# So, about those Man of Steel reviews...



## Morrus (Jun 11, 2013)

On the whole, they're glowing.  I've seen the movie described as "awesome in the actual meaning of the word" in more than one review.  It's beginning to look like this might be as good as the Nolan _Batman _trilogy.

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/MrMovieMan/news/?a=81307

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2013/06/10/i-saw-man-of-steel-tonight-and-want-to-tell-you-all-about-it/

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/DarkKnightNews/news/?a=81311

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/62812

And they've greenlit MoS2 and have Goyer writing Justice League.  

I can't wait for Friday!  I've gone from being doubtful at the beginning of the year, with each trailer whittling me down some more, to the point where I feel more excited about this movie than I have for a film in a long time!


----------



## Grumpy RPG Reviews (Jun 11, 2013)

I am suspicious. This is the internet and remakes, it is supposed to be all "this movie raped my childhood and made it wear a gimp outfit" type of reaction. These positive response leave me confused.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 11, 2013)

None of those are particularly discerning sites. I'd wait a day or two, when genre-friendly but still good review sites, like Rolling Stone and Entertainment Weekly, weigh in.


----------



## El Mahdi (Jun 11, 2013)

deleted


----------



## EricNoah (Jun 11, 2013)

For it to work for me, it has to be more science fictiony than fantasy, and this looks like it is about aliens and space ships and high tech stuff ... and that works for me.  Looking forward to what modern special effects technology can do with this subject matter.


----------



## Richards (Jun 11, 2013)

Morrus said:


> It's beginning to look like this might be as good as the Nolan _Batman _trilogy.



Oof.  I hope not.  I was not particularly impressed with the Nolan _Batman_ trilogy.

Johnathan


----------



## Scrivener of Doom (Jun 12, 2013)

I enjoyed it.

It opened in the Philippines today and I watched it as soon as the film arrived at the cinema. (It was supposed to open at 11am but the film didn't arrive until later so the first session was 1:30pm.)

It was rather good and would be stunning on a really big screen with good sound. 

My favourite parts involved Clark growing up - obviously that's not a spoiler - and the fact that an effort was made to make this feel like an ensemble cast in parts.

It's definitely worth seeing.

Because of the sound problems at my local cinema I missed about a quarter of the dialogue but I will watch it again next week on DVD. There are some advantages to living in a Third World country....


----------



## Morrus (Jun 12, 2013)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> None of those are particularly discerning sites. I'd wait a day or two, when genre-friendly but still good review sites, like Rolling Stone and Entertainment Weekly, weigh in.




I don't follow either of those, but the Empire review released yesterday and was 4/5 stars, mainly very good; and Mark Kermode's review will be on Friday.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 12, 2013)

It is running at 67% on the Tomatometer, which is an aggregate of reviews.  I'd call that "mixed".


----------



## Scrivener of Doom (Jun 12, 2013)

Umbran said:


> It is running at 67% on the Tomatometer, which is an aggregate of reviews.  I'd call that "mixed".




It does drag in a couple of places and there are a few times where he is very un-Superman-ish which is why I think there are some mixed reviews. 4 out of 5 stars seems about right. It's good without being great.

I certainly enjoyed The Avengers more.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 12, 2013)

Umbran said:


> It is running at 67% on the Tomatometer, which is an aggregate of reviews.  I'd call that "mixed".




Oooh, that's not so good.


----------



## Super Pony (Jun 12, 2013)

Morrus said:


> Oooh, that's not so good.



Chin up.  At 67% it's bound to let you down AND be awesome in enough places that you'll leave the theater without feeling like Count Rogan drained 3hours of your life away ;-)

In addition, the rotten reviews on Rotten Tomatoes trend toward "not original," "too much plot," and "the budget was huge and could have cured cancer" or some such.  Superman is a tough sell to a jaded 70's and 80's nostalgia generation.  We've all "grown up,"  recycled the man of steel several times, moved on to more modern anti-heroes and Superman is still Superman.  Fans of Kalel remember him fondly, but there's really no way that seeing a Superman movie can magically transform you into the 8-year old you once were.   At a certain point, one has to give the man of steel a bit of wiggle room in the "originality" department since his antics predated and informed a good portion of the rest of the genre.  The "too much plot" angle is not a negative for me, as long as it actually _is_ a plot and isn't being confused with lots and lots of dialogue followed by explosions and credits.  The huge budget?  Well, yeah...it's a Hollywood summer movie so it's supposed to go blam and boom and leave you feeling slightly bad about yourself for liking it...as you queue up to see it again 

For my part, I'm excited to be able to go see it with my dad this weekend (Father's Day here in the states).  We don't get a chance to see each other much these days and are not only scheduled to be in the same state, but the same town.  He took me to the drive-in theater to see the original Superman when I was a pup, so I'm stoked.  That, and I'm going to take a vacation from my more 'cultured' tastes...and attempt enjoy the simplicity of seeing a dude shoot lasers out of his eyes and hopefully lift some really heavy stuff and punch holes in things that I can't personally punch holes in.  All the while _chosing_ to do the sticky-icky goody two shoes thing as a limit on his power.

The positive reviews say that Cavill nails the role.  The villain is Zod.  The effects look impressive in the trailers.  Let's do this thing!


----------



## Walking Dad (Jun 12, 2013)

Well, I didn't like the "it has to be dark a and realistic and should not remind of a comic" trend in the Batman trilogy. I think the Marvel approach with just relying more on suspension of disbelief works better for me. Let's see if this movie is too realistic for a comic hero, too.


----------



## Graybeard (Jun 13, 2013)

I am not looking forward to this movie. I am a big fan of the first 2 Christopher Reeve films. This Superman looks too dark. I also hate the new costume. All the trailers show lots of action but very little story and that worries me.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 13, 2013)

Graybeard said:


> I am not looking forward to this movie. I am a big fan of the first 2 Christopher Reeve films.




While  you obviously get to look forward to anything you like or not, I'm a big fan of those two movies and am looking forward to this.  Not all movies have to be the same as movies I enjoyed - otherwise I'd just like one movie: the first one I ever enjoyed.  Different movie.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 13, 2013)

I just find... nothing I've heard about it excites me.  

I mean, sure, it is an action movie.  Big whoop.  Those are a dime a dozen.  There's nothing special about that.  Other than "new" and "big budget", what is this offering me that other movies don't give me?

I react to it much like I reacted to the new reboot of Spider Man.  I love Spider Man - probably my favorite superhero.  But the new reboot just hasn't caught my imagination.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 13, 2013)

See, Superman is my favourite superhero, and Spiderman my least.  The unstoppable adult moral force attracts me more than the bouncy wisecracking child.  That's a personal thing, of course. 

And I've been waiting for 30 years to see Superman punch a bad guy through a skyscraper.  He has *never* been show in film to be the badass he is.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 13, 2013)

Morrus said:


> See, Superman is my favourite superhero, and Spiderman my least.  The unstoppable adult moral force attracts me more than the bouncy wisecracking child.  That's a personal thing, of course.




Oh, certainly.  To me, Superman is simply more gripping in concept than in execution.  I tend to have the same reaction to most of the main-line DC heroes for the same reason: that unstoppability.  Their power is generally of a level high enough to make them not just superheroes, but gods - no longer really bound by their human needs.  That makes them less interesting as people, however badass they may be in a fight.

As for the "moral" aspect - "With great power comes great responsibility".  Don't get much more moral than that.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 13, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Oh, certainly.  To me, Superman is simply more gripping in concept than in execution.  I tend to have the same reaction to most of the main-line DC heroes for the same reason: that unstoppability.  Their power is generally of a level high enough to make them not just superheroes, but gods - no longer really bound by their human needs.  That makes them less interesting as people, however badass they may be in a fight.
> 
> As for the "moral" aspect - "With great power comes great responsibility".  Don't get much more moral than that.




Don't get me wrong. It's more the delivery. After all, most superheroes are moral. I just prefer the unstoppable morality to the bouncy wisecracking morality. 

You find the "gods" thing less interesting. I find the ability to punch robots through skyscrapers more fun! I'm sure collateral damage would annoy me in real life, but on screen - lay waste to cities, baby!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 13, 2013)

Morrus said:


> See, Superman is my favourite superhero, and Spiderman my least.  The unstoppable adult moral force attracts me more than the bouncy wisecracking child.  That's a personal thing, of course.
> 
> And I've been waiting for 30 years to see Superman punch a bad guy through a skyscraper.  He has *never* been show in film to be the badass he is.



To be fair, there was a lot of citywide scrapping in his battle with General Zod, Ursa & Non...

Not as much as has been shown in the comics, of course.

Tangent: I'd be impressed and on board if they eventually let Henry Cavil do the Doomsday storyline- can't beat it for the "ultimate" in showing off what the character can do- and then launching into the post-death Superman storyline with some well done TV shows covering THAT storyline.

...until Cavil returns in the next movie, of course.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 13, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> To be fair, there was a lot of citywide scrapping in his battle with General Zod, Ursa & Non...




For sure - but now the SFX is up to it!


----------



## Umbran (Jun 13, 2013)

Morrus said:


> I find the ability to punch robots through skyscrapers more fun! I'm sure collateral damage would annoy me in real life, but on screen - lay waste to cities, baby!




'Cause, you know, morality and all 

If I want things laying waste to cities this summer, I'll watch Pacific Rim!


----------



## Morrus (Jun 13, 2013)

Umbran said:


> 'Cause, you know, morality and all
> 
> If I want things laying waste to cities this summer, I'll watch Pacific Rim!




For me personally, Godzilla vs. Transformers doesn't quite excite me. I'm sure I'll end up seeing it, but something about it isn't hitting the spot for me.


----------



## Scrivener of Doom (Jun 13, 2013)

Walking Dad said:


> Well, I didn't like the "it has to be dark a and realistic and should not remind of a comic" trend in the Batman trilogy. I think the Marvel approach with just relying more on suspension of disbelief works better for me. Let's see if this movie is too realistic for a comic hero, too.




There are a couple of un-Superman-ish parts but, in the main, this is still Superman... but bear in mind I don't read comics. (I'm waiting to hear the comic fans' response to the battle with General Zod. There's something there that surprised me even though I'm not a comics fan.)

It's certainly not as dark as Chris Nolan's Batman but there's also a major absence of humour (something I hadn't noticed until I read a review that mentioned it). This is not _The Avengers_... which I definitely preferred.


----------



## EricNoah (Jun 14, 2013)

It's running not quite "fresh" at Rotten Tomatoes, and the lack of humor and lack of chemistry between Lois and Clark seem to be the main issues with the negative reviews. Kind of sets the bar lower which I think will help me enjoy it more. I personally am looking forward to a less silly Zod, among other things.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 14, 2013)

I thought it was fantastic. First hour was maybe a little slow, but then... WOW!


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jun 15, 2013)

Okay, my first reaction was, another origin story.  Got to say that I am hyped about the movie at this time, not sure why but I am excited about seeing it.  


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Dragonblade (Jun 15, 2013)

I've seen it twice and posted my thoughts elsewhere, but I'll share them here. My review after my first viewing:



> Ok, so I saw Man of Steel. Wow! I'm still processing it. Its just so much to take in. I'm looking forward to seeing it again.
> 
> Its VERY different than the Donner films. You really have to forget you have seen them, because this movie is so totally different in feel and tone. It really assumes there are no other Superman movies at all. For your max enjoyment, I suggest you approach it with that same assumption.
> 
> ...




And after my second viewing:



> I've seen it twice now, and I actually liked it more the second time. Now that I knew what to expect, some of the pacing and editing issues didn't bother me as much, but are still there. And without spoiling anything, the emotional scenes resonated better the second time around, so that's good.
> 
> I did identify some places where they could have lightened the mood a little bit more through better dialog and such while keeping the tone of the movie intact. The movie is heavy and there isn't a lot of outlet for the audience's tension. I think that helps contribute to some people not liking it.
> 
> ...


----------



## JeffCram (Jun 15, 2013)

My experience mirrors yours, Dragonblade.  Enjoyed the heck out of it.  Can't wait to see it again!


----------



## EricNoah (Jun 15, 2013)

I thought it was really good. I got a little confused about the rules for how earth affects Kryptonians and all that. Was a teeny bit disappointed with Clark's final action vs the bad guy, thought he'd find a more clever way to solve the problem. But overall a fine movie. I was surprised and pleased to see several Smallville guest stars in the cast.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 16, 2013)

EricNoah said:


> Was a teeny bit disappointed with Clark's final action vs the bad guy, thought he'd find a more clever way to solve the problem.




That's _very_ canon and in-character. That's how he's always solved the Zod problem - in comics and movies.  Spoilers coming:

[sblock]Superman always executes Zod.

In the movie _Superman II_ he de-powers and then executes Zod in the Fortress of Solitude.

[video=youtube;jUORL-bvwA0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUORL-bvwA0[/video]

In the comics, he executes him (again in the Fortress) with green Kryptonite.  After a speech about being judge, jury, and executioner:












In_ Man of Steel_ he executes him physically after being presented with no choice.

Zod's end is always execution by Superman in all mediums.[/sblock]


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jun 16, 2013)

That last execution is a bit of cheat without context Morrus...



Spoiler



If I remember correctly that earth that he executes the Phantom Zone Villains on is an earth where they KILLED almost EVERY LAST HUMAN on it. WIth the three of them ganging up on Superman who I think was the last person left fighting he maneuvers them into the area where the Kryptonite is hidden. 

Being that the Kryptonite in this alternate universe doesnt effect him at all he uses it only because THERE IS NO OTHER CHOICE lest these guys find their way onto HIS earth. 

It's a HUGE DEAL for Superman because he normally doesnt kill. It's such a big deal that he deals with it over the course of several issues and pretty much almost has an emotional break because of the actions that he took. 

There's a context to his actions in the comics and I'm a little concerned that because of the exceptions it's almost like it's OKAY for Superman to kill because he's done it before under EXTREME duress. 

Superman is not a killer at least not a casual one. Neither is Batman. I personally dont want superhero comics to reflect reality in such a way where it takes away the heroic aspect of these characters and I'm not even a huge DC fan. The REAL WORLD SUCKS. People who should no better make up all sorts of excuses and rationales to do things that they know they shouldnt and look for the easy way out. Often without ramifications. 

If Superman kills and isn't effected by it on some sort of emotional level (because his moral core is SO STRONG?) Then I submit that that character is Superman like, but NOT Superman.



This is just my opinion of course.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 16, 2013)

Spoiler



But he did it casually in Superman II.  Amend he certainly showed anguish at it in Man of Steel. My point is that (a) there is precedent and (b) it's a big deal for him.  Thus the whole screaming in anguish part. People acting like it's just out of the blue are being silly. Zod gets executed by Superman. That's his story.


----------



## Grumpy RPG Reviews (Jun 16, 2013)

I enjoyed _Man of Steel_ great deal, none of the beats or plot points felt off to me and the acting was good all around. I do think the genetic process behind the creation of Zod needed more quality control because he had all the military finesse of Custer. But then he has always been written that way.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 16, 2013)

Morrus said:


> For sure - but now the SFX is up to it!




In that case, what we really need is for *DESTROY!!* to be made into a movie.


----------



## tomBitonti (Jun 16, 2013)

Hey,

Did anyone notice the name on the Liquid Container Trucks in one of the scenes?  



Spoiler



Lexcorp


 ...

TomB


----------



## Morrus (Jun 16, 2013)

tomBitonti said:


> Hey,
> 
> Did anyone notice the name on the Liquid Container Trucks in one of the scenes?
> 
> ...




Yup. Plus the satellite had Wayne Industries on it, apparently. Though I didn't spot that.


----------



## Bagpuss (Jun 16, 2013)

I liked the "days without accident...." Sign in the construction site going from 160 days to 0 days, as Superman bashed into it. About the be only attempt at humour in the film.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 16, 2013)

Bagpuss said:


> I liked the "days without accident...." Sign in the construction site going from 160 days to 0 days, as Superman bashed into it. About the be only attempt at humour in the film.




Heh - another little thing I missed! Something to watch out for next time!


----------



## Grumpy RPG Reviews (Jun 16, 2013)

tomBitonti said:


> Did anyone notice the name on the Liquid Container Trucks in one of the scenes?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I did notice that and that is supposed to be on a building as well, somewhere, which I missed. And I noticed the satellite logo, and the safety sigh at the building site. I wonder what other Easter Eggs were in the movie.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jun 16, 2013)

Just got back and Man of Steel has jump to the top of my list of best of summer, enjoyed it!


----------



## Bagpuss (Jun 17, 2013)

I had a few issues with it, the final act just didn't feel like a Superman movie, it looked like a super hero battle but it didn't feel like Superman was the hero.

[sblock]
The fights really didn't feel like Superman in a fight to me. The destruction is epic, and I think Superman only twice makes any effort to safe humans in peril (some soldiers in the first battle, no one in the final battle). In the final fight the body count must be like twelve 9/11's happening at once and at least one or more caused by Superman's actions. There were a couple of points where I thought he was going to try and move the fight to somewhere where people were less likely to get hurt, but it didn't happen. 

I think that was the most disappointing aspect of the film. Avengers handled it better with Captain Amercia's actions.

So the fights and events go on for an age, with a body count that must be going into several 10's or even 100's of thousands, but Superman doesn't take it else where or make an effort to save anyone except Lois. 

It was way over the top and yet also disappointing, it's like they had to out do Avengers for property damage, but the writers, dictor of Avengers remembered people lived and worked in those buildings, and so you realized that it was humanity not just the heroes were in danger, and the heroes made an effort to save them.

___________________________

The other thing I didn't like was, his dad was always going on about Clark keeping his powers hidden, not saving people as it will draw attention to himself, even so much as to say he should have let a bus load of school children some of which would clearly have been Clark's friends die. Yet the only time we ever see Clark actually follow his dad's advice is when he lets his own father die.

He's willing to stand there and let his own father die, but then ignores the advice he sacrificed his Dad for and saves every Tom, Dick and Harry. That's some screwed up motivations going on there. 

I thought either his dad would have admitted that no you couldn't really stand there and let the kids on the bus die, or Clark would have mentioned to Lois at his dad's grave that he vowed then never stand by and let someone die, where he could save them, but no. His human dad is a heartless git that will let a bus of school children die and yet somehow Superman grows up to be a good guy and not a villain? His mum must have been a really powerful influence for good, but we don't see any of that in the film.

________________________________________________

Another annoying bit, they are having a fight in the devastation around the spaceship, the destruction from the fight is even more impressive though so civilians are put at risk, but at least most civilians in that area are already dead or at least have feed the area or run for shelter. Still General Zod says something along the lines of "Did you grow up on a farm?" and Superman seems to get an idea in his head, and starts rapidly punching Zod back and back...

and I think oh right at last he's trying to get him to a farm or at least a wide open space away from people...

but no he's punching him through several perviously undamaged skyscrapers, towards a part of the city unaffected by the spaceship which will have more people, who won't be alert to the danger or sheltering in cover.

Dick move Superman, but then you did have a dick of a father to teach you.[/sblock]


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jun 17, 2013)

Bagpuss said:


> I had a few issues with it...




It was not a perfect movie and I too had some issues with it but hey, summer blockbuster, some things you leave at the door.

Don't forget... 
[sblock]Superman let babies die...if you look at the "Genesis Room" you see robots tending the eggs sacks, all they were waiting for was imprinting.  Sure they were clones but WOW.[/sblock]


----------



## Snapdragyn (Jun 17, 2013)

This is a film where the more I think about it the less I like it.



Spoiler



One thing which particularly bothered me was the lack of internal consistency. When Sups & Lois are on the spaceship, a big deal is made about it being the Earth vs. Kryptonian AIR that is the source of his super strength - he's weakened on the ship because of the AIR, & only gets strong enough to escape when the AIR is switched to an Earth mix.

But... whenever he's fighting Team Zod down on Earth... oh look, they're wearing their breathing masks to keep them supplied with good old Kryptonian-style air, BUT STILL FIGHTING WITH SUPER STRENGTH AND SPEED.



Um... WTF, Nolan? Lazy storytelling much?


----------



## Morrus (Jun 17, 2013)

Snapdragyn said:


> This is a film where the more I think about it the less I like it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




No, you misunderstood that bit.  The yellow sun gave them the powers, not the air.  The Kryptonian air was toxic to Supes because he wasn't used to it.  Two different things.


----------



## Bagpuss (Jun 17, 2013)

Morrus said:


> No, you misunderstood that bit.  The yellow sun gave them the powers, not the air.  The Kryptonian air was toxic to Supes because he wasn't used to it.  Two different things.




It wasn't just the yellow Sun, it was also stuff in the air as Zod only gained Superman's powers when he took of his mask. Until then he had only a Krytonian's strength and speed, which I think they tried to explain away by the gravity being different, for them. 

But yeah Superman was only weak not due to a lack of sun/earth atmosphere but because he was poisoned by the Kyptonian one.

What I didn't get is why when Zod he learned that Kyptonians that have adapted to Earth, or grew up there had loads of extra powers, he still wanted to Terraform the planet. Surely it would make more sense to keep it like it is, to breed stronger Kyptonians with heat and x-ray vision.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 18, 2013)

Bagpuss said:


> It wasn't just the yellow Sun, it was also stuff in the air as Zod only gained Superman's powers when he took of his mask. Until then he had only a Krytonian's strength and speed, which I think they tried to explain away by the gravity being different, for them.
> 
> But yeah Superman was only weak not due to a lack of sun/earth atmosphere but because he was poisoned by the Kyptonian one.
> 
> What I didn't get is why when Zod he learned that Kyptonians that have adapted to Earth, or grew up there had loads of extra powers, he still wanted to Terraform the planet. Surely it would make more sense to keep it like it is, to breed stronger Kyptonians with heat and x-ray vision.




They got all the powers from the yellow sun. The mask blocked the sensory stuff, and when he took it off it hurt him because he wasn't used to it, like Clark was.  Zod was used to Kryptonian atmosphere; it isn't toxic to him. It wouldn't depower him.  

The sun gives powers. The air was toxic to Clark. The maskes blocked the sensory stuff.

The only question was: what made Zod thing he needed a mask on Earth? He did, but only to block out the sensory stuff he didn't now about. He figured that out quick, then didn't need the mask. That mask scene was a bit weak.


----------



## Snapdragyn (Jun 18, 2013)

Morrus said:


> No, you misunderstood that bit.  The yellow sun gave them the powers, not the air.  The Kryptonian air was toxic to Supes because he wasn't used to it.  Two different things.




Well, no. 



Spoiler



When Sups awakens tied to the table on the spaceship, the doctor specifically tells him that he has no power there. When the Jor-El program takes over the ship, Sups regains his power after 'Jor-El' reprograms the life support to produce Earth-like air - not because of any alteration to the ship's lighting (which would've made much more sense & been easily visible to the audience). That proves it was supposed to be Earth air granting super strength on the ship.

Then when battling Team Zod on Earth we twice see Sups damage or remove their breathers, causing them to breath Earth air. In these cases it leads to them gaining his sensory powers (x-ray vision, super hearing) & being overwhelmed by the input (something he had spent a lifetime learning to handle). It happens twice, & is a big point in both battles where it happens - they were fine standing in yellow sunlight & breathing their own air (& using super strength, contra the situation with Sups on the spaceship), but when the masks came off they suddenly gained super senses.

Both of these are departures from the comics canon (at least the older ones with which I'm familiar), which works like you mentioned - yellow sunlight & lighter gravity. I'm fine with that part. I just wish they had been internally consistent as to what happened when - if the air determines senses, then let Sups rip free of the table on the spaceship; if it determines strength then show Team Zod removing their breathers when they have to fight the super-strong Kal-El.

If what you're saying is that the sun gave strength but the air caused Sups to be so sickened that he was as weak as human-normal, then I think we're into the realm of splitting hairs. It walks like a duck, & quacks like a duck, but apparently we're supposed to call it a sick parrot instead?


----------



## Morrus (Jun 18, 2013)

Snapdragyn said:


> Well, no. When Sups awakens tied to the table on the spaceship, the doctor specifically tells him that he has no power there. When the Jor-El program takes over the ship, Sups regains his power after 'Jor-El' reprograms the life support to produce Earth-like air - not because of any alteration to the ship's lighting (which would've made much more sense & been easily visible to the audience). That proves it was supposed to be Earth air granting super strength on the ship.
> 
> Then when battling Team Zod on Earth we twice see Sups damage or remove their breathers, causing them to breath Earth air. In these cases it leads to them gaining his sensory powers (x-ray vision, super hearing) & being overwhelmed by the input (something he had spent a lifetime learning to handle). It happens twice, & is a big point in both battles where it happens - they were fine standing in yellow sunlight & breathing their own air (& using super strength, contra the situation with Sups on the spaceship), but when the masks came off they suddenly gained super senses.




This is all exactly what I said! Sun gives powers. Krypto air poisons. Masks block sensory stuff.



> Both of these are departures from the comics canon




Yup. The movie largely departs from canon most of the way through. 



> If what you're saying is that the sun gave strength but the air caused Sups to be so sickened that he was as weak as human-normal, then I think we're into the realm of splitting hairs. It walks like a duck, & quacks like a duck, but apparently we're supposed to call it a sick parrot instead?




I don't really know what that duck stuff means, but that's what happened in the film, yes - the sun gave powers; the Krypto air was toxic to Clark. They were pretty explicit about that.


----------



## Snapdragyn (Jun 18, 2013)

Morrus said:


> This is all exactly what I said! Sun gives powers. Krypto air poisons. Masks block sensory stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




So when he awakes recovered on the table... um....

Also, since Earth air gives sensory powers, why weren't the Kryptonians on the ship shown to be experiencing that issue when Lois was escaping? Oh right, internal consistency.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 18, 2013)

Snapdragyn said:


> So when he awakes recovered on the table... um....




Because Jor El got rid of the toxic atmosphere. 



> Also, since Earth air gives sensory powers, why weren't the Kryptonians on the ship shown to be experiencing that issue when Lois was escaping? Oh right, internal consistency.




No, earth air doesn't give sensory powers. The sun gives powers. The masks block sensory powers. 

The only wacky bit is why the Kryptonians need he masks in the first place.


----------



## Snapdragyn (Jun 18, 2013)

He awoke on the table before 'Jor-El' ever did anything to the air. He appeared recovered (wasn't passed out or coughing up blood) & tried to escape - he couldn't. The doctor told him he was as weak as the rest of them there.

This of course raises another point - if it's 'sun gives powers, Kryptonian air takes it away from Kal-El only since he isn't used to it', then why didn't all of the other Kryptonians have super strength on the ship? They're used to the air, & they've been exposed to the yellow sunlight when they went down to the surface to get him - but they're not shown using any super strength or speed.

If the masks block sensory powers as you hypothesize, then as I asked previously - why weren't we shown the Kryptonians being overwhelmed by sensory input on the ship when they didn't have masks to block them? Again, they'd been exposed to our sunlight already, so they should've required masks all the time at that point.

Really, there is just NO way of looking at the variety of 'this character has this power under these circumstances while those characters have these powers under that circumstance' mishmash of the film & coming up w/ any sort of consistent logic to explain it all. It's a big, lazy, messy, FAIL.


----------



## Dragonblade (Jun 18, 2013)

Essentially a combination of the sun's radiation and the atmosphere is what gives them power. Not completely one by itself. Aboard the ship, most of the Kryptonians were not much above Earth normal. For the Kryptonians this is because they hadn't yet absorbed much yellow sun radiation (partially blocked by the ship's hull) and hadn't breathed a lot of Earth air. Supes was effectively poisoned by the ship's air becoming weaker. Initially very weak when he collapses, but eventually gets back to Earth normal as his body adjusts. When Jor-El changes the atmosphere back, he immediately recovers enough of his superhuman strength (which he still mostly had from prior residual radiation storage) to break free and punch a hole in the ship, where the unfiltered sun restores him back to full strength.

The air change also temporarily weakens the Kryptonian scientist Jax-Ur because his body wasn't used to it. The same reaction Clark had when he was a baby as mentioned by Martha Kent earlier in the movie. It has a similar effect on the other Kryptonians too. Though as they breathed more of it, they would gradually get stronger again. On the ship, they weren't significantly stronger than humans because of the air and radiation shielding, but when on Earth, the sun and air gives them a big boost. Though they are all weaker than Superman until the end of the movie when Zod finally reaches near Superman level ability.

The helmets primarily helped block the sensory overload effect, and helped filter enough Kryptonian air with Earth air so that it would mitigate the atmosphere adjustment period. Later Zod gets slammed with sensory overload when he loses his helmet, and later Faora does too.


----------



## Snapdragyn (Jun 18, 2013)

Except that the actual information we're given in the film about the helmets is that they're called 'breathers' (Faora calls one this when she fastens it around Lois before they cycle through the airlock onto the ship) & that they have to do with breathing (again from what Faora says to Lois).

We're now at the point of ascribing abilities to props that are never stated in the film in order to develop a way to cover the glaring plot holes in the film. Why bother?


----------



## Dragonblade (Jun 18, 2013)

Snapdragyn said:


> Except that the actual information we're given in the film about the helmets is that they're called 'breathers' (Faora calls one this when she fastens it around Lois before they cycle through the airlock onto the ship) & that they have to do with breathing (again from what Faora says to Lois).
> 
> We're now at the point of ascribing abilities to props that are never stated in the film in order to develop a way to cover the glaring plot holes in the film. Why bother?




Jor-El specifically stated that Clark's "cells have drunk in the radiation of Earth's younger sun, and that Earth's atmosphere is more nourishing than Krypton's". So that part is pretty straight forward and right there in the movie.

We know Kyrptonian's have to adjust based on baby Kal struggling to breathe per Martha. And we know from Zod's reaction to his helmet getting breached that he hadn't previously been affected by sensory overload, but he did have super strength and durability already. Its possible that the combination of air and sun is what finally triggered it, and not the helmet blocking it per my prior conjecture. I don't think we know enough how exposure grants their powers to really say whether its a plot hole or not.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Jun 18, 2013)

I liked the revisions to the origin story, but there were a LOT of failings and missed opportunities in the story as it developed further.



Spoiler



The ending was a very tediously choreographed fight.  It was highly unimaginative and as endless as the slugfest between Nada and Frank in _They Live_.  It was like 20 minutes of nothing more than Supes and Nod tossing each other into buildings.  This time they go in one side and out the other.  This time they go in and come back out the same hole.  This time they go in at an upward angle.  This building is brick.  The next one is glass.  Then there's one that's not finished...  Seriously?  _I_ can write better fights than that and I'm a talentless amateur without even enough experience to call myself a wannabe.

In the beginning he's still a kid being told by his Earthly dad to keep his abilities secret.  When it comes to saving a bus full of his classmates and dad tells him again it was a bad idea.  Clark asks if he should have stood idle and WATCHED them die.  That should have been a VERY pivotal moment.  It SHOULD have been made the pivotal conflict of the entire movie - raised by Kent to live in fear and in secret, but then told by Jor El that he should be the most conspicuous man on the planet leading humans to be greater by all being BETTER.  But the scene passes with a non-committal shrug and the interesting conflict that up to that point had been utilized very well in the story, was allowed to be entirely forgotten and supplanted by a dull, alien-invasion, save-the-earth SFX spectacle.



You can argue about plot holes if you like.  I enjoyed the 143 minutes well enough I suppose and I retain hopes that a sequel will do MUCH better, but this movie lost its grip on me fast enough not to care about about plot holes.


----------



## Water Bob (Jun 18, 2013)

On one level, it's a quality movie. All the acting is top notch. Directing is better than your average eye-candy movie. Script is tight--not big plot holes or fuzzy explanations.

So...why didn't I love this movie?

I thought it was OK. I'm glad I saw it. 

But, it sure didn't rock my world the way I thought it would.

I think it's because it came across to me as more of a science fiction movie than a movie about a superhero.

I went with a buddy, and he LOVED it, giving it 4/5 stars (we reserve 5 stars only for the best, earth-shaking, bestus films we've ever seen).

So, what do I know?

Prolly nothing.
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->


----------



## tomBitonti (Jun 18, 2013)

Water Bob said:


> On one level, it's a quality movie. All the acting is top notch. Directing is better than your average eye-candy movie. Script is tight--not big plot holes or fuzzy explanations.
> 
> So...why didn't I love this movie?
> 
> ...




Thought a lot the same.

I found the 



Spoiler



city smashing at the end to be over the top; talk about PTSD or post 9/11 triggers.



There were minor issues.  Superman 



Spoiler



stealing cloths


 was one.  The Krypton story seemed actually, 



Spoiler



to be explained in too much detail


.

Mostly, though, there was much much too much  huge 



Spoiler



city smashing


.  Are we really not supposed to imagine 



Spoiler



how many people would have died


?

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Grumpy RPG Reviews (Jun 18, 2013)

I understood it to be both, air and sunlight. Just one or the other would not be sufficient for the full range of powers (endurance, strength, flight, vision, the ability to be a forum moderator).


----------



## sabrinathecat (Jun 18, 2013)

So, I have a potentially dangerous question: Was Darkmatter2525 (youtube) off-base with his comments about christian imagery being forced into the movie/onto the character?


----------



## Bagpuss (Jun 18, 2013)

sabrinathecat said:


> So, I have a potentially dangerous question: Was Darkmatter2525 (youtube) off-base with his comments about christian imagery being forced into the movie/onto the character?




It isn't forced onto Superman, the comparisons have been made well before this film, in both the comics and earlier movies.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Jun 18, 2013)

Spoiler



I thought it was a good movie, but unfortunately the ending was hilarious when you draw comparisons with the Marvel movie universe. 

Puente Antiguo get's attacked by th destroyer, Thor, Darcy, Dr. Selveg, Jane Forster, and the Warriors Three evacuate the town's 30 residents. SHIELD attacks the destroyer with megaphones and pistols. In Man ofSteel, Smallville is attacked, the town is NAPALMED with people hiding in buildings, a bunch of people die and no one knows or cares.

New York is attacked by the Chitari, buildings are destroyed, people die, the Avengers save the day.  The result: half the world mourns, many become traumatized and/or paranoid about the existence of THE AVENGERS (those invading aliens are obviously the Avenger's fault) and many find themselves wondering "What did Ironman see and how did he survive?".  Meanwhile, Metropolis is half destroyed by an alien mothership and a fight, and a quarter of the city is sucked into a black hole; yet people go back to work and act like nothing happened while the US Government sends drones to follow Superman.  I know that the epilogue of MAn of Steel most likely takes place weeks later, but I'd imagine that office would have been closed off for a few months after Zod/Superman crashed through it, tore through half the floor and destroyed an entire side of the building.

Oh, let's forget the fact that Clark Kent spent the last few years wandering the world doing good, but somehow decided not to wander into Gothem City when he was 30 to save it from being Nuked (Yeah I saw that Wayne Industries satellite Superman and Zod body slammed each other onto) .


----------



## Morrus (Jun 18, 2013)

Bagpuss said:


> It isn't forced onto Superman, the comparisons have been made well before this film, in both the comics and earlier movies.




Yes, he's always had parallels with Moses and Jesus.


----------



## Water Bob (Jun 18, 2013)

Bagpuss said:


> It isn't forced onto Superman, the comparisons have been made well before this film, in both the comics and earlier movies.




Plus, Superman is the All-American superhero.  He's the God-fearing, apple-pie eatin', flag-waving, red, white, and blue blooded American role model.

Or, at least, he's supposed to be/was at one time.


----------



## ThatGrumpyScotsman (Jun 18, 2013)

Really enjoyed it. It is closer to MY childhood Superman than the old movies were.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 18, 2013)

Morrus said:


> Yes, he's always had parallels with Moses and Jesus.



Yeah, Supes has always been part Space Moses, with a rocketship replacing the reed boat placed upon the Nile.  And part American Savior, too. It's a natural fit. Kal-El's surname means "god", after all... 

I recall back in college my friends and I back spent a beer-filled night brainstorming an Elseworlds DC world never, ever do - an alternate history where Kal-El *was* Jesus. It's almost too on-the-nose; the wise Men following his crashing spaceship, Kryptonite nails on the cross, etc. 

My contribution that evening was the Protestant Reformation started by Martin Luthor.


----------



## MarkB (Jun 18, 2013)

I liked it but I didn't love it.

[sblock]The opening was awesome - Krypton actually feels alive and vivid for once, and it's a spectacular Russell Crowe action movie.

It's also nice to see a Superman movie that doesn't involve Kryptonite.

I was ambivalent about the flashbacks method used to tell Clark's origin story through the film - I felt that it worked in some instances, and broke the pacing in others.

I wasn't impressed with the characterisation at any point. Even with the main characters, we're given nothing more than the shallowest glimpse of who they are, and beyond Lois, Perry and the Kents I'd be hard pressed to put a name to any of the other human characters.

The action scenes are impressive, but they lack variety. 90% of the time it's just Kryptonians punching each other through buildings, interspersed with occasional utterly-ineffectual attacks by humans.

I liked the fact that some place was given to human forces during the final battle, in the form of bombing Zod's ship with Clark's, but it felt like a token addition. By the time they were making their attack run, Clark was already back from the other side of the world - he could've just as easily picked up his ship from the airbase and thrown it at Zod's, without needlessly sacrificing dozens of soldiers.

In the end, it felt like a war between two factions who were so far removed from humanity in terms of capability that the human race were mere bystanders, and I can't help thinking that most people would feel that the world would've been better off if Superman had never been there to bring his people's domestic disputes to the planet. I'm not sure I'd disagree.[/sblock]


----------



## Super Pony (Jun 20, 2013)

I'm sort of in ambivalent toward the movie now that I've seen it.  I tried to stick to the mission, and enjoy the movie for what it was instead of what it wasn't (_as I said more or less in my post back on page 2'ish_).  I really enjoyed the opening sequence and the extra attention given to Krypton.  I liked the look of the movie (_props, costumes, sets, cgi, etc_).  The actors went through the right paces imo, save Amy Adams (_who didn't seem to really want to be in the movie...it was odd_).  There were other aspects of the movie that left me cold, but I'm not going to delve in because I'll get carried away with poopoo'ing it.  All in all, I left the movie not wanting to call/text/tweet everyone I knew to go see it.  But I'm also not on an anti-Man of Steel tirade.  I'd say the current Tomato-meter 56% is pretty spot on, imo.  It had peaks and valleys throughout, and the muddy end result wasn't _quite_ to my tastes.  

But hey, at least it wasn't Superman 4: The Quest For Peace


----------



## Everett (Jun 20, 2013)

Having seen it once and read a great many of the negative reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, I'd say that A) the movie is not *quite* as good as _The Dark Knight_, but if _Dark Knight_ is your bar, there's no shame in missing that bar by a small margin...

and B) most of the negative reviews get incredibly didactic in their attempts to explain why the film "doesn't work" (the critic on rogerebert.com claimed that Zod's primary female lieutenant pathologically hated all men, something made up right out of thin air); most of them also seem to insist that Supes can't be taken seriously as a character and that all a Superman movie should aspire to is yet another revamp of the Christopher Reeve flicks, 35 years later.  This isn't even worth dismissing, as they've obviously never picked up a comic book.  Anyway...

I saw no inconsistencies vis-a-vis earth atmosphere/air/Kryptionian air and the granting of superpowers.  To those who've argued the topic back and forth until they're bored with it, I'd suggest that you're overthinking it.  Earth's "younger" atmosphere gives Kal-El superpowers; makes perfect sense.  When Zod and his men take their masks off, they're overwhelmed in the same way that we see young Clark overwhelmed in the schoolroom scene.  Outside of Earth's atmosphere, Kal-El becomes weaker; Jor-El adjusts the atmosphere and he's back in business.  Of course the Kryptionians wouldn't suddenly gain superpowers when a hole is blown in the ship: they're still outside earth's atmosphere.

I loved the scenes of Clark first pushing his limits and learning to fly: have we ever seen Superman LEARN TO FLY before?  Have we ever seen Superman thinking, "man, flying is COOL!"?  Certainly all Brandon Routh ever did was adopt a mystically contented attitude as he toted Lois around in the air; if Christopher Reeve ever did anything more than the same, I certainly don't remember it. 

I loved the new music.  I loved Cavill's performance; I thought Diane Lane was pitch-perfect.  Costner was predictably great.  Amy Adams' Lois was light-years away from the silly goofiness that Margot Kidder portrayed, and that's just as it should be.

And I really never felt less than engaged during the fight scenes.  Yes, there's mass amounts of destruction per minute in the final half hour, yes Superman doesn't save everyone, but please stop assuming that he's obliged to -- this is an origin story and if you can't allow room for growth and change in your own conception of the character, then yes, you're going to be bored.  

And finally, I absolutely felt that the film took the right tack in emphasizing that Kal-El, his father, Zod and the others are ALIENS.  The strength differential is indeed that between men and gods.  This dichotomy was not forgotten even in the final action sequences, which moved back and forth between Kal-El's actions and Perry White on the ground, trying to get a reporter out of the wreckage with a crowbar.

I urge anyone who felt disappointed or annoyed by the film to read the review below.

http://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/man-steel-review/


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 20, 2013)

It's not quite made up out of thin air, Everett: Faora in the comics _does_ pathologically hate all men. She's also a serial killer and has psionic powers, so the movie version of the character is quite a bit different (at least as far as we can tell; who knows what Faora was doing off-camera).


----------



## Everett (Jun 20, 2013)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> It's not quite made up out of thin air, Everett: Faora in the comics _does_ pathologically hate all men. She's also a serial killer and has psionic powers, so the movie version of the character is quite a bit different (at least as far as we can tell; who knows what Faora was doing off-camera).




Okay, and what of it?  I'm not familiar with the comics that the character appears in; if the critic on rogerebert.com was, that's just another piece of evidence that he was reviewing what he wanted to see rather than the film Zack Snyder made.

Faora in the film has exactly one character-driven line; she tells Superman that "his morality is an evolutionary weakness."  She does NOT say, "also, I hate your dick and it makes me want to destroy humanity."  Ergo, the critic made it up.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 21, 2013)

Everett said:


> Okay, and what of it?  I'm not familiar with the comics that the character appears in; if the critic on rogerebert.com was, that's just another piece of evidence that he was reviewing what he wanted to see rather than the film Zack Snyder made.
> 
> Faora in the film has exactly one character-driven line; she tells Superman that "his morality is an evolutionary weakness."  She does NOT say, "also, I hate your dick and it makes me want to destroy humanity."  Ergo, the critic made it up.



I'm not arguing with you, Everett; I'm offering a probable explanation as to why he said that about Faora. Save your issues for the reviewer.


----------



## Everett (Jun 21, 2013)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> I'm not arguing with you, Everett; I'm offering a probable explanation as to why he said that about Faora. Save your issues for the reviewer.




No issue taken.


----------



## mattcolville (Jun 21, 2013)

Morrus said:


> On the whole, they're glowing.  I've seen the movie described as "awesome in the actual meaning of the word" in more than one review.




I did not find it so. Hints of substance in the trailers proved to be red herrings.


----------



## Everett (Jun 21, 2013)

mattcolville said:


> Hints of substance in the trailers proved to be red herrings.




I can understand that perspective, while not agreeing with it, but without some common ground as to what substance is, there's nothing to discuss.


----------



## Everett (Jun 21, 2013)

Everett said:


> I can understand that perspective, while not agreeing with it, but without some common ground as to what substance is, there's nothing to discuss.




...in other words, the viewpoint that the film plays like an extended trailer for itself makes a certain amount of sense -- this is Zach Snyder, after all, his aesthetic is nothing if high-gloss and he actually called Superman "the king-daddy" in interviews -- so the question becomes: if you'd had no advance knowledge of the movie whatsoever (no trailers, nothing) and had come to it blind, in a Pepsi-challenge sort of way, would you still have felt ripped-off, in a sense?  I think that if looked at strictly on its own merits, the film is a worthwhile piece of storytelling and a long-needed updating of Superman on the screen, and thus I think most negative reviews have played fast and cheap by insisting that irrelevant context (i.e., the Chris Reeve films, the critic's opinion of how much CGI is too much) is the only context that matters.

But that's my feeling.  Others?


----------



## MarkB (Jun 21, 2013)

Everett said:


> I think that if looked at strictly on its own merits, the film is a worthwhile piece of storytelling and a long-needed updating of Superman on the screen, and thus I think most negative reviews have played fast and cheap by insisting that irrelevant context (i.e., the Chris Reeve films, the critic's opinion of how much CGI is too much) is the only context that matters.
> 
> But that's my feeling.  Others?




I didn't go in with any expectations based upon past films or comics, but I still felt that it didn't live up to its potential. Its main two failings are in its characters - the only one I felt had enough depth and presence to actually like or engage with was Jor-El - and in its sidelining of the human race in terms of plot relevance.


----------



## Bagpuss (Jun 21, 2013)

Everett said:


> But that's my feeling.  Others?




If you didn't know who Superman was before entering this film, it would have made even less sense. As the flashbacks really didn't show where Superman got his moral code, you need to know Superman before going to the film. Which is fair enough, I think it is safe to assume that knowledge, but what you did see in flashback, actually worked against that, his dad spent most of the time telling Clark to never use his powers, let kids die, let your own family die, but never reveal you are different. Going from what you saw in this film alone, why does Clark ever become Superman? Why does he ever bother saving anyone?


----------



## Grumpy RPG Reviews (Jun 21, 2013)

Everett said:


> and thus I think most negative reviews have played fast and cheap by insisting that irrelevant context (i.e., the Chris Reeve films, the critic's opinion of how much CGI is too much) is the only context that matters.




I very much agree. It suffers from expectations mostly from people not familiar with Superman (or at least selective in their understanding of Superman). How often has Metropolis or Smallville been demolished by aliens or monsters in the last decade worth of comics, for example? And in the film Superman enjoys flying. Further, some people have had a negative reaction to the soldier who thinks Superman is hot, which is a peculiar bit of slut shaming. They do not want to enjoy the film, so they do not enjoy the film.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 21, 2013)

Bagpuss said:


> If you didn't know who Superman was before entering this film, it would have made even less sense. As the flashbacks really didn't show where Superman got his moral code, you need to know Superman before going to the film. Which is fair enough, I think it is safe to assume that knowledge, but what you did see in flashback, actually worked against that, his dad spent most of the time telling Clark to never use his powers, let kids die, let your own family die, but never reveal you are different. Going from what you saw in this film alone, why does Clark ever become Superman? Why does he ever bother saving anyone?




While I agree that content wasn't there, I'm glad it wasn't.  I don't think I could face yet another superhero origin story movie.  Hell, in this one he still takes half a movie to get there.

Honestly, I'd prefer they'd missed ALL of the origin stuff.  Just start with "Here's a fully formed Superman.  Go!"


----------



## Bagpuss (Jun 21, 2013)

Morrus said:


> While I agree that content wasn't there, I'm glad it wasn't.  I don't think I could face yet another superhero origin story movie.  Hell, in this one he still takes half a movie to get there.
> 
> Honestly, I'd prefer they'd missed ALL of the origin stuff.  Just start with "Here's a fully formed Superman.  Go!"




Yeah unfortunately with this film it kind of went downhill once it was "fully formed Superman. Go!" the stuff on Krypton were some of the best bits, when he is actually rescuing people (before he puts on the costume, and starts killing them) that was good, and if you ignored Pa Kent's "let them all die" dialogue the flash backs weren't to back either.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 21, 2013)

Bagpuss said:


> Yeah unfortunately with this film it kind of went downhill once it was "fully formed Superman. Go!" the stuff on Krypton were some of the best bits, when he is actually rescuing people (before he puts on the costume, and starts killing them) that was good, and if you ignored Pa Kent's "let them all die" dialogue the flash backs weren't to back either.




I'm the exact opposite.  That's when it started getting good for me.  I've seen all the rest before.


----------



## Everett (Jun 21, 2013)

Morrus said:


> While I agree that content wasn't there, I'm glad it wasn't.  I don't think I could face yet another superhero origin story movie.  Hell, in this one he still takes half a movie to get there.
> 
> Honestly, I'd prefer they'd missed ALL of the origin stuff.  Just start with "Here's a fully formed Superman.  Go!"




That's one of the reasons why Superman Returns didn't work very well.  When a decade or more passes between films, you need to re-introduce him unless there's some specific angle that makes creative sense.


----------



## Everett (Jun 21, 2013)

Bagpuss said:


> If you didn't know who Superman was before entering this film, it would have made even less sense. As the flashbacks really didn't show where Superman got his moral code, you need to know Superman before going to the film. Which is fair enough, I think it is safe to assume that knowledge, but what you did see in flashback, actually worked against that, his dad spent most of the time telling Clark to never use his powers, let kids die, let your own family die, but never reveal you are different. Going from what you saw in this film alone, why does Clark ever become Superman? Why does he ever bother saving anyone?




I don't agree.  Jonathan Kent in this film stood for a voice of reasonable doubt.  If an alien were growing up among us, revealing himself to the world would be a point of no return for humanity, and that's something that no Superman film before this one has addressed.  You might argue how well the film addressed the point, but its inclusion was, in 2013, necessary; the world no longer possesses the innocence it still had during the Christopher Reeve years.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 21, 2013)

Everett said:


> That's one of the reasons why Superman Returns didn't work very well.  When a decade or more passes between films, you need to re-introduce him unless there's some specific angle that makes creative sense.




Superman Returns failed for a _lot_ of reasons, but the lack of another origin story wasn't one of them.


----------



## Raunalyn (Jun 21, 2013)

Morrus said:


> Superman Returns failed for a _lot_ of reasons, but the lack of another origin story wasn't one of them.




I thought Brandon Routh did a fantastic job. Kevin Spacey did an excellent job as Luthor, chewing up the scenery. But the whole movie suffered from the lack of a good story. The movie, as a whole, was just....dull.


----------



## Everett (Jun 21, 2013)

Raunalyn said:


> I thought Brandon Routh did a fantastic job. Kevin Spacey did an excellent job as Luthor, chewing up the scenery. But the whole movie suffered from the lack of a good story. The movie, as a whole, was just....dull.




Lack of story: period, yes.  A good origin story being one option.  But even just, "I went back to Krypton... _and something interesting happened there_" would've helped a lot.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 22, 2013)

Morrus said:


> Honestly, I'd prefer they'd missed ALL of the origin stuff.  Just start with "Here's a fully formed Superman.  Go!"




This reflects on an interesting point made by Robin Laws and Ken Hite's podcast earlier this year - hollywood 'knows' how to do 'personal growth and change' stories, but they don't know how to do stories so much about 'iconic hero does iconic things in an interesting way'. That's why they keep going back to origin stories (see every superhero franchise ever, almost!) or they change a hero in order to give a 'dramatic arc' (e.g. John Carter of Mars).

So whether it's a reflection of either the scriptwriters inability to do it or the producers inability to conceive it or the marketeers inability to believe that anything else won't fly with the audience... origin stories is what we get!

Cheers


----------



## Grumpy RPG Reviews (Jun 22, 2013)

Plane Sailing said:


> This reflects on an interesting point made by Robin Laws and Ken Hite's podcast...




I am interested in this - do you have a link?


----------



## Everett (Jun 22, 2013)

Plane Sailing said:


> This reflects on an interesting point made by Robin Laws and Ken Hite's podcast earlier this year - hollywood 'knows' how to do 'personal growth and change' stories, but they don't know how to do stories so much about 'iconic hero does iconic things in an interesting way'. That's why they keep going back to origin stories (see every superhero franchise ever, almost!) or they change a hero in order to give a 'dramatic arc' (e.g. John Carter of Mars).
> 
> So whether it's a reflection of either the scriptwriters inability to do it or the producers inability to conceive it or the marketeers inability to believe that anything else won't fly with the audience... origin stories is what we get!




I suppose that's what makes _The Dark Knight_ so uniquely great.  Heath Ledger's Joker is never less than interesting.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jun 22, 2013)

Everett said:


> I suppose that's what makes _The Dark Knight_ so uniquely great.  Heath Ledger's Joker is never less than interesting.



He's what made that movie my least favorite of the three. I still enjoyed it, but I quite hated that Joker. I'm obviously in the minority, and I accept that, but there it is. I didn't think his acting was bad, or anything, I just hated the character (just like I hated the Jack Nicholson Joker). But I'm not even a comic book reader, so...


----------



## Rune (Jun 22, 2013)

Everett said:


> That's one of the reasons why Superman Returns didn't work very well.  When a decade or more passes between films, you need to re-introduce him unless there's some specific angle that makes creative sense.




The other reason is that Kevin Spacey's Luthor was the only compelling character in the film.

All Superman did in that film was lift heavy things.  Over and over again.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 23, 2013)

Grumpy RPG Reviews said:


> I am interested in this - do you have a link?




I think it is episode 30 or 31 of their podcast,all of which can be found here http://www.kenandrobintalkaboutstuff.com/


----------



## Crothian (Jun 23, 2013)

JamesonCourage said:


> He's what made that movie my least favorite of the three. I still enjoyed it, but I quite hated that Joker. I'm obviously in the minority, and I accept that, but there it is. I didn't think his acting was bad, or anything, I just hated the character (just like I hated the Jack Nicholson Joker). But I'm not even a comic book reader, so...




Is there any version of the Joker you like or do you just hate the character overall?


----------



## sabrinathecat (Jun 23, 2013)

The funny thing is, the cartoons have done an excellent job of "Here's the iconic character(s), and here he/she/they is/are doing iconic things in interesting ways. Batman and Superman animated series did that, Justice League, JLU, and Young Justice all did that. Maybe they should put Bruce Timm in overall control of DC movies and cartoons, and let him pick the scripts, the directors, the cast, and just back the suits and lawyers out of it entirely.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jun 24, 2013)

Crothian said:


> Is there any version of the Joker you like?



I grew up on the Batman: TAS, so that Joker will always feel "right" to me (thematically). Now, I wasn't expecting something as wacky as that Joker in Nolan's trilogy, but I think something based on whimsy rather than a complete dedication to "chaos" would've struck me as much more compelling. The seeming dedication to chaos for the sake of it just didn't fit with the whimsy that I was used to in the Joker. Also, I wanted his relationship to Batman a little more explored; more of the "defined by Batman" thrown in there (though there are nods to that in the movie).

I don't know. I'd be okay with him murdering people, and being dark. I think the dedication to chaos really hurt my ability to like the Joker, since it seemed so thematically off from what I wanted out of the character. I'm okay with him whimsically adhering to chaos (for a while), though. But, again, grew up on TAS, and didn't read the comics, so I can't say that I'm a mainstream fan or anything.



Crothian said:


> do you just hate the character overall?



He's my favorite Batman villain, and Batman is my favorite superhero. So, yeah, I quite like him conceptually. I just did not find the appeal to chaos to line up with what I wanted from a version of Joker. As always, play what you like


----------



## Crothian (Jun 24, 2013)

That's what I was guessing.  While the Batman Cartoons have been great they are still kids shows.  It is a lot different in the cartoons then the feel of the movies and comics.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 24, 2013)

JamesonCourage said:


> Now, I wasn't expecting something as wacky as that Joker in Nolan's trilogy, but I think something based on whimsy rather than a complete dedication to "chaos" would've struck me as much more compelling. The seeming dedication to chaos for the sake of it just didn't fit with the whimsy that I was used to in the Joker.



I think the movie was a change in direction from most of what we'd seen before, but then, the other characters and elements were different two; it's a whole-cloth reinvention. I can see where someone with a strong attachment to an existing canon might be thrown off, but personally, I think the movie version was exactly what was needed to convince us that the character was real, in keeping with the naturalistic tone of the rest of the movies (the first two, anyway).



> Also, I wanted his relationship to Batman a little more explored; more of the "defined by Batman" thrown in there (though there are nods to that in the movie).



This totally jumped out at me though. There was a lot more than some nods in there! That idea is central to the movie ("I don't want to kill you. What would I do without you? No, you complete me."), it was even stated at the end of the first movie (the great exchange on "escalation"). What more could they have done with this  "defined by Batman" idea than what they already did?


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jun 24, 2013)

Yeah, it was a kids show (just like Justice League basically was). I just liked that version a lot more. I thought the character was much more interesting, thematically, then the "chaos" Joker in Nolan's movies. Like I said, I wasn't expecting something wacky, and I was expecting him to kill. I just found him off from what I thought the Joker should be.


Ahnehnois said:


> I think the movie was a change in direction from most of what we'd seen before, but then, the other characters and elements were different two; it's a whole-cloth reinvention. I can see where someone with a strong attachment to an existing canon might be thrown off, but personally, I think the movie version was exactly what was needed to convince us that the character was real, in keeping with the naturalistic tone of the rest of the movies (the first two, anyway).



Yeah, I do have a fairly strong attachment to the characters (I also didn't like that Bruce Wayne wasn't that smart). And, like I said, I didn't expect a wacky Batman: TAS Joker in Nolan's films; he just wouldn't fit in, and I don't see it working out in a live action medium that well.

However, the utter commitment to chaos just wasn't gripping, to me. Whimsy I understand, and expect. And there was some of that there, but it wasn't the focus. No, the focus was on chaos, and that bored me. The commitment to chaos was unexplained and yet somehow predictable, and I kind of want Joker to be unpredictable. I would've liked seeing people not be able to understand how his head works really at all, save for Batman on some level. I just found the goal of chaos rather one dimensional. Still a pretty good movie, though.


Ahnehnois said:


> This totally jumped out at me though. There was a lot more than some nods in there! That idea is central to the movie ("I don't want to kill you. What would I do without you? No, you complete me."), it was even stated at the end of the first movie (the great exchange on "escalation"). What more could they have done with this  "defined by Batman" idea than what they already did?



Well, Joker _says_ it, but it's not really explored. And, Batman doesn't quite struggle with that fact as much as I think he should. Like I said, there were nods there, but I'd rather see the Joker show us, not tell us.

In one Batman: TAS episode, Joker goes so far as giving up on crime because he thinks Batman is dead, and there's no point if Batman doesn't stop him. Joker actually gets depressed. We don't need to go that far, but at least it's showing us. The commitment to chaos for the sake of chaos plus "you complete me" is basically lip service to that aspect of their relationship, rather than showing the audience that this is the case. In my view, at least. As always, play what you like


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 24, 2013)

JamesonCourage said:


> Well, Joker _says_ it, but it's not really explored. And, Batman doesn't quite struggle with that fact as much as I think he should.



I think it's pretty clear thematically, too, when you look at his schemes and his propaganda, as it were, that all of it is reactionary to the Batman phenomenon and is designed to get his attention and provoke confrontation. It's also pretty clear that he let himself be captured so there would be a face-to-face meeting. I also think we see plenty of Bruce agonizing over his responsibility in the chaos that ensues, particularly the impostor Bat-character who gets tortured and killed. It blows by fast, but I don't know how much more one could ask for in a two-hour movie. There's not a lot of depth available in that time. Those lines were also central in the first trailer, such that I think a lot of people went into the movie with that idea in mind.

Now, if they had been able to continue the story in the third one, then it would have been interesting to see what they would have done.



> I just found the goal of chaos rather one dimensional.



I do too, I just found it more effective. Since I went in expecting nuance and pretense and there was none, it made the movie more impactful. The sheer purity of the character is what shocked and disturbed so many people.

Now don't get me wrong. I enjoyed the Frank Miller joker, or the Arkham Asylum joker from the video games, and those are very different (and still quite dark). Reinvention is part of the comic book world.


----------



## Herschel (Jun 24, 2013)

JamesonCourage said:


> Yeah, I do have a fairly strong attachment to the characters (I also didn't like that Bruce Wayne wasn't that smart).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Morrus (Jun 24, 2013)

I can't get on board with any non-killing non-psychopathic version of The Joker. Allowances made for the 60s TV series which was played for laughs.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jun 25, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> I think it's pretty clear thematically, too, when you look at his schemes and his propaganda, as it were, that all of it is reactionary to the Batman phenomenon and is designed to get his attention and provoke confrontation. It's also pretty clear that he let himself be captured so there would be a face-to-face meeting. I also think we see plenty of Bruce agonizing over his responsibility in the chaos that ensues, particularly the impostor Bat-character who gets tortured and killed. It blows by fast, but I don't know how much more one could ask for in a two-hour movie. There's not a lot of depth available in that time.



I think he definitely wanted a confrontation with Batman, but he seemed to be motivated by Chaos, not by Batman. Batman was like a side project, almost, instead of the Chaos. Just my take on the movie, though; not saying your take is invalid or anything.


Ahnehnois said:


> Those lines were also central in the first trailer, such that I think a lot of people went into the movie with that idea in mind.



I think this may have contributed to me wanting more of it, and then feeling disappointed when I didn't feel like I got it. Haven't really thought about the trailer playing into it until now.


Ahnehnois said:


> Now, if they had been able to continue the story in the third one, then it would have been interesting to see what they would have done.



Oh, agreed. It could have been very interesting.


Ahnehnois said:


> I do too, I just found it more effective. Since I went in expecting nuance and pretense and there was none, it made the movie more impactful. The sheer purity of the character is what shocked and disturbed so many people.
> 
> Now don't get me wrong. I enjoyed the Frank Miller joker, or the Arkham Asylum joker from the video games, and those are very different (and still quite dark). Reinvention is part of the comic book world.



Yeah, I quite liked the Arkham Asylum Joker, too (haven't read Frank Miller's). I think I was expecting something more along those lines (including him being a cold-blooded murderer), rather than the focus on Chaos. But, yep, you're right, reinvention is part of the comic book world, and I admitted to being in the minority on Nolan's Joker from the beginning, so it's not like it was a bad choice for them. Just not what I wanted out of it, personally. Again, still a good movie.



Herschel said:


> Actually, he was brilliant, he just underplayed it and leaned on guys like Lucious Fox who were even more technically brilliant. Otherwise, how would he have had time to conceptualize and make all those wonderful toys? In The Dark Knight Rises they show that he was really smarter and more resourceful than even what those closest to him understood.



The end of TDKR definitely showed a glimpse of it, but he was never Batman smart. Like, one of the 1-3 smartest people on the planet smart. I've always loved that about his character. Well, that, and that he always seems to beat his opponents at their own games (he'll solve Riddler's puzzles, he'll out-punch Killer Croc, he'll unravel Joker's madness, etc.).

But, yes, TDKR redeemed him somewhat at the end, there.


Herschel said:


> I get where you're coming from but it just wouldn't have fit in the movie IMO. He had to be feared by the mob, smart enough to be able to fly under the radar for years and yet mastermind an endgoal that would seriously sew chaos in as many corners imaginable. The whimsical Joker isn't as strictly menacing nor able to be played out in a single movie.



You know, the "single movie" thing might be a really good point, actually. The movie was already moving so fast, and still felt thin in a lot of areas (like their treatment of Two-Face). I think that even actually giving Joker all the focus may not have been enough, if they focused more on whimsy. An interesting thought. Thanks for pointing that out.


----------



## MarkB (Jun 25, 2013)

I never felt like the Dark Knight Joker lived up to the way he was presented. There's all the stuff in dialogue about him being an agent of chaos, not being "the man with a plan", and yet every single one of his schemes requires detailed, intricate pre-planning and set-up.

He claims to want to sow chaos, and yet he'd be helpless in a chaotic world - each of his schemes relies upon people acting in predictable, socially-programmed ways, and the moment they don't do so, his schemes fall apart.

Heath Ledger's performance is excellent, and the character has a lot of screen presence, but he never quite felt real to me.


----------



## Everett (Jun 25, 2013)

MarkB said:


> I never felt like the Dark Knight Joker lived up to the way he was presented. There's all the stuff in dialogue about him being an agent of chaos, not being "the man with a plan", and yet every single one of his schemes requires detailed, intricate pre-planning and set-up.
> 
> He claims to want to sow chaos, and yet he'd be helpless in a chaotic world - each of his schemes relies upon people acting in predictable, socially-programmed ways, and the moment they don't do so, his schemes fall apart.




I don't think that's a flaw in the movie.  Yes, he has the long monologue to Dent in the hospital about being an agent of chaos, yet he's continually executing complex plots; that's because he's a LIAR.  Just as with his differing stories about how he got the scars, he says what he wants, whenever he wants, and the panache with which Heath Ledger pulled off that psychotic character schism is what puts his Joker head and shoulders above all the other screen interpretations, IMO. (Live action; I never watched TAS; you always hear that Mark Hamill was brilliant but I couldn't say.) Grant Morrison addresses this point in his book, _Supergods_.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 25, 2013)

Yeah, I don't think you're supposed to believe what the Joker says or claims in TDR.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 25, 2013)

JamesonCourage said:


> I think he definitely wanted a confrontation with Batman, but he seemed to be motivated by Chaos, not by Batman. Batman was like a side project, almost, instead of the Chaos.



Seems to me that he was trying to destroy Order, and he went after the mayor, the judge, the police, even the heads of organized crime. Confronting the larger than life symbol of justice that is the Batman seems a natural conclusion to his journey.



> Just not what I wanted out of it, personally. Again, still a good movie.



Hey, fair enough.



			
				MarkB said:
			
		

> I never felt like the Dark Knight Joker lived up to the way he was presented. There's all the stuff in dialogue about him being an agent of chaos, not being "the man with a plan", and yet every single one of his schemes requires detailed, intricate pre-planning and set-up.



I would call that either hypocrisy or simply deception. And indeed, I certainly would hope that a character such as the Joker would clearly be an example of both of those things.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jun 25, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> Seems to me that he was trying to destroy Order, and he went after the mayor, the judge, the police, even the heads of organized crime. Confronting the larger than life symbol of justice that is the Batman seems a natural conclusion to his journey.



I agree. Batman was the end goal of his focus on Chaos, just not so much his goal in general. I think that's the bit that bugged me.


Ahnehnois said:


> Hey, fair enough.


----------



## Everett (Jun 27, 2013)

JamesonCourage said:


> I agree. Batman was the end goal of his focus on Chaos, just not so much his goal in general. I think that's the bit that bugged me.




"Some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn."

Your feelings about the character are whatever they are, but it's an excellent film.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jun 27, 2013)

Everett said:


> Your feelings about the character are whatever they are, but it's an excellent film.



I did quite enjoy it.


----------



## Grumpy RPG Reviews (Jun 28, 2013)

Everett said:


> "Some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn."




I wonder how Luthor will be summed up in a single statement in Man of Steel II. It might be Lois making the statement to Superman, or possibly Perry making the statement to Clark, or it might even be by Kal-El to Luthor himself. But I expect the statement to be made and wonder how it will shake out.


----------



## Everett (Jun 29, 2013)

Having seen _Man of Steel_ a second time, I'm prepared to say that it's a groundbreaking film that people are just going to have to learn to appreciate. That's all there is to it.


----------



## Scrivener of Doom (Jun 29, 2013)

Everett said:


> Having seen _Man of Steel_ a second time, I'm prepared to say that it's a groundbreaking film that people are just going to have to learn to appreciate. That's all there is to it.




I'm going to grab the DVD tonight and sit back and watch it tomorrow as I'm still not sure of how I feel about it. I suspect I will come to the same conclusion that you did.

One question I would like to ask, though, for those of you more familiar with the movie and the character than I am. How did Superman beat Zod? As Zod correctly says, Superman was just a farm boy whereas Zod was a soldier and trained in combat. I don't recall that question actually being answered particularly as Superman came into his powers fairly late in the piece.

Any thoughts?


----------



## MarkB (Jun 29, 2013)

Scrivener of Doom said:


> One question I would like to ask, though, for those of you more familiar with the movie and the character than I am. How did Superman beat Zod? As Zod correctly says, Superman was just a farm boy whereas Zod was a soldier and trained in combat. I don't recall that question actually being answered particularly as Superman came into his powers fairly late in the piece.
> 
> Any thoughts?




Superman spent his entire life in Earth's environment, whereas Zod had only a few hours' exposure. Either in terms of absolute power level, acclimatisation, or both, Superman would likely have an advantage.


----------



## Scrivener of Doom (Jun 29, 2013)

Thanks, MarkB.

That does make sense as some effort was made to emphasise the need to adapt. I'll watch it again more carefully.

Cheers.


----------



## Everett (Jun 29, 2013)

Scrivener of Doom said:


> I'm going to grab the DVD tonight and sit back and watch it tomorrow as I'm still not sure of how I feel about it. I suspect I will come to the same conclusion that you did.




One constant refrain in negative views of the film has been that the action is too much/too constant/too senseless and that the film lacks depth, but the film has plenty of depth, just not in a conventionally-structured way. Something these people haven't picked up on is that the movie plays out in a way that is _remarkably like a comic book_; battles intercut with other material, "present-day" scenes and flashbacks (let's remember that flashbacks are a hallowed tool in comic books, since time can shift effortlessly between frames) and the battles aren't distraction -- they're filmed in a visually poetic way that one actually has to pay attention to. Particularly wonderful is the fight Superman has with the twin "snakes" made of Kryptonian metal when he's trying to destroy the World Engine, and the scenes the fight is intercut with; it's not "character/plot development" in the way we're used to thinking of such things -- it's an entirely new style for superhero movies. It is, I must say, revolutionary.


----------



## Everett (Jun 29, 2013)

The film even provides an organic explanation for how Kryptonians would develop heat-vision, which AFAIK the comics have never done. Again, you have to watch carefully for it; it's in the latter part of the movie.


----------



## Scrivener of Doom (Jun 29, 2013)

[MENTION=21712]Everett[/MENTION]: I actually appreciated those techniques. I enjoyed the movie but a lot of that was the sheer visual thrill but as I walked home from the cinema I started thinking about the story issues and that's where I thought it would be better to watch it again because I obviously missed some things the first time. 

Anyway, one advantage of the third world is I can grab a DVD tonight and watch it at home tomorrow.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 29, 2013)

Scrivener of Doom said:


> I'm going to grab the DVD tonight and sit back and watch it tomorrow




The DVD?


----------



## Morrus (Jun 29, 2013)

Everett said:


> The film even provides an organic explanation for how Kryptonians would develop heat-vision, which AFAIK the comics have never done. Again, you have to watch carefully for it; it's in the latter part of the movie.




What was the explanation?


----------



## Scrivener of Doom (Jun 29, 2013)

Morrus said:


> The DVD?




I live in Asia, mate.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 29, 2013)

Scrivener of Doom said:


> I live in Asia, mate.




That doesn't exactly answer the question! I'm afraid I'm not very familiar with movie schedules in Asia!


----------



## Scrivener of Doom (Jun 29, 2013)

Morrus said:


> That doesn't exactly answer the question! I'm afraid I'm not very familiar with movie schedules in Asia!




Ahhh, OK.

Firstly, we get the movie early to "stop" piracy (that's the theory). I watched it at our local cinema on Wednesday while most of the rest of the world waited until Friday or later.

Secondly, the pirate copies hit the street by the weekend. The clear pirate copies take one to two weeks after that. Whether you are in law-abiding Singapore or lawless Mindanao in the Philippines (I lived in Singapore for 11+ years and now Mindanao for 2 years) this is simply how it works.

I would prefer to watch it again in the cinema but there are problems with the sound and also power failures (and rats) so I'm going to grab the DVD from a street vendor instead.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 29, 2013)

Scrivener of Doom said:


> Secondly, the pirate copies hit the street by the weekend. The clear pirate copies take one to two weeks after that. Whether you are in law-abiding Singapore or lawless Mindanao in the Philippines (I lived in Singapore for 11+ years and now Mindanao for 2 years) this is simply how it works.




Same as every other major city on the planet then! Plus, like, the whole, internet. I don't think being in Asia is a factor there. Piracy isn't exactly uncommon.

I thought you meant the real DVD got released early.


----------



## Everett (Jun 29, 2013)

Morrus said:


> What was the explanation?




Morrus -- tell me how to make the button that hides spoilers in a post and I'll post it.


----------



## MarkB (Jun 29, 2013)

Everett said:


> Morrus -- tell me how to make the button that hides spoilers in a post and I'll post it.




Tip: To see how a piece of post formatting works, find a post that contains it and click Reply With Quote - that'll let you look at the formatting in its raw form in the quoted text.

[sblock]Try it on this one.[/sblock]


----------



## Everett (Jun 29, 2013)

[sblock]Near the end of Kal's final battle with Zod, they crash into an office building's interior and Earth's atmospherics begin once more painfully affecting Zod.  As he tries to clear his head, he gets angry, and in that moment he realizes that he can do what Kal-El can do -- pour the anger out through his eyes, which then leads directly to that oh-so-controversial finale, where Kal sees plainly that he has no choice but to kill Zod or let more humans die. As the first Kansas flashback implies, channeling anger is also how Kal/Clark learned to do it.

That finale has come in for criticism as well, but I haven't seen anyone explain what they would have rather seen Superman do **in that situation**, if not kill Zod.  Superman doesn't know the Vulcan nerve pinch; he doesn't have arsenals of high-tech like Batman.[/sblock]


----------



## Morrus (Jun 29, 2013)

Everett said:


> [sblock]Near the end of Kal's final battle with Zod, they crash into an office building's interior and Earth's atmospherics begin once more painfully affecting Zod.  As he tries to clear his head, he gets angry, and in that moment he realizes that he can do what Kal-El can do -- pour the anger out through his eyes, which then leads directly to that oh-so-controversial finale, where Kal sees plainly that he has no choice but to kill Zod or let more humans die. As the first Kansas flashback implies, channeling anger is also how Kal/Clark learned to do it.[/sblock]
> 
> Oh, that.  Yes, I recall that.  It doesn't explain why they have heat vision.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 29, 2013)

Yes, an *explanation* would be something like...Kryptonians could naturally see into the infrared, and had evolved organs in the ocular system to store and project infrared radiation to see in otherwise absolute darkness.  Their version of echolocation, as it were.

Then, upon hitting Earth, those organs are just as supercharged as their muscles, etc.


----------



## MarkB (Jun 29, 2013)

Morrus said:


> Mainly by people who have clearly forgotten the end of Superman II where he casually executed a powerless Zod and showed no remorse whatsoever.




To be fair, those were classic Disney Villain Deaths, to the extent that, as a youngster, I did wonder whether the villains were, in fact killed, or if the Fortress was keeping them literally on ice somewhere in its depths.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 29, 2013)

Having finally scene it, I'm of the mind that it was decent, but not great, the negative reviews were largely off-base and missed some of the real problems, and it was probably about as good as it could be.


----------



## Everett (Jun 29, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Yes, an *explanation* would be something like...Kryptonians could naturally see into the infrared, and had evolved organs in the ocular system to store and project infrared radiation to see in otherwise absolute darkness.  Their version of echolocation, as it were.
> 
> Then, upon hitting Earth, those organs are just as supercharged as their muscles, etc.




I suppose if you want hard biological science, then no, that's not in the film; that would be a different movie.  The evolution is suggested.


----------



## Grumpy RPG Reviews (Jun 30, 2013)

Scrivener of Doom said:


> How did Superman beat Zod?




Zod wanted to die at that point. It was suicide by Superman, or suicide by cop.


----------



## Scrivener of Doom (Jun 30, 2013)

MarkB said:


> To be fair, those were classic Disney Villain Deaths, to the extent that, as a youngster, I did wonder whether the villains were, in fact killed, or if the Fortress was keeping them literally on ice somewhere in its depths.




Yeah, that's the way I always thought about that scene. 



Grumpy RPG Reviews said:


> Zod wanted to die at that point. It was suicide by Superman, or suicide by cop.





Interesting.


----------



## Everett (Jun 30, 2013)

MarkB said:


> To be fair, those were classic Disney Villain Deaths, to the extent that, as a youngster, I did wonder whether the villains were, in fact killed, or if the Fortress was keeping them literally on ice somewhere in its depths.




Apparently Zod's death wasn't what Richard Donner wanted, and the director's cut shows that Zod's still alive at the bottom of the pit, or something.

But I never saw the director's cut, and I don't see that it matters. In the film as it stood in the clip Morrus posted, Zod is toast. The hand-crush is brutal.


----------



## MarkB (Jun 30, 2013)

Everett said:


> Apparently Zod's death wasn't what Richard Donner wanted, and the director's cut shows that Zod's still alive at the bottom of the pit, or something.
> 
> But I never saw the director's cut, and I don't see that it matters. In the film as it stood in the clip Morrus posted, Zod is toast. The hand-crush is brutal.




Certainly, and I don't think Superman's killing of Zod in the current movie is wrong, or out-of-character. But there is a difference, perception-wise, between having the villain vanish into a fog-pit to some undefined probably-dead fate, and snapping the villain's neck on screen. I think it's alright to be bothered more by the latter than the former.

EDIT: What's with the gratuitous hypertexting of my post? Can I remove it?


----------



## Everett (Jun 30, 2013)

MarkB said:


> Certainly, and I don't think Superman's killing of Zod in the current movie is wrong, or out-of-character. But there is a difference, perception-wise, between having the villain vanish into a fog-pit to some undefined probably-dead fate, and snapping the villain's neck on screen. I think it's alright to be bothered more by the latter than the former.




The world was a more innocent place then; Superman tossed Zod off with a wink and a smile.  It's hard to imagine a 2013 film that looked back to the Chris Reeve days being at all successful.

I have no problem with the neck-snap; as has been pointed out, Zod wanted to die, and Superman wanted to kill him.  Most likely, his murder of Zod will lead to him establishing his traditional "no killing" rule in the sequel.  I have no issues with the film in toto, and I do think that people will learn to see it in a more positive light as time goes on.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jun 30, 2013)

Morrus said:


> Mainly by people who have clearly forgotten the end of Superman II where he casually executed a powerless Zod and showed no remorse whatsoever.



Not saying you're wrong (since that's certainly what it looks like in the movie cut), but the TV cut shows "arctic police" or something arresting the lot and taking them away. So I guess that bit was cut from the movie (implying their deaths). I just thought that was interesting.


----------



## Grumpy RPG Reviews (Jul 1, 2013)

If we are talking about deleted scenes, then why not novelizations and comics the like as well? Because they are not part of the film shown on the scene and that should be taken as a single entity in its own right.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Jul 2, 2013)

Well, I was without power last night thanks to a blown transformer (get your minds out of the gutter), so I went to see MoS. What a mess. Bad script, bad writing, bad directing, bad camera work, bad casting (the actor playing Zod seems to have some sort of speech impediment or affectation that just ruins some of his best moments), bad acting, bad editing, horrible soundtrack (that boat air-horn filtered through a synthesizer is way over-used in general, and quickly became annoying within this movie), and overall just plain dis-satisfying. The previews showed so much promise, but the actual movie is yet another missed opportunity. Copied way too many of the effects and techniques from other modern movies (ones that I hated), without putting anything really redeeming into them. Shoddy story logic. About the only effect that I liked was the eye-glow. Why is the symbol of life on Krypton a blackened burnt up skull? Why is putting this genetic matrix into Kal-El's body necessary? Doesn't he already have sperm? How can an Air-Force captain NOT Know what Terraforming is? If Lois can track down his secret identity, how can the Government of the United States NOT do the exact same thing?
Maybe DC should just stop making movies. Or maybe they should put Bruce Timm in change. They definitely need to get rid of Nolan and Snyder.
Man of Steel gets a D- for Disappointment and Delusional.


----------



## Everett (Jul 2, 2013)

sabrinathecat said:


> Well, I was without power last night thanks to a blown transformer (get your minds out of the gutter), so I went to see MoS. What a mess. Bad script, bad writing, bad directing, bad camera work, bad casting (the actor playing Zod seems to have some sort of speech impediment or affectation that just ruins some of his best moments), bad acting, bad editing, horrible soundtrack (that boat air-horn filtered through a synthesizer is way over-used in general, and quickly became annoying within this movie), and overall just plain dis-satisfying. The previews showed so much promise, but the actual movie is yet another missed opportunity. Copied way too many of the effects and techniques from other modern movies (ones that I hated), without putting anything really redeeming into them. Shoddy story logic. About the only effect that I liked was the eye-glow. Why is the symbol of life on Krypton a blackened burnt up skull? Why is putting this genetic matrix into Kal-El's body necessary? Doesn't he already have sperm? How can an Air-Force captain NOT Know what Terraforming is? If Lois can track down his secret identity, how can the Government of the United States NOT do the exact same thing?
> Maybe DC should just stop making movies. Or maybe they should put Bruce Timm in change. They definitely need to get rid of Nolan and Snyder.
> Man of Steel gets a D- for Disappointment and Delusional.




If you have nothing to express but apathy and disgust, why bother typing it all out? It doesn't serve the discussion.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Jul 2, 2013)

Because I would like to see an actually GOOD superman movie. Is that so much to ask? Closest they ever managed was the second one.
That isn't apathy. Apathy would be "who cares?". I care. I want to know why, with so much money and talent available, the result was something that poor.


----------



## Scrivener of Doom (Jul 2, 2013)

Everett said:


> If you have nothing to express but apathy and disgust, why bother typing it all out? It doesn't serve the discussion.




Hey, she expressed her opinion and the basis for it. That's well within the rules of the forum.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jul 2, 2013)

sabrinathecat said:


> [...]



Based on your previous posts, I could have told you you would not like it.


----------



## Everett (Jul 2, 2013)

Scrivener of Doom said:


> Hey, she expressed her opinion and the basis for it. That's well within the rules of the forum.




Technically, yes, she did. But not in a way that gives me the faintest sense that she deserves a thoughtful, genuine response.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 2, 2013)

sabrinathecat said:


> Because I would like to see an actually GOOD superman movie. Is that so much to ask?



I kind of think it is. As some posted a while back, Superman is a nice pop culture icon and a symbol, but very difficult to dramatize as a character. His shtick is that he's invincible and always does the right thing. That means that substantial contrivances and naked plot devices are required to challenge him at all, and his reactions to those challenges tend not to be very interesting.

And times have changed. People look more closely at plot holes than they did decades ago. And the silliness of the Clark Kent alter ego, the costume, and the cartoon science (yeah, oxygen totally gives you super powers) and cartoon morality (watching people die to keep a secret that isn't secret anyway) just don't play any more.

It's simply much harder to do Superman as a movie than Batman (and even Batman they fouled up the third time around). I found Man of Steel mildly entertaining and visually interesting at times, but lacking in drama. "Nice spectacle with nonsensical story and no emotional resonance" seems to be Zack Snyder's ceiling; it's unfortunate that he keeps getting all this money to make movies when there are truly great storytellers just waiting for a chance. But regardless of who makes it I have a hard time even imagining what a truly good Superman movie would be.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Jul 2, 2013)

Bruce Timm and his team did an excellent job of making Superman a workable and interesting character in the animated series. For 3 years. Plus 4 years of Justice League and JLU. It can be done. Granted, most of those stories are shorter, simpler, and obviously targeted towards children, but it can be done.
Batman has had such mixed results over the years as far as movies... Tim Burton's first outing was the only one I'd consider to be "Good", followed by an OK, A campy retro, an awful, and then the recent Nolan flubs.
I thought the IDEA of the government not trusting superman and trying to either control or eliminate him as just another threat was interesting. The execution of that idea was utterly lame, and stretched suspension of disbelief past the breaking point--far more than the idea that a pair of glasses and a different hair comb can totally conceal a secret identity.
In spite of the names involved, the trailers actually looked like it might be a good movie--enough to convince me to give it a try. I guess that is a triumph of marketing and editing, and perhaps the highest accomplishment of the movie.


----------



## Everett (Jul 2, 2013)

I'm not a huge fan of Zack Snyder the person, myself, he seems fairly douchey, but if you remove your opinion of the man and just look at the movie, it might change.

Or it might not -- /shrug -- superficial critique that's heavy on the negative is very boring to read.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Jul 2, 2013)

Sorry if I am boring you.
Would love to post something enthusiastic. Show me something worthy, and I will.
Don't know the person, only his work, so my opinion of the movie is entirely separate from opinion of the person.
How much depth would you like? How specific do you want me to be? Only saw the movie once, and have no intention of seeing it again, so quoting line by line would be a problem, as would posting spoilers for those who haven't seen it yet by might want to.

I will give it one thing: unlike Superman Returns, it was not boring.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Jul 8, 2013)

As another counter to Man of Steel, I offer the Direct to DVD release: Superman Unbound. Here is a story of a classic Superman, established in his world, along with SuperGirl (also established), performing Iconic feats in new and interesting ways. Yes, it was based on a graphic novel called "Braniac", but the characters were true to themselves, interesting, and performed within a realistic world (well, as realistic as super-powered alien beings). The characters had arcs and development, and felt like actual people.
In short, Unbound (aside from the silly title) was what a Superman movie _should_ be, and everything that MoS failed to do. In point of fact, it was better than both of the previous Superman DtDVD releases, and the Batman/Superman/Justice League movies.
Superman Unbound: The REAL superman movie for 2013.
(Oh, there is a scene with eyeballs being ripped out of sockets, people and aliens being killed (with blood leaking from wounds), and Lois gives a very unladylike (and very common) hand-gesture to Braniac. Decide if you and your kids can handle that for yourselves.)


----------

