casa de mi padre posted:

I thought this would be stupid as gently caress based on Superman in handcuffs but this one bit in the trailer really made me feel like the movie might actually tackle some weighty issues.

Clark: So I should've just let them die?
Pa Kent: Maybe so.

And if nothing else it looks like it will have some superb visuals, so even if it's a lovely take on Superman it won't be a total loss.

GazChap posted:

Surely that would only last until such time as they demonstrated their awesome powers, though?

HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:

It's a Jim Lee thing, yeah. It's part of what makes him a bad artist.

SuperMechagodzilla posted:

The trouble is that people consistently avoid the idea that Superman is a metaphorical character. Why does his suit not burn up? Because he's a loving cartoon - the impossible ideal self that the Clark Kents of the world wish they could be.

Superman operates according to dream logic, or cartoon logic, or whatever you want to call it. What's bullshit is when people come up with these pseudo-scientific explanations for this stuff, like he has a quantum-particle midichlorian aura that keeps his suit laundry-fresh. Everyone should just say "how can he do that? it's impossible" and leave it at that.

Superman's 'one weakness' is kryptonite, but what good films like Superman Returns understood is that kryptonite is just a metaphor for nihilism. Keep in mind that it's radioactive, and first appeared in comics around 1949 - not long after Hiroshima, in other words. Superman's weakness, given that he is a cartoon, is the blunt horror of reality. He's like Tinkerbell in the sense that he can only live if you clap your hands and believe in him 'irrationally' - and it's cynical disbelief that defeats him. Superman isn't powered by midichlorians - kryptonite is.

SuperMechagodzilla posted:

Superman's 'one weakness' is kryptonite, but what good films like Superman Returns understood is that kryptonite is just a metaphor for nihilism. Keep in mind that it's radioactive, and first appeared in comics around 1949 - not long after Hiroshima, in other words. Superman's weakness, given that he is a cartoon, is the blunt horror of reality. He's like Tinkerbell in the sense that he can only live if you clap your hands and believe in him 'irrationally' - and it's cynical disbelief that defeats him. Superman isn't powered by midichlorians - kryptonite is.

Fightest posted:

You look at, I don't know, human trafficking, use of child soldiers, organ trade, or whatever cosmic-scale metaphor you can come up for them, and you have to be able to go "yep, Superman is going to come in and solve this without fail," because the alternative is generally too horrific to imagine.

Tuxedo Catfish posted:

I don't know, it seems like a personification of Justice would be well-matched with ideologically motivated villains -- you just have to be willing to sometimes villainize philosophies other than "pure selfishness" and "hatred of all life."

EDIT: would vs. wouldn't

Fightest posted:

I think we're arguing towards the same point. While it is clumsy - you're right - to have Superman literally beat up a banana republic dictator, for example, it is entirely appropriate for him to beat up Darkseid - the cosmic representation of fascism itself. It becomes allegorical, but the values are still there - good and morality win over subjugation and oppression.

Much the same with any of the horrible real-world poo poo out there - while Superman may well be out-of-place beating up organ traffickers and African warlords, attaching a larger-than-life villain to represent these and having Superman fight them is fine. They just have to be villains you love to hate, there can never be doubt that they are assholes and need to be taken down.

I said come in! posted:

That honestly doesn't sound interesting at all even on paper. It doesn't feel like the plot to a superhero movie.

Fightest posted:

Much the same with any of the horrible real-world poo poo out there - while Superman may well be out-of-place beating up organ traffickers and African warlords, attaching a larger-than-life villain to represent these and having Superman fight them is fine. They just have to be villains you love to hate, there can never be doubt that they are assholes and need to be taken down.

Mechafunkzilla posted:

Superman gains the power to shoot rainbow beams that cure cancer. But investigative reporter Lois Lane discovers that the beams are powered by child molestation. The world has a decision to make.

Rhyno posted:

I both love and hate that scene. I mean the guy deserved a whuppin' but I really wish it had gone another way. Superman as a bully rubs me the wrong way.

casa de mi padre posted:

I disagree. Superman's parents aren't perfect, Superman is perfect. Pa Kent isn't sure of the right answer, but Superman is always sure. That scene is key for insight into the advanced moral development of Superman.

Delzuma posted:

Does he know what MySpace is? Does he know who won the last World Series or the last American Idol?

Gyges posted:

Oh come on, it's not like he's Captain America. If he didn't know what MySpace was or who won the last World Series all of his principles and ideas would clearly be empty.

Rhyno posted:

The DVD is decent but doesn't even come close to the comic it's based off of. Action Comics #775 brought me back to Superman after years away. It's the single best modern Superman story of the past 20 years. All Star Superman is amazing but it's more of a classic tale. Action #775 gave us this



THAT is my Superman, right there.

SuperMechagodzilla posted:

That series of pages often gets trotted out as an example of how great and noble Superman should be - but its morality is almost-literally straight out of an episode of 24 in which Jack Bauer successfully tortures an alleged terrorist(?) by forcing him to watch the slow execution-murder of his entire family.

Surprise! Their deaths were simulated using special effects, so nobody was really hurt ho ho ho.

Of course, the implicit message is that we can and will violate you if we want to. You are at our mercy, as even your very perceptions are under our control. The only way to be secure is to submit to our power.

Burkion posted:

This varies, but Cap is generally a lot less idealistic and is more a realist who wants to be an idealist. He's a soldier first and foremost, and while he wouldn't want to kill some one, wouldn't object to it either.

Bob Quixote posted:

In defense of a fictional character, the only reason his villains escape is to give the writers something to write about and the readers some familiar characters to entertain themselves with. The debate is a false one brought about by the serial nature of comic stories and their endless sliding timescale. The Joker has a massive bodycount because he's been murdering guys for over 60 years at this point. Even Gacy or Dahmer would probably have started to taper off if they were in their in their 80's but the clown is still going strong because he is eternally in his 30's and is popular enough with readers that he breaks out of jail whenever a writer needs him for a set-piece.

Even within the fiction its pretty ridiculous that the Gotham penal system doesn't have a better way of dealing with Batmans rogues gallery who by and large aren't usually superhuman.

ChikoDemono posted:

He fought child support.

Superman is in a no-win situation in regards of how he subdues his foes. If he kills/harms them, he's being a godlike tyrant who looks down on puny humans. If he hands them to the proper authorities, he's not doing enough despite his great powers.

I liked the Superman and Justice League cartoon portrayals where he was forced in situations where his humble upbringings were challenged. He almost murdered Darkseid until Batman pulled him away. He suspended habeas corpus for Doomsday and sent him to the phantom zone. He made himself look like an idiot because he didn't trust one of Luthor's charity schemes.

Dan Didio posted:

If only that cartoon character had been as canny as you, she'd have known about all the children Darkseid abused.

Gyges posted:

The conflict between recurring villains and the morality of superheroes as said villains continue to wrack up kill counts is best simply ignored. I don't really care what the "in universe" reason Batman doesn't kill the Joker after his 500th post escape murder is, because with very few exceptions the guy coming up with that reason is going to be a hack. Mainstream American Comics refuse to allow any real progress, instead insisting on insane sliding time scale calculations and universe wide reboots to keep all the characters in the original packaging.

So when Darkseid commits to the 15th full scale invasion of Earth, the logic hoop jumping reasoning behind Superman not finishing him off is as pertinent as the hand waving that allows everything that's happened in the Marvel universe to have only happened in something like a decade. It's nice that they make fumbling attempts to pretend there is no man behind the curtain, but you really should just ignore that imposing projection.

If you start picking at the times the heroes refusal to kill was the morally wrong thing to do, you're treading down the path which leads to even more story breaking inconsistencies. With so many super geniuses running around how is technology at current levels? With so many alien invasions why is their space program in the same state as ours? With so many pretend super tech or magical countries around how the hell has history been all but exactly parallel to us with the US retaining it's lone Super Power status? Why do criminals still shoot at Superman? And the questions continue on and on.

Yonic Symbolism posted:

Lex cannot be stopped by violence, and has the means to make every way of stopping him a challenge to Superman's paragon nature.

Kurzon posted:

If Man of Steel proves to be awesome, then suddenly their going to be a lot of new Superman fans running around claiming that they were always big Superman fans at heart, and these will include people who barely a month earlier said Superman was lame and that Batman could kick his rear end any day.

teagone posted:

No.

In other news, a new UK TV spot hit and shows some new footage: http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=104117&utm_source=feedly

GonSmithe posted:

Look at this motherfucker.

scary ghost dog posted:

They're bent at the elbow towards the camera.

Edit: Also, they've been photoshopped to be shorter so they fit on the poster.

teagone posted:

Useless Rabbit posted:

I saw it again last night (free screening and turned up waaaaaay too loud) and I found even more problems than I did the first time I watched it:

- If Clark was so worried about exposing himself as Superman to humanity, why not just fly up to the Kryptonian ship in orbit alone? Why turn himself in to the military only for them to turn him straight over to Zod anyway? Wouldn't that be possibly risking more lives than is necessary?

quote:

- Why did Zod want Lois on the ship? She mentions that they brain scanned her or whatever, but apparently none of that information is used or needed. They didn't even glean the fact that she pocketed the key Superman gave her just minutes before. It seems like they needed her because plot.

quote:

- Why did the military put soldiers on the ground in Smallville after their Warthog attacks did absolutely nothing to Faora and the big man? Why put soldiers in that dangerous position when they've seen exactly what happens when using their more powerful weapons? Again, probably so we can have a scene with Christopher Meloni telling his guys that Superman is on our side.

quote:

- If Zod has a ship that can go anywhere in space, why does he choose to stay on Earth and terraform it? This new Zod is written as a soldier but not a genocidal psychopath. That's a big jump in evilness.