i only take issue with the blatant jesus over clark's shoulder
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Man of Steel |OT| It's about action.
- Thread starter MisterHero
- Start date
i only take issue with the blatant jesus over clark's shoulder
Can Crusher
Banned
That's the problem, the scene was just blunt and had no sort of elegance as far as what it was trying to portray. It's like the scene didn't earn itself.
My problem isn't that Clark Kent went to church to find strength and answers since that only humanizes him. My problem isn't about the idea behind it, it was the execution that was bad. Like really bad.
Spectral Glider
Member
Zod in II had revenge as a motive. New Zod did not. He was programmed to protect Krypton and that's all he is doing.
depictions of jesus in a church? you don't say
Can Crusher
Banned
Can't believe how the analogy simply flies over your head. I understand you love the movie, but come on.
"Revenge" for what? Being imprisoned by Kal's father? All Zod wanted to do was rule. Rule everyone .. Krypton, Earth, the world. Whoever. His motivation is all surface and the character is nothing but an archetype.
Nothing is flying over my head. I understand that Jesus framed in the background is symbolism for Superman being a messianic figure. I didn't find it to be as on-the-nose as you say .. nothing as on-the-nose as spider-man 2 for example.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Revenge as a motive being preferable to protecting one's people as a motive is baffling to me.
Zod's shown to be passionate, not a robot.
How about after Jor-El tells Clark
he can save everyone (which he pretty much does the exact opposite of lolz) and Clark does a 10/10 Jesus-on-the-crucifux
Spoilers man for christ sakes!!
Or how about when they specifically call out that Clark is 33 years old?
Bobby Roberts
Banned
I wish more people would admit this kind of shit more often. Myself included. People don't do it enough. People act like changing your mind or admitting you had the wrong call is equal to slamming your dick in a door. And all that happens is - you admitted you did something that millions of people do every day: Kinda fucked up a little.
And it's not as if we fucked up over something IMPORTANT. We fucked up on having an opinion on a MOVIE. If its' going to be easy to admit that we didn't think our shit through, that we just kinda rolled with what sounded good at the time, doing it over something as disposable as popular culture should be a relatively easy call.
Doesn't happen nearly enough.
Can Crusher
Banned
And Zod in this movie isn't? lol
It's all singular themes portrayed in a singular black or white manner. Why is "Preserve species" any deeper than "Rule All"? It's only so if it's portrayed as such.
The theme being all they have, then they are equal in being bland two dimensional characters that could be replaced by any other kind of physical foe. Zod in this movie doesn't present any sort of character that could be considered deeper than the one ine Donner's version.
They don't bring different questions, don't bring a conflict to the hero that is any different or executed any different, they are just monsters for the hero to defeat. A lack of moral conflict is presented to the audiences you know? I'm not allowed in MOS to understand Zod in any other way than "Dude's simply gonna kill us all to save his species, no questions asked.". That's just sunday morning cartoon shit man. No different than "Dude's simply gonna take over earth to satisfy his power hunger, no questions asked".
It's like you change the words, but the result is the same.
Spectral Glider
Member
Yes, he says it specifically when he finds out who "Superman" is. And then the scene ends with Hackman yelling, "Revenge!" The ruling stuff is all the camp stuff that comes along the way. I'm not saying either version of Zod is better. I'm just saying all this talk about new Zod supposedly being so much deeper isn't really the case. They're equally flimsy IMO. It's just that revenge is a classic motivation that most people can relate to.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Also, for those worried about spoilers, your weekly link to the Spoiler Thread
Thunder Monkey
Banned
Ye Gods Sculli.
I can see being disappointed by MoS. But Returns is much much worse. That is the perfect example of a movie losing the point. The most important scene in Returns is that plane catch. Yes it has better camera work than MoS... by a lot actually, and great direction, two things all but nonexistent in MoS, but it's hurt by lackluster pacing, a terrible plot right out of Lois and Clark (a show that has frog eating clones), and none of the chemistry or charisma of the movies it takes inspiration from.
MoS has a much much better plot and character development for all three of the main cast. Clark is a young superpowered alien paranoid.
He'd never really been in a fight, and definitely never with those that are his equals. So his noticeable trepidation about the entire thing makes perfect sense to me. The attraction of Lois to Superman is actually realistic. She knows both portions of the man that make up the Superman. Infinitely better than any scene in Returns on the subject.
I mean hell... Returns manages to make Kevin Spacey seem like a bad actor.
And don't even get me started on the Superkid.
MoS isn't the best Superman movie. It fucks up way too much to be that. But Returns is far worse. No matter how great the camera work is, or how bad the same is in MoS.
MoS has a well directed visual spectacle, much better plotting, and infinitely better acting. Even with Shannon hamming up every scene he appeared in.
I can see being disappointed by MoS. But Returns is much much worse. That is the perfect example of a movie losing the point. The most important scene in Returns is that plane catch. Yes it has better camera work than MoS... by a lot actually, and great direction, two things all but nonexistent in MoS, but it's hurt by lackluster pacing, a terrible plot right out of Lois and Clark (a show that has frog eating clones), and none of the chemistry or charisma of the movies it takes inspiration from.
MoS has a much much better plot and character development for all three of the main cast. Clark is a young superpowered alien paranoid.
Part of him fighting his destiny because he let one of the most important people in his life die.
I mean hell... Returns manages to make Kevin Spacey seem like a bad actor.
And don't even get me started on the Superkid.
MoS isn't the best Superman movie. It fucks up way too much to be that. But Returns is far worse. No matter how great the camera work is, or how bad the same is in MoS.
MoS has a well directed visual spectacle, much better plotting, and infinitely better acting. Even with Shannon hamming up every scene he appeared in.
I thought I was crazy because it appeared that I was the only one thinking this.
Thunder Monkey
Banned
Like Singer is over there telling him "Do the shittiest impersonation of Hackman/Lex as possible."
Space Runaway
Member
Yeah in terms of depth, the new Zod only has one thing over the original; that being he actually feels some remorse for his actions(Or one of them anyway). New Zod mentions how
killing Jor-El
Yes it does. Even talking about it simply, his mission was over, he failed so he should have quit but he didn't. Even on that base level he was more than a "robot". He was a real character with real motivations.
This doesn't make sense.
vas_a_morir
Banned
Just saw it. It was a lot of fun. Odd pacing, shallow characters... but the action was dope as shit.
evil solrac v3.0
Member
Can Crusher
Banned
Yes... I noticed how big of a change "I'm gonna kill you all" was to "I'm gonna kill you all" at the end.
It just showed how deep the character was. Much more than a robot for certain, since a robot would've stopped after he had failed. Imagine how cool though it would've been if the robot was unstoppable and the only way Superman had of stopping him was to end all Kryptonians? That would've brought an interesting question to Superman.
Maybe they should try a robot in the sequel.
I personally found this version of Zod to be an improvement. I never said he was DEEP or a work of literary genius, just said he's an improvement on the Zod we got in Donner's film. In fact, I think there are many other things that are an improvement as well.
Thunder Monkey
Banned
They can even get Shannon back to make it believable.
Can Crusher
Banned
/dead
What exactly are you people asking for here? For me, an effective villain has a base "want" or "goal". Something that I can latch onto so I at the very least know the what and the why. Having some well thought out backstory that explains all motives can be poorly handled. Look at Joker vs Talia in the Batman movies. Talia had aaaaallllll this backstory and she was still completely ineffective as a villain. I didn't give a shit. Joker had ZERO backstory and he was a much more effective villain because I saw his "want" and could immediately get behind it and root for/against him because it was very clear. He was about as cardboard as you could get. Sometimes filling your story with "stuff" doesn't work and furthermore, sometimes it isn't even needed.
He wanted to save Krypton. Superman had the key to that. Superman wouldn't give it to him. He wanted to kill Superman. Superman stops his plan. Zod get's pissed and they proceed to destroy Metropolis. I don't need much more than that.
Spectral Glider
Member
Sounds more like a robot going into meltdown mode if you ask me. And I wouldn't call it a "mission" either. He saw it as a duty, not a mission. That's what he was made for.
The hell is the difference, Lol.
Freeza Under The Shower
Member
yay, brainiac-metallo two-for-one twist!
Directed by you know who (twist: not that guy).
Anton Sugar
Member
I don't think the villain needs to "change" or to have an arc, necessarily; we just need to understand his motivations clearly, and understand exactly why, from his perspective, he feels he is right.
Take Khan. He doesn't undergo a character change, but is a great villain. We understand his motivations, we see his anger, his heartache, his pecs, and his desire for revenge, because he is given the time needed to build his character.
I think Shannon did a fine job with the material he was given; however, compared to a villain like Khan, it felt like Zod had a sliver of screentime. We have several instances where his motivations are stated and glimpses into his psyche, but the movie feels like it isn't really interested in developing that or exploring his character. We get shades of a genocidal monster, as well as his love for Krypton and his people, but they feel like more of an afterthought. I really wanted to see more of Zod.
Take Khan. He doesn't undergo a character change, but is a great villain. We understand his motivations, we see his anger, his heartache, his pecs, and his desire for revenge, because he is given the time needed to build his character.
I think Shannon did a fine job with the material he was given; however, compared to a villain like Khan, it felt like Zod had a sliver of screentime. We have several instances where his motivations are stated and glimpses into his psyche, but the movie feels like it isn't really interested in developing that or exploring his character. We get shades of a genocidal monster, as well as his love for Krypton and his people, but they feel like more of an afterthought. I really wanted to see more of Zod.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
I can see that, but the movie was pretty crowded as it was. I wouldn't want to have given up any of Clark for more Zod.
Thye could have cut all of the Daily Planet crew outside of Lois, though. But they barely have any screentime as it is.
Meus Renaissance
Member
I thought Perry was about to leave
Jenny, hence his tearful eyes; he was saying sorry.
evil solrac v3.0
Member
I thought that briefly but it's not like he had anywhere to go.
Anton Sugar
Member
He should have left and then awkwardly returned once the terraformer was stopped.
Mengy
wishes it were bannable to say mean things about Marvel
Just out of curiosity, but when was the last time you watched Superman Returns? I'm not sure you remember it very well. There are a lot of valid criticisms to be made about SR, but that's just ridiculous.
Can Crusher
Banned
What are you talking about fillin up story? And the fact you even tried to compare him to Joker is almost offensive.
Joker was funny, he was violent, he lied/or not about his past twice and the relationship he had with Batman developed along with the movie, as did his expression on his views of the world. The character just came to life with each scene that followed. He was baiting and switching on people...etc The audience wanted to see more of him you know, there was something appealing about him.
Zod has nothing like that. Zod was just this dudebro that was going to kill everyone no fucks given, no questions made.
All you need from a villain is a "goal", well good for you my man. That's every villain ever. Does anybody know a Villain who has no goal? Just walks around and casually destroys stuff and shit.
I'm glad for you though, it certainly widens the range of stories you'll like. Or not I don't know.
He simply had a series of plans that he carried out. His "views" didn't change. He lied about his past so that makes him a good character? His violence and comedy made him more fleshed out? LMAO
C'mooonnnnn... c'maaaaaaaaannnnnnnn
And I should have said a "clear" want or goal. Which every villain certainly does nawt have.
Can Crusher
Banned
I reference little things and you simply try to discredit them with LMAO which is incredibly mature on you.
Joker had more screen time, we got to learn more about him. He changes throughout the movie. He actually has a relationship with Batman that is developed along the movie, AND changes. He's not a simple stupid empty character like Zod.
Not only was Joker a much better written character, he was 10 times more compelling. Or don't you understand that?
Because if you don't understand how Joker makes Zod look like a 5 year old wrote him, then I got nothing else to say man.
Sounds to me like you just want every villain to be joker.
Can Crusher
Banned
And how you're throwing Christ into the mix. He smashed all them buildings in his fight with Zod.
Yep. and to pass his opinion as the only one to holds weight.
Well bring up another compelling villain.
Can Crusher
Banned
Comic book movies? Loki, Ras Al Ghul, Magneto... just from the top of my head.
Don't be like that. I mostly agreed with your review for example, not my problem you don't agree with your own review of the movie.
Shamrock7r
Member
I wonder how some of you watch movies at all with no apparent suspension of belief. Like, not even a little bit. I have never seen so many far reaching arguments against a movie.
Loki just wanted to rule the world for no reason. Just to rule. Probably cause he's mad at daddy Odin and brother.
Ras just wants to destroy gotham cause he doesn't like it. Pressing the reset button.
Magneto just wants to wipe out the human race and leave only mutants.
Maninthemirror
Banned
Final battle was all revenge . You would know it you remember what he said before the fight