I'd do this one, although might get emotional for your dad!
-
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'd do this one, although might get emotional for your dad!
I waited to see this movie twice before I gathered my thoughts. It was more fun for me the first time around, but I still enjoyed it for the most part. Problem is 'enjoyed' isn't what I wanted out of this. I wanted to love this flick as much as I love Batman Begins. Alas.
Batman Begins worked as well as it did because of the clear character themes that Batman went through. It's clear at all times why he does what he does and what he intends and Nolan uses that as a guiding point for the entire story. This is the major downfall of Man of Steel. The fantastically directed action and the performances of the villains save this movie and we're very lucky that there isn't any permanent damage done for the franchise long term. But in order for Superman to reach the level of quality that the Dark Knight saga enjoys, the sequel needs to focus on a more coherent vision of Superman's character, moral, and personal arc with a villain (Lex) that challenges that. (And I would love to write it for you if you want, Hollywood, just fyi)
They did a lot right here. A very noble effort and I love some of the ideas. I like that Lois's skills as an investigative reporter actually had some meaning to the story for once. I LOVED the fight scenes, all very well done for reasons that have been gone over this thread by now a hundred times. I'd just like to chime in that it is particularly good that even with his great strength, superman still struggles. And while everyone did their parts fairly well, I really have to give props to Faora and Zod. I wish I was one of the soldiers that fought her. She graced them with her touch before she killed them. Lucky bastards. And Shannon fucking sold Zod as a character, particularly the final scene (despite that the dialogue was pretty iffy). Fantastic villain and it is always the villain that makes the hero more than anyone else. He is the reason I can walk away satisfied from the movie.
However, while I do think the movie was good, but failed on so many levels. While the designs of a lot of things were great, there was such a lack of color that it was legitimately bothersome. The Kryptonian culture should have been more fleshed out, because a lot of their actions, like leaving krypton for another world, are left wanting for more reasoning. Like why they refused to colonize, why did they throw zod into the phantom zone if he was just going to thaw out as soon as Kryton went boom, what lead Jor-el to thinking natural birth is better, etc. There was some wierd stuff in the present time as well, why didn't the military track the scoutship once Superman activated and ran off with it, why did Zod want Lois on board, etc. But those are nigglings compared to the real problems of the movie, the muddled themes.
In the comics, the Kents are the source of Superman's beliefs in the goodness of humanity, and I do think that this is an essential part of Superman's character the same way the death of Batman's parents is the source of his crusade. It is the central foundation of his character, and while I would allow some wiggle room, I do think this is one part of canon that I am uncomfortable with being changed. Jonathan Kent had no faith in humanity whatsoever. He believed that if the world found out who he was, then something terrible would happen, a sentiment echoed by Perry White later on and I think the military guys, and certainly the Pentagon which tried to cover up what was happening. And Jonathan believes this so strongly that not only is he willing to die for it, but he'd have let children drown (not just the Ginger Mike (it's what I'm calling him, I don't care what his real name is) but the other kids in the bus). And the damn thing is that they don't really go into what this terrible thing is. The most he says "Society....everyone would have to rethink what it means to be human". Um....okay? The more reasonable explanation is that he wants to wait until Clark is older so that he can reveal himself in the right way, which he also said, but he didn't seem to really favor him being a good person. During the scene where Clark is attacked by bullies, he asks if Clark felt angry, to which he admitted he did, and he just told him that when the day comes, he is going to have to decide what kind of person he wants to be, good or bad. Frankly, the movie characters are lucky as balls that Clark has a natural inclination of being a good person and helping others, because he sure as fuck didn't get it from his human dad.
Not that Clark came out completely unscathed here and was a moral paragon. Which I am not going to say is a bad thing. Finally, a superman with flaws, I love it. What I don't love is that I don't think Snyder is aware that they are flaws. Rather than pointing to the Zod's death or anything major, this is most apparent in the restaurant scene and it either speaks volumes about what kind of person Clark is or how undiscerning Snyder is. In the resturant, there is an asshole harassing a waitress and Clark moves to stop him. The asshole decides to humiliate him by pouring beer and hitting his head with a can. Clark leaves without making a scene (and thus risking revealing his powers) but then he destroys the guys truck by impaling it with a bunch of utility poles. The theater laughed in both of my showing, receiving catharsis for seeing the asshole get his due...but think about it for a moment. He restrained his powers to make an outward display, but he paid the guy retribution covertly. This tells you that he lets his anger control him. It also tells you that he is willing to be disproportionate, since having the guys livelihood ruined over pouring a some drinks on his head isn't in the same league. All the asshole did was damage clark's pride. Clark could have just destroyed his career and sent him spiralling into a debt he won't be able to pay for years to come, let alone feed any family he might have. Then keep in mind that he also costed, not the guy, but also the city money, since now they'll have to spend resources to clean up and replace the utility polls he destroyed The city has to suffer along with the asshole just because of the asshole's actions. Then keep in mind that Superman leaving just meant that he was no longer in that restaurant, so it's perfectly possible that the guy went right back to sexually harassing that waitress and could do so again even AFTER his truck is destroyed. He never solved the problem that sparked the conflict in the first place. This shows that he isn't motivated by justice here, but revenge and spite, not out of what that guy did to the girl, but what he did to him. And I can't help but think that he risked more exposure by doing this than he could have possibly done by just throwing the guy out. Even if he somehow did all this without anyone noticing (even if it was out of sight, how would they miss the noise?), they will see that a truck has been pierced my multiple utility poles in a way that shouldn't be possible, providing concrete evidence that there is something strange going on. Throwing him out of the bar would just have people remarking "Motherfucker is STRONG". He adheres to his father's words of advice of not showing off his powers, but he adheres only in the letter, not the spirit. That shows he is thoughtless.
If this was an intentional moment by Snyder (or Nolan or Goyer, whoever), then this is awesome. Superman is still a man and thus subject to temptations of wrath. He gets angry, he wants to give the assholes of the world what they deserve, he wants immediate, satisfying, catharsis to what he sees as injustices...but in doing so, he runs the risk of being a monster. What happens when he has a bad day and overreacts? What happens when he misinterprets something someone is doing and ruins their lives? This is why one of superman's defining character traits is moral fortitude, not because he is a mary sue, but because he needs that moral fortitude or he becomes the most nightmarish bully ever...and he knows it. If he isn't that thoughtful about his actions, he can very easily become a monster. This restaurant incident is the perfect example of easy and pleasurable it is to be thoughtlessly violent. Who doesn't want to see assholes get their due? But when you actually apply thought to the morality of this action, it really falls apart fast and not in Clark's favor, regardless of how bad that asshole was. This kind of action would be the perfect catalyst to having superman realize why he needs to be so much more careful about how he acts. But there was no indication that Snyder realized any of this. I would have appreciated if Lois or someone brought attention this action, or if he simply reflected on it and realized what he had done. Instead, it seemed like it was just done for comedic relief/showing superman following Jonathan's advice. Or maybe it was done as longterm foreshadowing, because if Luthor is the next villain, then THIS is exactly the kind of thing that he needs to get on Superman's ass about in order to have a legitimate grievance against the alien.
Superman's morality seems very schizophrenic in general. Particularly two instances seem flat out contradictory to me. First when Superman crashes the kryptonian scout ship and then when he kills Zod. In this case, the scoutship needed to go down because it was the last vehicular artillery that Zod had and it was targeting the helicopter that would destroy Zod's space ship. So it needed to go down for the sake of saving the earth. Still, the callous way that superman did it surprised me. "Krypton had it's chance!" Well, okay, but there is nothing suggesting that it didn't deserve a second chance. Jor-El wanted it as well. I realized that he had to do it in order to save earth, but those words indicate that it's right for the last kryptonians to die off. What it is is a tragic dilemma, forced unto superman by zod, between two great evils, of which destroying the last remaining kryptonians is the lesser. Superman saying is very callous....then Zod attacks him and they fight and Zod loses. Superman kills him to protect some earth innocents, basically the same deal as above. And then he screams in anguish at having become a murderer and/or destroyed the last of his race other than him? Supes, either you care about the lives of other kryptonians or you don't, make up your mind. It seems like killing a dangerous psychopath who already caused the deaths of many and in the process of killing more would be less immoral than killing a bunch of kryptonians who have not yet even had the chance to make an immoral choice and thus are entirely innocent.
It just seems superman's dad's thought 2 different things and Clark was inclined to side with his alien father. If it were up to me, and if I were doing a darker superman, then I would have Clark reject both of them. Jonathon, out of worry for his son, would want to keep his powers a secret so that he would not have to deal with the fear of people being directed at hin. Jor-el, out of a sense of purpose, would want Kal to become the new ruler of Earth, not out of malice like Zod, but because he wants Earth to become better than what krypton was and he sees Kal as being capable of doing that by leading them there as a king. If your going to make one father flawed, I don't see why you shouldn't make the other as well. So, with that, Superman would reject both of them, refusing to not help people with his actions and guiding them to a better future, but also refusing to violate the rights of other people. And it would have been in that moment that he'd truly become superman in his intentions and a superpowered force for good. So if anyone reading this is working on MoS2, PM me for contact information and I'll try to fit you into my schedule.
However, while I do think the movie was good, but failed on so many levels. While the designs of a lot of things were great, there was such a lack of color that it was legitimately bothersome. The Kryptonian culture should have been more fleshed out, because a lot of their actions, like leaving krypton for another world, are left wanting for more reasoning. Like why they refused to colonize, why did they throw zod into the phantom zone if he was just going to thaw out as soon as Kryton went boom, what lead Jor-el to thinking natural birth is better, etc. There was some wierd stuff in the present time as well, why didn't the military track the scoutship once Superman activated and ran off with it, why did Zod want Lois on board, etc. But those are nigglings compared to the real problems of the movie, the muddled themes.
In the comics, the Kents are the source of Superman's beliefs in the goodness of humanity, and I do think that this is an essential part of Superman's character the same way the death of Batman's parents is the source of his crusade. It is the central foundation of his character, and while I would allow some wiggle room, I do think this is one part of canon that I am uncomfortable with being changed. Jonathan Kent had no faith in humanity whatsoever. He believed that if the world found out who he was, then something terrible would happen, a sentiment echoed by Perry White later on and I think the military guys, and certainly the Pentagon which tried to cover up what was happening. And Jonathan believes this so strongly that not only is he willing to die for it, but he'd have let children drown (not just the Ginger Mike (it's what I'm calling him, I don't care what his real name is) but the other kids in the bus). And the damn thing is that they don't really go into what this terrible thing is. The most he says "Society....everyone would have to rethink what it means to be human". Um....okay? The more reasonable explanation is that he wants to wait until Clark is older so that he can reveal himself in the right way, which he also said, but he didn't seem to really favor him being a good person. During the scene where Clark is attacked by bullies, he asks if Clark felt angry, to which he admitted he did, and he just told him that when the day comes, he is going to have to decide what kind of person he wants to be, good or bad. Frankly, the movie characters are lucky as balls that Clark has a natural inclination of being a good person and helping others, because he sure as fuck didn't get it from his human dad.
Not that Clark came out completely unscathed here and was a moral paragon. Which I am not going to say is a bad thing. Finally, a superman with flaws, I love it. What I don't love is that I don't think Snyder is aware that they are flaws. Rather than pointing to the Zod's death or anything major, this is most apparent in the restaurant scene and it either speaks volumes about what kind of person Clark is or how undiscerning Snyder is. In the resturant, there is an asshole harassing a waitress and Clark moves to stop him. The asshole decides to humiliate him by pouring beer and hitting his head with a can. Clark leaves without making a scene (and thus risking revealing his powers) but then he destroys the guys truck by impaling it with a bunch of utility poles. The theater laughed in both of my showing, receiving catharsis for seeing the asshole get his due...but think about it for a moment. He restrained his powers to make an outward display, but he paid the guy retribution covertly. This tells you that he lets his anger control him. It also tells you that he is willing to be disproportionate, since having the guys livelihood ruined over pouring a some drinks on his head isn't in the same league. All the asshole did was damage clark's pride. Clark could have just destroyed his career and sent him spiralling into a debt he won't be able to pay for years to come, let alone feed any family he might have. Then keep in mind that he also costed, not the guy, but also the city money, since now they'll have to spend resources to clean up and replace the utility polls he destroyed The city has to suffer along with the asshole just because of the asshole's actions. Then keep in mind that Superman leaving just meant that he was no longer in that restaurant, so it's perfectly possible that the guy went right back to sexually harassing that waitress and could do so again even AFTER his truck is destroyed. He never solved the problem that sparked the conflict in the first place. This shows that he isn't motivated by justice here, but revenge and spite, not out of what that guy did to the girl, but what he did to him. And I can't help but think that he risked more exposure by doing this than he could have possibly done by just throwing the guy out. Even if he somehow did all this without anyone noticing (even if it was out of sight, how would they miss the noise?), they will see that a truck has been pierced my multiple utility poles in a way that shouldn't be possible, providing concrete evidence that there is something strange going on. Throwing him out of the bar would just have people remarking "Motherfucker is STRONG". He adheres to his father's words of advice of not showing off his powers, but he adheres only in the letter, not the spirit. That shows he is thoughtless.
If this was an intentional moment by Snyder (or Nolan or Goyer, whoever), then this is awesome. Superman is still a man and thus subject to temptations of wrath. He gets angry, he wants to give the assholes of the world what they deserve, he wants immediate, satisfying, catharsis to what he sees as injustices...but in doing so, he runs the risk of being a monster. What happens when he has a bad day and overreacts? What happens when he misinterprets something someone is doing and ruins their lives? This is why one of superman's defining character traits is moral fortitude, not because he is a mary sue, but because he needs that moral fortitude or he becomes the most nightmarish bully ever...and he knows it. If he isn't that thoughtful about his actions, he can very easily become a monster. This restaurant incident is the perfect example of easy and pleasurable it is to be thoughtlessly violent. Who doesn't want to see assholes get their due? But when you actually apply thought to the morality of this action, it really falls apart fast and not in Clark's favor, regardless of how bad that asshole was. This kind of action would be the perfect catalyst to having superman realize why he needs to be so much more careful about how he acts. But there was no indication that Snyder realized any of this. I would have appreciated if Lois or someone brought attention this action, or if he simply reflected on it and realized what he had done. Instead, it seemed like it was just done for comedic relief/showing superman following Jonathan's advice. Or maybe it was done as longterm foreshadowing, because if Luthor is the next villain, then THIS is exactly the kind of thing that he needs to get on Superman's ass about in order to have a legitimate grievance against the alien.
Superman's morality seems very schizophrenic in general. Particularly two instances seem flat out contradictory to me. First when Superman crashes the kryptonian scout ship and then when he kills Zod. In this case, the scoutship needed to go down because it was the last vehicular artillery that Zod had and it was targeting the helicopter that would destroy Zod's space ship. So it needed to go down for the sake of saving the earth. Still, the callous way that superman did it surprised me. "Krypton had it's chance!" Well, okay, but there is nothing suggesting that it didn't deserve a second chance. Jor-El wanted it as well. I realized that he had to do it in order to save earth, but those words indicate that it's right for the last kryptonians to die off. What it is is a tragic dilemma, forced unto superman by zod, between two great evils, of which destroying the last remaining kryptonians is the lesser. Superman saying is very callous....then Zod attacks him and they fight and Zod loses. Superman kills him to protect some earth innocents, basically the same deal as above. And then he screams in anguish at having become a murderer and/or destroyed the last of his race other than him? Supes, either you care about the lives of other kryptonians or you don't, make up your mind. It seems like killing a dangerous psychopath who already caused the deaths of many and in the process of killing more would be less immoral than killing a bunch of kryptonians who have not yet even had the chance to make an immoral choice and thus are entirely innocent.
It just seems superman's dad's thought 2 different things and Clark was inclined to side with his alien father. If it were up to me, and if I were doing a darker superman, then I would have Clark reject both of them. Jonathon, out of worry for his son, would want to keep his powers a secret so that he would not have to deal with the fear of people being directed at hin. Jor-el, out of a sense of purpose, would want Kal to become the new ruler of Earth, not out of malice like Zod, but because he wants Earth to become better than what krypton was and he sees Kal as being capable of doing that by leading them there as a king. If your going to make one father flawed, I don't see why you shouldn't make the other as well. So, with that, Superman would reject both of them, refusing to not help people with his actions and guiding them to a better future, but also refusing to violate the rights of other people. And it would have been in that moment that he'd truly become superman in his intentions and a superpowered force for good. So if anyone reading this is working on MoS2, PM me for contact information and I'll try to fit you into my schedule.
Batman Begins worked as well as it did because of the clear character themes that Batman went through. It's clear at all times why he does what he does and what he intends and Nolan uses that as a guiding point for the entire story. This is the major downfall of Man of Steel. The fantastically directed action and the performances of the villains save this movie and we're very lucky that there isn't any permanent damage done for the franchise long term. But in order for Superman to reach the level of quality that the Dark Knight saga enjoys, the sequel needs to focus on a more coherent vision of Superman's character, moral, and personal arc with a villain (Lex) that challenges that. (And I would love to write it for you if you want, Hollywood, just fyi)
Doing the same next Saturday. I'm so excited.
Meus Renaissance
Member
I would like to think there was a significant amount of footage that was left in the cutting room, because I tell you, some of the scene jumps in this movie did not look natural at all. Please let there to be a directors cut, please let there be a directors cut
Maninthemirror
Banned
movie would have made 20 million OW if Goyer went with the way you wanted the relationship between kal-el and his fathers to be handled.
Maninthemirror
Banned
I noticed that
jor-el kissing his just born son in the trailers is not in the final movie
and cavill's expression I've seen that gif countless of times but I didn't see that in the movie.
"Excuse me" isn't there either.
I didn't want it handled like that. It certainly wouldn't have been my first idea. But if your going to make one father totally in the wrong despite good intentions, why not both?
BlackGoku03
Member
If it's true for the movie then it is true for the comics. What a stupid statement.
Thanks. I'm happy for it.
People overrate not so good movies because of hype their going through. Don't worry once the hype dies down they'll realized how flawed the movies was. Points to DKR.
.
Maninthemirror
Banned
is the not so good movies your opinion or the general consensus..
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Fuck Dragonball
At least we all can agreed on that.
Liked the movie, but the ending almost ruined it for me.
You're trying to make a realistic Superman movie, yet you keep the whole "glasses = secret identity" thing. It was the one thing I was hoping that they would change in the movie, but they didn't. Hell, he didn't even change his hair. Fucking stupid. At least put on a wig or something.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
It'll probably happen as part of a big 30-40 dollar set for holiday 2013.
MisterHero
Super Member
Jor-El knew he was wrong.
He states that in a different world's circumstances, Kal-El might have a better chance of survival. He doesn't know how it will end, he just hopes that Krypton will survive with him.
Nope, only love. Perfection is overrated.
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
Family Of Steel.
On Collider Snyder said in his interview that he would consider one maybe. But he definitely hasn't already prepared one (unlike watchmen and sucker punch where he knew the theatrical cuts would be compromised). He said he spent a lot of time and energy on this cut but he is aware of how "fast" a lot the scene are paced
I dont think it's likely but I do think Snyder has his ear on the wall and if he sees that the demand is there he might decide to do it...but the it would be up to WB to greenlight it...
TheChewyWaffles
Member
What a joyless movie. Also, I hated the flashback storytelling technique. It didn't work.
That's not what I'm talking about. Not that he was factually wrong, but wrong in his intentions. The movie portrays Jor-el as being right in pretty much everything as far as intentions go.
But the movie explained exactly why he wouldn't let that happen
shinobi602
Member
Still ridiculous. In that circumstance, it's ok to have a dozen people witness what you do when it's between that or your fucking father dying...
Nemesis121
Member
I enjoyed the movie, the different approach was awesome...
sweetvar26
Member
Spectral Glider
Member
I hated just about every thing about this movie. And I mean seriously hated. To me, it is the worst Superman movie ever put to film. Just a disaster.
Dreams-Visions
Member
I'm pretty sure that's not even objectively possible
Spectral Glider
Member
The intention is clearly that Pa Kent wanted his son to live a normal human life in order to give him the benefit of having grown up with that worldview. In that respect it makes total sense that he would want his son to experience Human loss. Its weird to say it but he did what he did for Clarke.
I keep seeing people bring up the "he didn't want Clarke to reveal his powers yet" angle, but I think the overarching goal of Jonathan Kent was to make sure Clarke grew up a normal and grounded life in order to prepare him for the decisions he would have to make later on. He knew what he would become and he knew what his heritage was, which is why it was important he experienced human life as a human, without "cheating"
I keep seeing people bring up the "he didn't want Clarke to reveal his powers yet" angle, but I think the overarching goal of Jonathan Kent was to make sure Clarke grew up a normal and grounded life in order to prepare him for the decisions he would have to make later on. He knew what he would become and he knew what his heritage was, which is why it was important he experienced human life as a human, without "cheating"
MisterHero
Super Member
Fair enough. However, he could've helped Zod overthrow the council for the sake of the planet. Adherence to law and the belief that Krypton was dead anyways stopped him from acting.
I disagree on some minor points, but your towering review is really insightful.
"Krypton had its chance!"
Alright, you can't just make *that* particular claim and not explain why.
Come now.
Spectral Glider
Member
Without going into every single thing I didn't like about this, what made this movie really fail for me is that it made me want to see the entire movie be about Jor-El instead of Kal. Supes is a total bore in this.
There was almost no real character development with Clark, and that's my main beef with the movie. I wanted to see a good portion of this movie having Clark struggle with who or what he is.
shinobi602
Member
I don't know, I would just assume someone would put their father's life above a belief of "choose the man you want to be".
It was definitely there.
Ok so this movie is a runaway success better than most imagined and the DCverse is a go. Lets accept this as a fact now.
So stating that, how do you think the Batman in this universe should be?
For me, compared to the Balebat, I think he would have to be a bit more fantastical to match up. I'm not saying over the top, but he should be one hell of a athlete (speed, acrobatics, strength, etc), incredibly smart (the smartest man in any room), and his gadgets should be highly highly advanced (not say Iron Man advanced, but special). He needs to be grounded, but not as grounded because of the company he will keep and you need to sell that he is needed when Superman is standing next to him.
So stating that, how do you think the Batman in this universe should be?
For me, compared to the Balebat, I think he would have to be a bit more fantastical to match up. I'm not saying over the top, but he should be one hell of a athlete (speed, acrobatics, strength, etc), incredibly smart (the smartest man in any room), and his gadgets should be highly highly advanced (not say Iron Man advanced, but special). He needs to be grounded, but not as grounded because of the company he will keep and you need to sell that he is needed when Superman is standing next to him.
Really? I didn't like it but its better than returns and the later original superman movies by miles.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and throw Peter Sarsgaard into the mix. Every time I see him on screen I start getting an uneasy feeling which is exactly what I want from the whoever plays Lex.Get him to play Lex. It's the right choice.
If the next iteration of Batman doesn't have some kick-ass gadgets or pimped-out sci-fi looking batcave I swear I'm going to leave some sternly worded posts on GAF complaining about it.
Try me, Warner Bros. I'll do it.