|
What's Idris Elba up to? He could play a super-serious man with one crazy button (Superman).
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2013 23:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 23:38 |
|
|
Boy people sure are divided on this movie  I really loved it. Taking the very basics of the Superman mythology and planting it firmly in the modern era, instead of taking all of the poo poo surrounding Superman that makes him so antiquated. I loved that unlike most of the other movies in this genre, the world we were set in was ours, no extra scientific advances, no humans creating things that are impossible, simply an alien being launched into our world, forced to hide himself away until he and humankind were ready for each other. Kal-El was the first child born naturally in the Kryptonian civilization in centuries, which means that, unlike everyone else, he was a blank slate, could grow up to be anything. I'm sure on Krypton, that meant he could have been a soldier, or a scientist, or other various alien-professions, but because he was launched to earth as a baby, it meant that he grew up to be a human. A movie that focuses not on the Super of Superman, but the Man. His parents instilled in him focus, patience, and a desire to do the right thing, and perhaps these things were in him at birth as well, but the combination of his birth parents and his adoptive parents led him to be a good man who does good things, accepting no credit, simply the knowledge that he helped people. If he sees an oil tanker on fire, ready to explode, he goes and saves the people aboard. If he sees a friend being harassed, he goes over to stop it. He's not perfect, he causes property damage, he acts out against his parents ("You're not my real parents!"), but he is a man, he makes mistakes. When you extrapolate that to putting the entire world's fate on his shoulders, that means that costly mistakes will be made. [spoilers]Could he have dragged Zod away from Metropolis? Possibly, but odds are Zod would go back. He was intent on hurting Clark as much as possible, and that meant keeping the fight near people who could be hurt. Could he have found a way to take care of Zod that didn't involve killing? Again, possibly, but he's a man.[/spoiler] He makes mistakes. He spent his life up until that point not knowing who or what he was. He knew he was from elsewhere, that he was different, and that divided him for so long, but the events of the movie, learning who he was and where he came from cleared his path. This movie wasn't about Clark Kent becoming Superman, it was about Clark Kent becoming Clark Kent. This movie did a better job humanizing Superman than 99.9% of media involving the character, and it's sad that people don't want to see him humanized. "But he kills! But all that collateral damage he caused! It's just Not Superman!" But no one explains why beyond "Because that's how he's always been written", not allowing for the idea that people could take the character and write him differently. I mean, there's a reason this movie is called Man of Steel, beyond the fact that it's been a nickname for Superman for years; it puts the Man first.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2013 01:49
|
|
|
Yannick_B posted:"Because that's how he's always been written" is a pretty rock solid argument--the way a character is portrayed is what forms the character; the way he's constructed, he helps and protect people. And you get in the way of that if you throw your enemies in the building. But who is to say that people died? We didn't see people die, and in all of the shots where we see inside of the buildings, there's no one in there. We see people die when the big scary machine is brought out and running, but by the time Superman starts to wail on Zod, I think he's just smashing through walls, because that's gonna incapacitate him quicker. Supes has X-Ray vision and knows how to use it, it's very possible that he smashed Zod through buildings where he knew people weren't, because the other option is wait for Zod to find buildings where people are. There are a million simple little things one could think up to explain away any loss of life in that fight, and just because the movie doesn't pick one or reveal one, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It's immaterial to think about the loss of human life, because at that point, the damage was done by the World-Maker. There's a reason we didn't see Superman saving any people, and it's because Superman saving people wasn't important, Superman combating Zod was. Superman saved people in the first half of the movie, we know he's a good person. For all we know, immediately after the scene cut away, he went out and rounded up every single person and made sure they were safe. Or maybe he found a baby and ate it's guts. We don't see either of those things, because at that point, what we were supposed to see was Superman beating down the last remnant of Krypton and fully exerting his humanity by standing with mankind.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2013 02:38
|
|
|
Yannick_B posted:You are doing an extreme amount of extrapolation--I would argue that the movie is too focused on giving us a big spectacle rather than thinking about the images its using and its why we're having this discussion. Your exemple about Superman choosing the right building to knock Zod into with his xray vision, do you have any idea how much I would've loved to actually see that in the movie? Its what that battle needed to have. I mean yeah, people obviously died, but like I said the giant alien machine is what does most of that. Superman and Zod are fighting in the ruins of a defeated city for the most part, until they take it away from the crater to buildings that are still standing, and even then, if an event like that happens, people are gonna get toward solid earth pretty drat fast. The tops of buildings are probably pretty drat empty at that point, and from what little we see of them, they are. And even then, yeah, Superman might have caused a few civilian deaths through collateral damage. Again, he's a person, these things happen when you have powers and responsibility like that. It's part of the point of the whole movie.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2013 03:15
|
|
|
Well yeah.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2013 06:27
|
|
|
Toady posted:I thought the church scene made him seem human and relatable. I find the image of a powerful superhero humbly asking a priest for advice striking. Again, it just solidifies Clark as a real person, who isn't above asking someone for advice. I think more people have a problem with the framing of him as a parallel of Jesus in the scene. Which I get, I think the movie probably would have been just fine without the Christ stuff, but I wouldn't be 100% surprised if that was a DC mandate, considering they actively sold sermons/church service plans about Superman over the weekend to pastors who are too lazy to figure out a good Christ/Moses/God metaphor on their own.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2013 16:29
|
|
|
Dolphin posted:It only makes sense from a Christian perspective. Like how Christians view Judaism as a prequel to Christianity, while Jews don't. Again, I'm not arguing with the fact that Christian writers have used Superman for Christian allegories in the past at all, just that it wasn't appropriate for the contemporary blockbuster movie with the immensely diverse target demographic. It was an oddly specific choice that didn't need to be made, and which serves no purpose other than satisfying the Christian demographic. Not necessarily. Even if people who aren't Christian don't believe that Christ is a savior/all-powerful being/guy who existed, Christ is pretty good short-hand for "this dude is powerful and morally pretty good overall". A lot more people know the story of Christ than believe it, and something so widely known is obviously going to have some impact on the audience. It's not just something thrown in to satisfy the Christian demo, it's used as a storytelling device.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2013 16:57
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:The Kryptonians would also present the problem that they possess a clearly-established technological history that's older than what some believe to be the 6,000 year age of the universe, though the priest in the movie wouldn't have been aware of that. Based solely on what the priest was wearing, I think he was Catholic, and by and large the whole 6,000 years old thing is mostly a protestant thing, particularly some of the more conservative churches.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2013 20:43
|
|
|
JediTalentAgent posted:One thing that sort of struck me is how disinterested the Kryptonian criminals were in any sort of sexual, romantic or loving expression or feelings for the most part, for lack of a better term I can come up with. The closest thing I can see to that sort of moment were whichever (Zod?) picked up Faora after the Smallville fight seemed to be shot in a way that felt almost loving concern for her and the look she gave Kal. Other than that, there I didn't hear/see usual badguy cornering the heroine, and trying to present or impose himself as the alpha male compared to the hero to her or make a trophy of her, or surrounding himself with a female accomplice who is there to look pretty and sexy and flirt with, or even having a confidant within his own organization that they imply are more than just coworkers. That's not what they were made for. In Krypton, everyone is pretty much programmed from creation, and creation happens without actual child-birth, so I'd imagine that in general Kryptonian views on love and relationships are pretty hosed up, particularly from a branch designed to fight.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2013 22:08
|
|
|
Burkion posted:They might be, if not asexual, then celibate considering Zod's reaction to Jor-El doing the nasty. I don't think that was entirely due to him doing the act, but more going against the tradition of the culture for hundreds of years. Zod's primary directive is to protect Krypton, and by and large, Kryptonians thing that genetic engineering is the way to best serve their culture, so Jor-El is basically admitting to Zod that he did something not parsed by Zod to be in Krypton's best interest.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2013 22:14
|
|
|
JediTalentAgent posted:And I get that, I'm just really surprised that the film went as far as not going down that path at all. I dunno if Lara and Jor-El are even married, and they certainly are the only ones who have that sort of relationship.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2013 22:29
|
|
|
Rageaholic Monkey posted:If by "makes some people feel uncomfortable" he means "makes some people feel like that was a terrible loving way to end a Superman movie", then yeah, I guess he accomplished what he set out to do They say that because they feel uncomfortable with what Superman did.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2013 16:19
|
|
|
Burkion posted:I see nothing wrong with Superman adopting a polar bear and naming it Krypto. Krypto is a dog, that's his character. I'm sure the polar bear would be very good, but it just wouldn't be Krypto. If they called it something else I'd probably like it more. Krypto just wouldn't be a bear, that's not how he's written. blah blah blah Mark Waid
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2013 20:12
|
|
|
Semper Fudge posted:So I actually read a very interesting analysis of Man of Steel as a dramatization of Plato's The Republic on 4chan of all places. It holds up pretty well. The worst person in that thread: "They should have made it an adaptation to Superman instead". gently caress that guy.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2013 03:17
|
|
|
Baldbeard posted:Even if you knew there was a great chance of dying, and your wife and kid need you? The act of dying and saving the dog have nothing to do with each other. He didn't sacrifice his life to save the dog, he sacrificed his life and saved the dog.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2013 22:26
|
|
|
Basically, Pa Kent's death is confusing and goofy to us because it's just as confusing and goofy to Clark. It's certainly a lesson he took to heart because that's the last thing he saw from his father. Instead of going "character is acting irrationally, I wouldn't do that/a 'normal person' wouldn't do that", maybe consider that people are almost entirely irrational creatures, and that not knowing why a character did something might just be the point, or at least intended.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2013 22:33
|
|
|
If I may, for a brief second, talk about the religious imagery of the movie: (aka. "WE GET IT HES JESUS") Much has been said about the Jesus parallel the movie draws to Superman, but it's almost entirely been taken for granted, as if the whole point of the movie is just "hey superman is kinda like jesus isn't that cool?", when really, Man of Steel approaches something of a Last Temptation of Christ for the nerd set. Of course, the parallels between the two are obvious, and about as much as been said about it as has been said about the gay subtext of Batman and Robin's relationship, but Man of Steel is one of the few Superman pieces that actually takes that comparison at face value, and it actually encompasses the entirety of the text of the New Testament, right down to Revelations. The first half of this movie is the early life of Christ/Clark, doing good works, being confused about his gifts/his place in the world, a confused father attempting to do the best he can raising a son who is clearly far beyond the understanding of mere mortals, a loving mother, and then Clark leaving and simply going around, doing good deeds. He doesn't preach like Christ, rather keeping a low profile, and obviously his existence is not supernatural in nature but alien, but still, you have the most Christ-like Superman by a long-shot in the first half, which makes the second half with a confident, calm, borderline ethereal Superman all the more confusing, until you consider that Zod taking Clark above on his ship and offering him a chance to start his life over and be with his (actual) father again is essentially Lucifer (a fallen "angel", cast out of Krypton for defying the higher powers because he believed he was right) tempting Superman, but instead of tempting him with the possibility of living out his life as a man, as in Last Temptation, he's tempted to reject humanity and live in a god-land with the people of his heritage. He rejects this, seeing the true cost of that choice, and literally returns from earth (his ascension), and, because this is a movie that has to end eventually (cue joke about runtime here), the actual Revelations happen almost immediately. So the final third is Clark/Superman's return and the Revelations, and thus, an explanation for why the final third of the movie was so focused on the destruction. After all, have you read Revelations? hosed up stuff. Quite frankly, Metropolis got off easy compared to the literal apocalypse that they should have gotten. The destruction, the death, those are things that happen when Satan comes to earth in his final attempt to destroy it and turn it into hell on earth. Not much else to be said, except that The epilogue scenes, then, are not mournful because yes, there was destruction, there was death, people lost a lot, but the ultimate gain was a savior here, on Earth, able to save people in a moments notice.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2013 05:38
|
|
|
Yannick_B posted:I can't wait for a Superman movie that leaves the christ imagery and destiny stuff behind. I feel what was once a flavor is now overtaking the whole meal. I'd like more of a Clark Kent who becomes Superman out of choice with less of a guided destiny. So... Batman?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2013 05:51
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:I appreciate your effort to analyze the religious parallels instead of just taking them for granted, but as far as I remember neither of these two paragraphs are really accurate to the New Testament stories you're referring to. Again IIRC, at no point is Jesus said to be confused about his gifts or place in the world. That and Revelation is less about Satan trying to destroy Earth and more about God himself judging and destroying Earth in order to build a new kingdom of heaven. Well the former part is more in line with the Last Temptation thing. There's almost entirely nothing about Jesus' youth in the bible proper, but in the effort to make a more human messiah figure, it's pretty in line. Revelations is mostly allegory about God protecting his people from Satan (or an invading Roman army). Most of the real-world meaning/knowledge I have about Revelations is limited to what I learned in the (really awesome) Ask/Tell thread about the Bible, but it's very much about God protecting his people from Satan (the judgement stuff comes toward the end, hence your verse coming from toward the end of the book). Of course, there are plenty of liberties taken in the movie and in my analysis, and I'd need to do a lot more reading to really delve into this, but this particular Superman hews much closer to the religious pedigree than most do. Also, because it seems like something that should be said, the idea that the filmmakers are "ashamed" of making a Superman movie is just silly. The reason the movie is called Man of Steel is because the Superman in this movie is much more Man than Super. The movie takes great pains to show us just how human Clark is, to show why he protects in the end. He's a man, so the loss of life and damage done in the end is understandable (should be, theoretically, if you don't take into account Comic Book Superman, who you might argue the. movie is ashamed of, because seriously, 90% of that poo poo is awful).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2013 06:14
|
|
|
Remember that there is still a giant red S symbol on our protagonist's chest. And that there was an almost 10-year TV show that didn't have the suit, or the name, or the flying, which is much, much more in line with "ashamed of making Superman" than "they don't call him Superman enough".
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2013 06:48
|
|
|
Yes, how silly of them to take Superman and twist him into the story of a child sent away from a dying planet to Earth where he is gifted with superpowers because of the atmosphere of the planet where he meets a plucky reporter and finds people also from his now dead planet who want to turn earth into a new version of that planet so he puts on a suit with a big drat S on it and punches the gently caress out of said other people and uses heat vision and... Like, I don't understand what you want, aside from an awkward, cheesy, shoehorned in moment where they call him Superman and then he curls his hair and puts on a pair of bright red briefs before flying off to the Fortress of Solitude while a cackling Lex Luthor says "I'll get you next time, SUPERMAN!!!".
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2013 07:04
|
|
|
Yannick_B posted:Looks like the S on YOUR chest stands for Strawman! The Earth isn't worse off because he landed, because now they have Superman! A whole bunch of people died, a whole bunch of damage, sure, but again, Superman doesn't just gently caress off and say "welp, job done", he's sticking around! He's gonna save people! He's gonna do exactly what he was doing before, except on a bigger scale. Like, I'm sure if you asked the fictional families of the people who died in the Metropolis attack, the world would be better off had he not landed, but what about the parents of the children in that school bus he saved? Or the families of the people working on that exploded oil rig that he got to safety? Human life lost isn't a numbers game. All human life lost is bad, and more is bad, yes, but you can't judge number of lives lost vs. number of lives that he can/will/has saved, because the second number isn't measurable. edit: I have no idea what people are talking about with the whole "the world would be better off had he not landed", because Superman didn't have a choice to be sent to Earth, he was a baby. Babies get sent to wherever the gently caress their parents send them, Clark is simply making the best of his situation. Arguing that "the world would be better off if X was never born" leads down a horribly slippery slope, because then you're arguing people's right to live and that gets real creepy real fast. Yoshifan823 fucked around with this message at 07:53 on Nov 24, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2013 07:49
|
|
|
Yannick_B posted:My initial point is that MOS is a movie made by people who are sort of ashamed of their source material and they're so shy about it they don't even name the guy in their movie. Their avoiding the name is just a symptom of how they deal with the character. Tony Stark claiming he's Iron Man, Kirk sitting on the Enterprise with his crew or James Bond introducing himself as "Bond, James Bond" is the end of a journey, a marker to tell the audience that the character is in a place they recognize. Where is that moment in Man Of Steel? I mean, Clark Kent shows up at the Daily Planet, but that thing is so not earned, it looks like it's from another movie. Maybe the filmmakers (apparently wrongly) assumed that you'd figure out that this guy is Superman by the cape and the suit and the two-and-a-half hours of movie you watched (where they use the name multiple times), without having to put in a stupid coda where he calls himself Superman because apparently he can't actually be Superman if he doesn't have that moment. Like straight up, I have no idea why this name thing is so important. A Kent by any other name will still save people.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2013 00:24
|
|
|
redshirt posted:Plus, this movie - unlike others - really emphasized the alien aspect to Superman, because that's what he is: An alien. How the world would respond to such a being is a major source of drama for the entire story, and MoS focused on this. Which I liked very much, but I get that others did not. Interestingly, I really liked Man of Steel because it portrayed Superman as something that a whole lot of media featuring the character takes for granted: That he's still a man. Physiologically he's a Kryptonian, but in this movie far more than most of the comics/other movies/shows/whatever, this is a Superman who is allowed to make mistakes. He grew up raised human, the only thing he knew was different was his powers, and the origins of those were unknown until his dad showed him the spaceship, so he was raised as a human, and is allowed human feelings and actions. The only act of actual destruction that he engages in (rather than getting his rear end thrown around, which I'll get to in a second) is when his mother is threatened. He has the moment of weakness where he fucks up that guy's truck. And all throughout the fight scenes, there's one thing that is a constant, and that's that Superman is far, far out of his league. His only advantage in the Smallville fight was being able to control the abilities that Earth's atmosphere gives him, and once that's taken away, and it's just him and Zod beating the holy loving poo poo out of each other, Superman is at a clear disadvantage. This isn't the God-Man Superman that is in All-Star Superman, or the well-trained Superman of the Reeves movies, this is Superman at his rebirth as a savior, complete with the trials it entails.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2013 17:14
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:I feel like you're being sarcastic but what you're saying is actually true. It is a shame the movie never addressed that. The sarcasm is because he did literally lock himself in a broom closet in like, the first half-hour.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2013 00:39
|
|
|
If you take someone who has literally never been in a fight before, superhuman powers or otherwise, they're gonna get pushed around in a fight, especially with someone equally as powerful, who has the advantage of being a born and bred soldier. Superman got pushed around in that fight by Zod, he never set out to cause any damage to the city.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2013 02:02
|
|
|
Darko posted:Also, Superman specifically saved people (soldiers) multiple times in the Smallville fight, and got knocked around every time he did so in response, with more destruction being caused. Focusing specifically on Zod was actually the "right move" in the final fight. It's like what SMG posted early which is the most succinct way of putting the "problem" of Superman not saving anyone into perspective: SuperMechagodzilla posted:The message is still about humility in that sense; Superman is fallible. But there's a more important sense: when Metropolis is threatened, Superman flies away, intentionally disregarding the big, obvious problems to target their source. The straightforward analogy is that stopping exploitation and oppression in India will prevent the next 9/11. Simply blowing up the 'terrorists', or promoting tolerance, or whatever, will solve nothing.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2013 20:16
|
|
|
Baron Bifford posted:The scene was very chaotic. There was poor visibility to due all the dust and debris flying, plus people were distracted looking left and right. Clark could have easily saved the day, and dismissed any witness who claimed to see anything unusual. Baron Bifford posted:Here's a better analysis: David Goyer is a hack who doesn't think things through hard enough. Baron Bifford posted:Nooo... the terraforming machine is just a plot device to allow Superman to save the world. What is a superhero movie if the hero doesn't have to save the world? What is a supervillian if all he wants is a database? Without this element, Zod would only have been interested in getting the codex from Kal-El. The world would not have been in jeopardy if Zod said "ok, we'll just gently caress off and terraform some uninhabited planet once we've killed Kal." You're assuming that you're smarter than the people making the movie. Stop that.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
Baron Bifford posted:But that's what everybody else in this thread is doing! No, everyone else is treating the movie and the people who made it as if they're filmmakers who know what they're doing. When you see something in a movie you don't like, the correct response isn't "this is dumb here's how they should have done it", it should be "why did they do it that way?" The answer is pretty much never "because they're dumb and suck".
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:You're assuming that the people making the movie are smart, and that's a bias in and of itself. All other things being equal, the intelligence of the film ought to speak for itself. A logical process would be "The film seems smart, therefore its creators must be smart," not "The creators must be smart, therefor the film seems smart." No, I'm assuming that they know what they're doing. As I've said, the people who are making the movie are making all of these choices, and they aren't just spur of the moment things, they put actual thought into them. The idea isn't to just assume that they're wrong because they don't make sense to you, the idea is to figure out why they were made in the first place. That's where actual thought about a movie comes from: "Why was this choice made?"
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
ChaosSamusX posted:I really felt the movie dropped the ball with the character of General Zod. He shows up at the beginning of the movie as someone who can relate to the protagonists of the film and holds somewhat similar goals, but doesn't share their ethics. I thought this set the stage for a pretty decent narrative - the antagonist (who is willing to make any ethical sacrifice to ensure the success of their people) is a foil to the protagonist (Superman as well as Jor-El) who is primarily defined by their principles. 1. Zod's "not a day goes by" quote isn't one of regret, because I'm sure given the chance he'd kill Jor-El again. He says that to attempt to get Kal-El on his side before having to just gently caress his poo poo up the old fashioned way. 2. Superman never really does the tackling through buildings, Zod is the aggressor throughout that entire battle.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
The Walking Dad posted:This I can agree with and understand. But just like Japan created Godzilla as a way to recount and understand their feelings about the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there is something more to this than just making buildings tumble and fall over for fun. It's a matter of scale. Movies now, thanks to technology, are able to create a larger environment without actually making it, so they can do things like giant buildings falling and being blown up. Jurassic Park, Jaws, Indiana Jones, all of those are small beans compared to something like Transformers or Man of Steel. We're now at a point in computer graphics where we're able to really create images that match the honest to god live poo poo that people saw on 9/11. Movies are reaching the point where they can make some of the destruction that books or comics have only been able to depict in words and images real. It's a kind of uncanny valley, except instead of realistic looking fake humans, it's realistic looking fake destruction, and I imagine just like the uncanny valley, people have different levels of being able to deal with the fake destruction we're capable of. edit: And who's to say a Superman or Transformers movie couldn't be our Godzilla? Aside from, you know, the viewing public. The destruction in those movies is supposed to draw a reaction from you. People don't like seeing this destruction from their entertainment, but you have plenty of movies with equally massive stakes, where instead of showing bloodless destruction, they bypass the results completely and just show the heroes celebrating their victory. All massive battle scenes, especially ones where poo poo explodes, ships crash, walls crumble, villains use their massive weapons, etc., those are gonna have consequences, and it might just be that people don't like to see those consequences. edit2: This has less to do with the quoted post, but I really don't want to double dip I feel like, at some point, it stopped being OK for our characters to change. Superman was created drat near 100 years ago, and a lot has changed since then. Man of Steel feels like an attempt to make a Superman that would be created in 2013, as opposed to giving us a movie starring the Superman that John Byrne created back in the early 80's, which is pretty much when Superman largely stopped evolving. I mean, the character started off unable to fly, without heat vision, merely super strong and essentially an enhanced human. And there was a long period where Superman could have whatever power the writer that month wanted him to have (which is mostly where the Christopher Reeve Superman hails from). And at some point, it stopped being OK to mold the character to fit what he should/can be. The Superman that Man of Steel gives us is not the utterly invincible one from the comics, the Superman who would have saved every person on 9/11 and still had enough time to stop a bank robbery back in Metropolis that afternoon, because that Superman doesn't fit in the world that Zack Snyder has in mind. This is a Superman for a world that did go through a 9/11. No hero, no matter how powerful or alien, is perfect. It's a humanizing element that Man of Steel really has in spades. In this movie, Superman isn't someone you wish you could be, he's someone you aspire to be. People get angry when he didn't save every person in those destroyed buildings, or didn't pull Zod away from the populated areas, because he couldn't. Same as our heroes that exist in our world couldn't save every person on 9/11, can't stop every murder or violent crime from happening. But at the same time, his actions all throughout the movie show that he is a good person, and for every person he didn't save in the fight against Zod, he saved at least 10 simply by destroying the giant world ender thing. The Superman that "always finds another way" is much more out of place now than he was back in the 80s. Sometimes, as hard as it is to admit it, there's not another way. It sucks, obviously, but it's only cynicism if you let that get you down. The reason the movie ends with Superman cracking wise and entering our world is the movie's stab at optimism. Yes, you just saw a lot of death and destruction. Powerful images, horrible images, but the ultimate ending of the whole story is the most optimistic one of all: Now we have Superman, and with that, we have a brighter future. Yoshifan823 fucked around with this message at 09:33 on Feb 18, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2014 09:09
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:The Avengers is bad because it's a movie equivalent of a comic book.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
Snak posted:Counterpoint: The Avengers is good because it is the movie equivalent of a comic book. Which is it's purpose. What it was made to be. How many thing are not what they were made to be? How many things will never be what they were made to be? Look upon The Avengers and see that it is a vision made manifest. Warts and all. You're right. Avengers is right up there with nuclear bombs and ipecac in terms of craftsmanship. Bow before The Avengers.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
Zodiac5000 posted:The point being that hiding behind the veneer of a revolutionary is not a 'true' revolutionary. At what point does Bane actually do anything besides talk about the oncoming revolution? If I start talking about how I will hand the means of production to the people and redistribute wealth and so on and so forth while doing none of that and planning to blow up the city, am I a true revolutionary or just an rear end in a top hat? Blew up Gotham Wall Street, locked the police underground, sent Batman packing...
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:So I rewatched this movie with some friends last night, and they came up with some interesting points. I thought I'd pitch them to the thread, interested in your answers although I have some of my own: 1. Self-Defense. People on Krypton still have an imperative to keep themselves alive. 2. So he can rebuild Krypton on a new world, where (presumably) the same poo poo won't happen again. 3. No he didn't? 4. Sense of counterbalance and weight when compared to other comic book movies. Sets the tone rather well. 5. That's not a question, also, it's a movie, jesus christ. 6: Fear tactic. 7. Did they watch a different movie? I think flying halfway across the world to destroy the world-engine in India is a pretty Superman thing to do. 8. Their vomit after a night of apparently really, really heavy drinking.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
I'd love it if Wayne and Luthor were rival conglomerates, with Batman being both a vigilante and corporate terrorist who goes out of his way to gently caress with Luthor's tech on the down-low. Luthor is looking for an advantage he can exploit to get the upper hand on Wayne, and finds it in the destruction that happened in "his city", and gets a whole bunch of government contracts, making his poo poo untouchable by Batman/Wayne. Having Wayne/Batman and Luthor stand in for the giant corporations that exist in the world today, and Superman as the idealized form of "the American People", an entity not controlled simply by making the most money, would be an interesting dynamic. Batman is gonna come into the light by the end of the movie, but it would be cool to see Batman not as his "I have rules" form that existed in the Nolan movies, but as a more unscrupulous vigilante, like an actual privatized police force would be. No matter what happens, the dynamic between Snyder's Superman, Older Batman, and Lex "Zuckerberg" Luthor is gonna be fun to watch.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
Baron Bifford posted:Oh yeah, I supppose Brandon Routh and Dean Cain too. But in the comics they like to draw him nice and buff. Who the gently caress remembers Dean Cain first?
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
yessssssssssssssss edit: Can I post these quotes on my Facebook or should I just keep them here in our secret little Goony Hidey Hole? I'm friends with a contingent of people who hate literally every little bit of news about this movie, and I think this would send them over the edge. Yoshifan823 fucked around with this message at 01:37 on Jun 17, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2014 01:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 23:38 |
|
|
Darko posted:Keep them here for now. I don't want to make the set TOO locked down, yet. This is exactly what I want to hear. Lex Luthor by way of Mark Zuckerberg. Now I just need to know if he loses his hair because of Superman. I'm so loving hyped for this movie.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2014 04:41
|
|