"Terry, I think a lot of us who worked in comics were brainstorming ways to improve so many scenes in the movie that were just wrong, and we had a lifetime's experience reading Silver Age comic books which, in lieu of horrible violence, instead stimulated our imaginations and made us THINK our way out of desperate situations."
:x:x:x
That quote is equally damming as well as worthy of praise.
"that were just wrong" - In YOUR eyes. Not mine. Not in the eyes of a good number of people who saw it, went to see it again, will be buying the DVD, can't wait for the next one, etc. So "wrong" really equates to "not how I'd have done it" which really isn't wrong at all. This is Not. That. Superman. Hell, it's not even the John Byrne version, as much as we try and make that connection. It's a new take on him. Some people...hell, apparently a lot of people...are going to like it. Some people are definitely going to hate it.
"a lifetime's experience reading Silver Age comic books" - Fine and dandy. I love 'em, too. But I'd expect you'd be looking for the big key for Superman's fortress of solitude, and his giant bowling alley contained within, Jimmy Olsen constantly fucking things up for him, Lois being a total ditz that he occasionally has to take over his knee and spank (well...I'd pay to see Amy Adams get a whippin, but that's me! :) ), etc.
"made us THINK" - Yes. Those early Superman stories did involve him thinking his way out of a situation. And when they make a movie where he's able to plug up a volcano by flying out to get a passing asteroid near Saturn, or stopping a giant gorilla by creating an extra large banana with a special beam he has back at the fortress...we'll all be rolling our collective eyes. Here's a flash fact...if you reverse the earth's rotation by flying around it really fast, time doesn't back up. The gravitational destruction from tidal shifting probably wiped out whole cities on the shorelines, easily dwarfing the destruction bill from MoS.
Also make no mistake, he killed those three Kryptonians in Superman II (okay, Lois got one of them). Just because you didn't see the neck breaking doesn't mean the fall didn't kill them.
wow. If Man of Still was worst superhero movie in recent memory I want to hear your opinions on Iron Man 2 or Green Lantern.
Iron Man 2 was a good movie..eh..up until the battle at the end.
Green Lantern was a let down but I still had fun, at times, watching the movie.
Man of Steel was the perfect storm of lousy acting, boring story, eye rolling cliches, drab design, etc
The movie took a fun concept and tried to make it serious business. Everything that makes Superman great was muted down to a dull hum while the explosions and lasers were cranked up to 11 in hopes we wouldn't notice.
@batlaw did a good job explaining my problem with the Pa Kent death scene.
While Superman killing Zod didn't bother me morally I knew that this was not consistent with his character. It capped off a movie that tried to make The Dark Knight version of Supes and failed miserably.
"Terry, I think a lot of us who worked in comics were brainstorming ways to improve so many scenes in the movie that were just wrong, and we had a lifetime's experience reading Silver Age comic books which, in lieu of horrible violence, instead stimulated our imaginations and made us THINK our way out of desperate situations."
:x:x:x
That quote is equally damming as well as worthy of praise.
"that were just wrong" - In YOUR eyes. Not mine. Not in the eyes of a good number of people who saw it, went to see it again, will be buying the DVD, can't wait for the next one, etc. So "wrong" really equates to "not how I'd have done it" which really isn't wrong at all. This is Not. That. Superman. Hell, it's not even the John Byrne version, as much as we try and make that connection. It's a new take on him. Some people...hell, apparently a lot of people...are going to like it. Some people are definitely going to hate it.
"a lifetime's experience reading Silver Age comic books" - Fine and dandy. I love 'em, too. But I'd expect you'd be looking for the big key for Superman's fortress of solitude, and his giant bowling alley contained within, Jimmy Olsen constantly fucking things up for him, Lois being a total ditz that he occasionally has to take over his knee and spank (well...I'd pay to see Amy Adams get a whippin, but that's me! :) ), etc.
"made us THINK" - Yes. Those early Superman stories did involve him thinking his way out of a situation. And when they make a movie where he's able to plug up a volcano by flying out to get a passing asteroid near Saturn, or stopping a giant gorilla by creating an extra large banana with a special beam he has back at the fortress...we'll all be rolling our collective eyes. Here's a flash fact...if you reverse the earth's rotation by flying around it really fast, time doesn't back up. The gravitational destruction from tidal shifting probably wiped out whole cities on the shorelines, easily dwarfing the destruction bill from MoS.
While the trappings (and nearly every individual story) of the Silver Age Superman seem silly today, the aggregate ideal of the character is something I still feel worthy of respect and reverence.
Yes, "wrong" is a hard word. While such choices may not have been wrong intellectually, creatively, financially, abstractly or absolutely, on a gut level, in my heart, those scenes truly felt wrong to me (and apparently many others).
I think this whole Pa Kent and the dog thing comes down to a point I made earlier which is that the scene simply wasn't well done. The filmmakers did a poor job of setting up a scene in which Pa Kent dies and reinforces his message to Clark. Had it been better written/acted etc, these conversations would be lessened.
And just to get into the debate for a moment, I think this movie was all about bad Dad's screwing their kid up. Pa Kent spent the whole moving spewing a cynical world view and showing a fundamental lack of faith in humanity that got to a point where he considered letting children die and even setting himself for some ridiculous false choice sacrifice. I seriously found Costner's Pa to be as distasteful as Zod.
Not to mention Jor El imprinting the DNA of a race of people in his son. Which is pretty hubristic and ended up causing a group of people to attack his son and destroy a city.
I still see Pa as being cautious about his son's reveal to the world. Smallville Jonathan was doing the same thing. How many times did he get in trouble or almost dies protecting Clark's secret?
And I will need another viewing, but I did not hear Pa say "you should've let those kids die." I hear...
"What was I supposed to do? Let them die?" - Clark "I don't know. Maybe." - Pa
Maybe rather then TELL Clark how to use his powers, THIS version had him get Clark to question how to use them. Getting Clark to think about things like times when you can't save everyone, not letting his rage engulf him, making sacrifices to save others.
Sure Pa could've just TOLD Clark, but isn't the lesson better learned if Clark thinks about it and weigh his decisions?
If you think that's BS, then you better report me to child services, because I want my daughter (and future children) to consider the repercussions of her(their) actions before impulsively acting. Hell, its what I do!
Maybe rather then TELL Clark how to use his powers, THIS version had him get Clark to question how to use them. Getting Clark to think about things like times when you can't save everyone, not letting his rage engulf him, making sacrifices to save others.
Sure Pa could've just TOLD Clark, but isn't the lesson better learned if Clark thinks about it and weigh his decisions?
If you think that's BS, then you better report me to child services, because I want my daughter (and future children) to consider the repercussions of her(their) actions before impulsively acting. Hell, its what I do!
M
I'm not against teaching kids (or superheroes) to consider the repercussions of their actions, but I really didn't get that out of these scenes. All I got was Pa Kent stifling Clark's ability to help people in need -- and that just seemed contrary to the established character.
I still see Pa as being cautious about his son's reveal to the world. Smallville Jonathan was doing the same thing. How many times did he get in trouble or almost dies protecting Clark's secret?
And I will need another viewing, but I did not hear Pa say "you should've let those kids die." I hear...
"What was I supposed to do? Let them die?" - Clark "I don't know. Maybe." - Pa
Maybe rather then TELL Clark how to use his powers, THIS version had him get Clark to question how to use them. Getting Clark to think about things like times when you can't save everyone, not letting his rage engulf him, making sacrifices to save others.
Sure Pa could've just TOLD Clark, but isn't the lesson better learned if Clark thinks about it and weigh his decisions?
If you think that's BS, then you better report me to child services, because I want my daughter (and future children) to consider the repercussions of her(their) actions before impulsively acting. Hell, its what I do!
M
I mean, I think your splitting hairs here. I think considering letting kids die is nearly as bad if not the same as advocating for kids to die.
My point is that Pa was clearly a cynical guy who didnt think much of his fellow man and was willing to let possibly let people die in order to reinforce his fearful worldview. Which we can assume was wrong unless the next few movies are about people freaking out and hating Superman which can generally assume they wont be.
Maybe rather then TELL Clark how to use his powers, THIS version had him get Clark to question how to use them. Getting Clark to think about things like times when you can't save everyone, not letting his rage engulf him, making sacrifices to save others.
Sure Pa could've just TOLD Clark, but isn't the lesson better learned if Clark thinks about it and weigh his decisions?
If you think that's BS, then you better report me to child services, because I want my daughter (and future children) to consider the repercussions of her(their) actions before impulsively acting. Hell, its what I do!
M
I'm not against teaching kids (or superheroes) to consider the repercussions of their actions, but I really didn't get that out of these scenes. All I got was Pa Kent stifling Clark's ability to help people in need -- and that just seemed contrary to the established character.
I saw it as Pa loving his son far more than he loved "humanity". He'd rather see his son safe than any number of others. He knew Clark was not just stronger than him, but more altruistic. Still, he wanted to protect him as long as he could from the cruelty of our xenophobic species. He wanted to be sure Clark was mature enough and strong enough inside to be able to handle the way the world would treat him. Sadly, the script really didn't show much at all about how truly freaked out we would be if godlike aliens appeared hidden among us, looking just like us.*
I still see Pa as being cautious about his son's reveal to the world. Smallville Jonathan was doing the same thing. How many times did he get in trouble or almost dies protecting Clark's secret?
And I will need another viewing, but I did not hear Pa say "you should've let those kids die." I hear...
"What was I supposed to do? Let them die?" - Clark "I don't know. Maybe." - Pa
Maybe rather then TELL Clark how to use his powers, THIS version had him get Clark to question how to use them. Getting Clark to think about things like times when you can't save everyone, not letting his rage engulf him, making sacrifices to save others.
Sure Pa could've just TOLD Clark, but isn't the lesson better learned if Clark thinks about it and weigh his decisions?
If you think that's BS, then you better report me to child services, because I want my daughter (and future children) to consider the repercussions of her(their) actions before impulsively acting. Hell, its what I do!
M
I mean, I think your splitting hairs here. I think considering letting kids die is nearly as bad if not the same as advocating for kids to die.
My point is that Pa was clearly a cynical guy who didnt think much of his fellow man and was willing to let possibly let people die in order to reinforce his fearful worldview. Which we can assume was wrong unless the next few movies are about people freaking out and hating Superman which can generally assume they wont be.
If he wasn't somewhat cynical, then why hide Clark at all? And I agree with @wetrats to some extent on this. Its the world's response to him (because unless you live in an Oz generated pixy bubble) the world will fear Clark. Its also with Clark being confident enough to accept that, deal with it, & still move forward.
If he wasn't somewhat cynical, then why hide Clark at all? And I agree with @wetrats to some extent on this. Its the world's response to him (because unless you live in an Oz generated pixy bubble) the world will fear Clark. Its also with Clark being confident enough to accept that, deal with it, & still move forward.
@Matt, to what extent do you disagree with me on this?
I still see Pa as being cautious about his son's reveal to the world. Smallville Jonathan was doing the same thing. How many times did he get in trouble or almost dies protecting Clark's secret?
And I will need another viewing, but I did not hear Pa say "you should've let those kids die." I hear...
"What was I supposed to do? Let them die?" - Clark "I don't know. Maybe." - Pa
Maybe rather then TELL Clark how to use his powers, THIS version had him get Clark to question how to use them. Getting Clark to think about things like times when you can't save everyone, not letting his rage engulf him, making sacrifices to save others.
Sure Pa could've just TOLD Clark, but isn't the lesson better learned if Clark thinks about it and weigh his decisions?
If you think that's BS, then you better report me to child services, because I want my daughter (and future children) to consider the repercussions of her(their) actions before impulsively acting. Hell, its what I do!
M
I mean, I think your splitting hairs here. I think considering letting kids die is nearly as bad if not the same as advocating for kids to die.
My point is that Pa was clearly a cynical guy who didnt think much of his fellow man and was willing to let possibly let people die in order to reinforce his fearful worldview. Which we can assume was wrong unless the next few movies are about people freaking out and hating Superman which can generally assume they wont be.
If he wasn't somewhat cynical, then why hide Clark at all? And I agree with @wetrats to some extent on this. Its the world's response to him (because unless you live in an Oz generated pixy bubble) the world will fear Clark. Its also with Clark being confident enough to accept that, deal with it, & still move forward.
M
In what way does what Pa does help Clark have the confidence to deal with people fearing him. Pa is telling him to do nothing but hide and pretend the issues doesn't exist. How is letting kids die and not helping others mentally preparing him for a later time when he will need to help others?
If he wasn't somewhat cynical, then why hide Clark at all? And I agree with @wetrats to some extent on this. Its the world's response to him (because unless you live in an Oz generated pixy bubble) the world will fear Clark. Its also with Clark being confident enough to accept that, deal with it, & still move forward.
@Matt, to what extent do you disagree with me on this?
I think its the implication Pa dislikes humanity, but I think I'm reading into your post. If that was truly so, Jonathan would've live because he got the dog & left the kid. Yeah, I agree. I would double my agree feedback, but they only allow the one.
How is letting kids die and not helping others mentally preparing him for a later time when he will need to help others?
Remember how overwhelmed and vulnerable Clark was in the classroom? In a sense, he was the most sensitive kid ever. It takes a very long time for a parent to stop wanting to protect his child, and to stop thinking of him as a child. Pa wasn't trying to raise a savior, he was trying to raise a man. That's why Jonathan Kent was a far, far better father than Jor-El could ever be: To Jor-El, Kal-El was a grand experiment and the last hope of his race, to Jonathan Kent, Clark was a son, not a foundling alien freak, just a beloved son.
"Can I still pretend I'm your son?" "You ARE my son."
I think its the implication Pa dislikes humanity, but I think I'm reading into your post. If that was truly so, Jonathan would've live because he got the dog & left the kid. Yeah, I agree. I would double my agree feedback, but they only allow the one.
@Matt, I didn't mean to imply that Pa dislikes humanity, just that he loves his son more than he cares about humanity in general. (I suspect you feel the same way about your daughter.)
How is letting kids die and not helping others mentally preparing him for a later time when he will need to help others?
Remember how overwhelmed and vulnerable Clark was in the classroom? In a sense, he was the most sensitive kid ever. It takes a very long time for a parent to stop wanting to protect his child, and to stop thinking of him as a child. Pa wasn't trying to raise a savior, he was trying to raise a man. That's why Jonathan Kent was a far, far better father than Jor-El could ever be: To Jor-El, Kal-El was a grand experiment and the last hope of his race, to Jonathan Kent, Clark was a son, not a foundling alien freak, just a beloved son.
"Can I still pretend I'm your son?" "You ARE my son."
You covered it exactly. I was going to add a little personal experience. I think some of what makes me enjoy this movie is the journey Clark went through.
A lot of the issues I had growing up were from my lack of self confidence. It wasn't until almost 15yrs ago before I started to discover myself.
Now, I'm very thick skinned; especially to people I don't know &/ or care about. That's because I'm comfortable in my own skin. Knowing WHO I am lead into the stronger relationships I have with family & friends (especially with my wife.) It lead to me being better at my career & all around well-being.
That's how Pa was mentally preparing Clark for how the world received him.
I think its the implication Pa dislikes humanity, but I think I'm reading into your post. If that was truly so, Jonathan would've live because he got the dog & left the kid. Yeah, I agree. I would double my agree feedback, but they only allow the one.
@Matt, I didn't mean to imply that Pa dislikes humanity, just that he loves his son more than he cares about humanity in general. (I suspect you feel the same way about your daughter.)
During my initial read through of your post, I got hung up on a few words rather then see everything in its context. You are correct on both counts.
A few days and a lot of discussion later, I think if I had to boil down the essential thing that was missing for me, it is that we never saw Superman inspire people.
For all of Jor-El and the Kent's speeches about who Clark would be, how humanity would look up to him, and how he would change the world, for all the lip service paid to what was going to happen, I would have liked to see that start to happen.
Instead, the place of the public in this movie was to run, scream, cower, and hope not to die. I feel like, if I were one of those citizens in Smallville or Metropolis, I would actually not have been able to tell who the good guys or bad guys were. It would all just be the terror that super powered aliens are tearing your world apart. And that doesn't feel like a Superman movie to me. That feels like any of the many 'monsters/aliens/etc. are here to DESTROY!' movies. But is not what I wanted from this.
That plane rescue scene in 'Returns, that finishes in the middle of a baseball stadium with the crowd cheering? THAT feels like a Superman movie to me. Because beyond just the physical power set of Superman's powers is his power to inspire. To be iconic. I think that is a very hard thing to sell a modern audience on, I will grant that. It is not cool or sleek. But it is an essential part of what allows Superman (and Captain America) to stand apart from their peers. And I would have liked this movie to try to get that in there. Sure, there was a touch of that when Colonel Chris Meloni (hardest working man in the military) has that 'this man is not our enemy' moment. But I wanted to see the public get inspired. For THEM to look up, and not just in fear.
I loved that flashback scene of a young Clark with a cape on playing at being a superhero (inspired by what in his world, I'm not sure, as their world does not have a Superman yet, I don't know who he is imitating). I wanted to have a Superman in this movie that did some things that would actually MAKE a kid want to pretend to be him.
And while in the end, we got the sense that the military continues to fear him, and one woman thinks he's hot, that's not enough. I wanted to know what the world now feels about him.
And, of course, I know that they can get to that in the sequel. But that is too late, in my opinion. Because in the first film, they neglected Superman's most distinctive power.
Does anyone recall what Jonathan & Clark were discussing prior to the tornado? I recall Jonathan talking about being a farmer & Clark stating Pa wasn't his father.
I was in awe of all the destruction. It felt like the comics have been showing us for years. Most of the time you don't really see the type of mayhem that these types of fights can have in the movies but in this it was jaw dropping what they were willing to show and how much they were willing to destroy. I also felt like there were several scenes in the movie that could be put straight in a comic as a 2 page spread. Over all I really liked it. There are definite holes in the movie for sure but it is a great building block for the bigger universe.
Side note.. When Jenny was trapped under parts of a building I actually felt her fear for her life. Some of the best acting in the while movie for me.
I loved that flashback scene of a young Clark with a cape on playing at being a superhero (inspired by what in his world, I'm not sure, as their world does not have a Superman yet, I don't know who he is imitating).
DC has always tried to keep Superman as the 'first superhero', so to me that looked like he was inventing the idea of a cape-wearing superhero while still a child. What Pa Kent thought he was pretending to be, I don't know... :-?
I was in awe of all the destruction. It felt like the comics have been showing us for years. Most of the time you don't really see the type of mayhem that these types of fights can have in the movies but in this it was jaw dropping what they were willing to show and how much they were willing to destroy. I also felt like there were several scenes in the movie that could be put straight in a comic as a 2 page spread. Over all I really liked it. There are definite holes in the movie for sure but it is a great building block for the bigger universe.
Side note.. When Jenny was trapped under parts of a building I actually felt her fear for her life. Some of the best acting in the while movie for me.
I agree. Big crossovers have HUGE amounts of destruction all the time. Cities get blowed all up, people die all the time.
I know, everyone wants more "reaction" and to kinda deal with destruction. I feel somewhat strongly that they probably filmed some of this, but cut it for time. I'd be very interested to see the uncut version of the movie, or the directors cut, or expanded or whatever they want to call it. I will most certainly NOT be buying the first version of the movie they put out because I expect there to be more.
But at the same time, I expect this to be in the sequal. I know, a lot of people wanted this now. But, if you look at how the comics are, sometimes we have a huge crossover with tons of destruction and the aftermath is simply that. It's told in the next story, or the next month. This movie doesn't have next month, it only has its own time limit. Could they have added five minutes to the end? Yea, I certainly wouldn't have minded, but I think at some point the studio must have said "this is it, you can't have any more time".
I liked the review, unfortunately i think some peoples reviews are running up against the comment limit. I tried to post my own and ran into the same thing. IF you're interested, and that might be a big IF, you can find mine at My Blog
Bottom Line: I liked Cavill Clark Kent/Superman very much. Liked the Krypton scenes a lot and in general enjoyed the plot and music. Movie possibly had 20% too much Russell Crowe. Had no problem with the ending.
I liked the review, unfortunately i think some peoples reviews are running up against the comment limit. I tried to post my own and ran into the same thing. IF you're interested, and that might be a big IF, you can find mine at My Blog
Bottom Line: I liked Cavill Clark Kent/Superman very much. Liked the Krypton scenes a lot and in general enjoyed the plot and music. Movie possibly had 20% too much Russell Crowe. Had no problem with the ending.
That was my nice, passive aggressive way of saying "don't just post a link to where your review is."
I have no problems with people post a link to their thoughts & pimp their blogs, podcasts, etc, BUT give us a little to wet our whistle. What you did is perfect; pimped your blog AND gave us some of your thoughts in THIS thread.
Comments
"that were just wrong" - In YOUR eyes. Not mine. Not in the eyes of a good number of people who saw it, went to see it again, will be buying the DVD, can't wait for the next one, etc. So "wrong" really equates to "not how I'd have done it" which really isn't wrong at all. This is Not. That. Superman. Hell, it's not even the John Byrne version, as much as we try and make that connection. It's a new take on him. Some people...hell, apparently a lot of people...are going to like it. Some people are definitely going to hate it.
"a lifetime's experience reading Silver Age comic books" - Fine and dandy. I love 'em, too. But I'd expect you'd be looking for the big key for Superman's fortress of solitude, and his giant bowling alley contained within, Jimmy Olsen constantly fucking things up for him, Lois being a total ditz that he occasionally has to take over his knee and spank (well...I'd pay to see Amy Adams get a whippin, but that's me! :) ), etc.
"made us THINK" - Yes. Those early Superman stories did involve him thinking his way out of a situation. And when they make a movie where he's able to plug up a volcano by flying out to get a passing asteroid near Saturn, or stopping a giant gorilla by creating an extra large banana with a special beam he has back at the fortress...we'll all be rolling our collective eyes. Here's a flash fact...if you reverse the earth's rotation by flying around it really fast, time doesn't back up. The gravitational destruction from tidal shifting probably wiped out whole cities on the shorelines, easily dwarfing the destruction bill from MoS.
Also make no mistake, he killed those three Kryptonians in Superman II (okay, Lois got one of them). Just because you didn't see the neck breaking doesn't mean the fall didn't kill them.
There's no Easter Bunny, either... :)
Green Lantern was a let down but I still had fun, at times, watching the movie.
Man of Steel was the perfect storm of lousy acting, boring story, eye rolling cliches, drab design, etc
The movie took a fun concept and tried to make it serious business. Everything that makes Superman great was muted down to a dull hum while the explosions and lasers were cranked up to 11 in hopes we wouldn't notice.
@batlaw did a good job explaining my problem with the Pa Kent death scene.
While Superman killing Zod didn't bother me morally I knew that this was not consistent with his character. It capped off a movie that tried to make The Dark Knight version of Supes and failed miserably.
http://kossinamovies.blogspot.com/2013/06/man-of-steel-spoilers.html
Yes, "wrong" is a hard word. While such choices may not have been wrong intellectually, creatively, financially, abstractly or absolutely, on a gut level, in my heart, those scenes truly felt wrong to me (and apparently many others).
And I will need another viewing, but I did not hear Pa say "you should've let those kids die." I hear...
"What was I supposed to do? Let them die?" - Clark
"I don't know. Maybe." - Pa
Maybe rather then TELL Clark how to use his powers, THIS version had him get Clark to question how to use them. Getting Clark to think about things like times when you can't save everyone, not letting his rage engulf him, making sacrifices to save others.
Sure Pa could've just TOLD Clark, but isn't the lesson better learned if Clark thinks about it and weigh his decisions?
If you think that's BS, then you better report me to child services, because I want my daughter (and future children) to consider the repercussions of her(their) actions before impulsively acting. Hell, its what I do!
M
M
I still see Pa as being cautious about his son's reveal to the world. Smallville Jonathan was doing the same thing. How many times did he get in trouble or almost dies protecting Clark's secret?
And I will need another viewing, but I did not hear Pa say "you should've let those kids die." I hear...
"What was I supposed to do? Let them die?" - Clark
"I don't know. Maybe." - Pa
Maybe rather then TELL Clark how to use his powers, THIS version had him get Clark to question how to use them. Getting Clark to think about things like times when you can't save everyone, not letting his rage engulf him, making sacrifices to save others.
Sure Pa could've just TOLD Clark, but isn't the lesson better learned if Clark thinks about it and weigh his decisions?
If you think that's BS, then you better report me to child services, because I want my daughter (and future children) to consider the repercussions of her(their) actions before impulsively acting. Hell, its what I do!
M
I mean, I think your splitting hairs here. I think considering letting kids die is nearly as bad if not the same as advocating for kids to die.
My point is that Pa was clearly a cynical guy who didnt think much of his fellow man and was willing to let possibly let people die in order to reinforce his fearful worldview. Which we can assume was wrong unless the next few movies are about people freaking out and hating Superman which can generally assume they wont be.
*OK. Prettier than most of us.
My point is that Pa was clearly a cynical guy who didnt think much of his fellow man and was willing to let possibly let people die in order to reinforce his fearful worldview. Which we can assume was wrong unless the next few movies are about people freaking out and hating Superman which can generally assume they wont be.
If he wasn't somewhat cynical, then why hide Clark at all? And I agree with @wetrats to some extent on this. Its the world's response to him (because unless you live in an Oz generated pixy bubble) the world will fear Clark. Its also with Clark being confident enough to accept that, deal with it, & still move forward.
M
M
In what way does what Pa does help Clark have the confidence to deal with people fearing him. Pa is telling him to do nothing but hide and pretend the issues doesn't exist. How is letting kids die and not helping others mentally preparing him for a later time when he will need to help others?
M
"Can I still pretend I'm your son?"
"You ARE my son."
A lot of the issues I had growing up were from my lack of self confidence. It wasn't until almost 15yrs ago before I started to discover myself.
Now, I'm very thick skinned; especially to people I don't know &/ or care about. That's because I'm comfortable in my own skin. Knowing WHO I am lead into the stronger relationships I have with family & friends (especially with my wife.) It lead to me being better at my career & all around well-being.
That's how Pa was mentally preparing Clark for how the world received him.
M
I loved it. and hey, did you see the pod that was on the ship, turns out it's SUPERGIRL!
M
M
For all of Jor-El and the Kent's speeches about who Clark would be, how humanity would look up to him, and how he would change the world, for all the lip service paid to what was going to happen, I would have liked to see that start to happen.
Instead, the place of the public in this movie was to run, scream, cower, and hope not to die. I feel like, if I were one of those citizens in Smallville or Metropolis, I would actually not have been able to tell who the good guys or bad guys were. It would all just be the terror that super powered aliens are tearing your world apart. And that doesn't feel like a Superman movie to me. That feels like any of the many 'monsters/aliens/etc. are here to DESTROY!' movies. But is not what I wanted from this.
That plane rescue scene in 'Returns, that finishes in the middle of a baseball stadium with the crowd cheering? THAT feels like a Superman movie to me. Because beyond just the physical power set of Superman's powers is his power to inspire. To be iconic. I think that is a very hard thing to sell a modern audience on, I will grant that. It is not cool or sleek. But it is an essential part of what allows Superman (and Captain America) to stand apart from their peers. And I would have liked this movie to try to get that in there. Sure, there was a touch of that when Colonel Chris Meloni (hardest working man in the military) has that 'this man is not our enemy' moment. But I wanted to see the public get inspired. For THEM to look up, and not just in fear.
I loved that flashback scene of a young Clark with a cape on playing at being a superhero (inspired by what in his world, I'm not sure, as their world does not have a Superman yet, I don't know who he is imitating). I wanted to have a Superman in this movie that did some things that would actually MAKE a kid want to pretend to be him.
And while in the end, we got the sense that the military continues to fear him, and one woman thinks he's hot, that's not enough. I wanted to know what the world now feels about him.
And, of course, I know that they can get to that in the sequel. But that is too late, in my opinion. Because in the first film, they neglected Superman's most distinctive power.
M
\:D/
Side note.. When Jenny was trapped under parts of a building I actually felt her fear for her life. Some of the best acting in the while movie for me.
I know, everyone wants more "reaction" and to kinda deal with destruction. I feel somewhat strongly that they probably filmed some of this, but cut it for time. I'd be very interested to see the uncut version of the movie, or the directors cut, or expanded or whatever they want to call it. I will most certainly NOT be buying the first version of the movie they put out because I expect there to be more.
But at the same time, I expect this to be in the sequal. I know, a lot of people wanted this now. But, if you look at how the comics are, sometimes we have a huge crossover with tons of destruction and the aftermath is simply that. It's told in the next story, or the next month. This movie doesn't have next month, it only has its own time limit. Could they have added five minutes to the end? Yea, I certainly wouldn't have minded, but I think at some point the studio must have said "this is it, you can't have any more time".
Bottom Line: I liked Cavill Clark Kent/Superman very much. Liked the Krypton scenes a lot and in general enjoyed the plot and music. Movie possibly had 20% too much Russell Crowe. Had no problem with the ending.
I have no problems with people post a link to their thoughts & pimp their blogs, podcasts, etc, BUT give us a little to wet our whistle. What you did is perfect; pimped your blog AND gave us some of your thoughts in THIS thread.
Driveby link pimps are the same as popup ads!
M