guy from Law and Order SVU and guy from Dollhouse were more memorable, and I wouldn't have remembered the name of Laurence Fishburn's character if it wasn't the same person who's overseen Lois Lane for 75+ years. However the movie did explain exactly what they thought of the audience at one point. Scientist: Oh my god, they're terraforming the planet. Military female: What's terraforming? Scientist: *explains terraforming. Even though Jor-El already showed Clark the tripods were used to make worlds 'suitable' for Kryptonians some people might have been confused and need a literal explanation. Again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 08:21
|
|
|
Man of Steel. Summer blockbuster of the year. Beats out Iron Man 3 and Star Trek 2 by miles. Academy award contender too. An excellent movie only slightly marred by some odd editing and pacing issues. The resulting product however is still a fantastic film that not only made me feel elated and joyful but also made me think. Zack Synder pulls another magic movie out of his fabulous hat. Lets hope the inevitable sequel is more like Watchman and 300, rather than another Sucker Punch. I am sad that ultimately Superman punched away his problems as I always feel that is when his stories are at his weakest, but the moral quandary at the near end of the movie made up for that. Also, Bruce Willis as Luthor in the sequel. Make it happen Hollywood.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 08:31
|
|
|
Also, I've seen it mentioned a bunch of times. But Rebecca Butler's character in this movie is not Jenny Olson. It's Jenny Jurwich.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 08:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 22:36 |
|
|
gohmak posted:In the last scene, is it implied that Zod did killed the family? If it is then it changes the superman's source of greif from having to kill to failing to save. No, he performed a magic neck snap that miraculously didnt move Zod's neck even 3 degrees in the direction of the family. Since we should be caring about this random family instead of the hundreds to thousands who died because of the senseless punching-in-pajamas philosophizing parade through Metropolis.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 08:43
|
|