@Planeis I am not saying it should be discounted. Rather, I am just quoting the people that report on box office for a living in noting that it had a big second week drop-off. It's second week did not live up to expectations. That is not to say that it hasn't, and will not continue to, make a lot of money.
But less than they thought it would. A steeper second week decline than projected. And a steep second week drop off usually says something about enthusiasm and word of mouth.
Well, I'm not disagreeing with box office mojo, but I do disagree with your comments.
The drop was larger than expected, but I submit that its because of the extremely fierce competition, as the writer notes in the beginning paragraph. As an example of how fierce the competition was, Batman Begins opened during the same weekend in 2005. Now, obviously, prices have changed, but allow me to show something. The two new openings against Man of Steel generated $148 million domestically. During Begins' 2nd weekend, the entire top 10 was only $122 million.
And its also a result of a huge, huge opening. For instance, the two movies Ray compares it to, The Incredible Hulk and Green Lantern, Man of Steel's opening was almost as high as those movies' entire domestic run. That's big. Its drop was always going to be big. Ray at boxofficemojo.com, while noting the decrease, does not make any statements about bad word of mouth. Indeed, he takes the time to note that Monsters U had an "A" CinemaScore rating, which he says suggests it will generate good word of mouth. Man of Steel has an "A-"; CinemaScore in general is what points to the "word of mouth".
In addition, despite the much talked about low RT score and certain highly publicised people who disliked the movie, obviously there are fans who didn't like it, but many many people did. That's what I'm saying with the divided opinion. For instance It has the 2nd highest Metacritic score among users. Higher than all the other movies currently in theaters except for one that I've never heard of.
That's all I'm saying. Not that anyone has to like it. Not that the money its making proves its good, because it doesn't. Just that among the audience, the general reception is that yes, some people really didn't like it, but many others really, really did. And that the steep drop is mostly attributed to hot competition, which won't be getting any lighter this week.
Sure, there is tough competition. But what movies MOS would complete against in its second week was not a secret or some kind of "June Surprise" (to borrow the political term). The expectations of how it would fare in a second week- by those who report on this for a living- would have been made knowing what the competition would be when they made their projections.
Surveys of enthusiasm like Cinemascore or aggregators of reviews can say one thing. And I am not saying they are without value.
But when the rubber met the road in the second weekend, all of those reviews and enthusiasm on the part of the first week audience did not translate into enough of them seeing it again, or influencing others to see it to face the competition and avoid that steep decline. Surveys can use samples to try to measure enthusiasm. But I think that decline of box office has within it some facts about that same enthusiasm.
Again, to be clear, I am not saying the movie has failed. There is still a lot of money made and being made.
But the experts at projecting these things say that it underperformed in its second weekend.
Seeing as how I live in New Zealand, we've only just got Man Of Steel in our theaters. So what did I think of it? Not much unfortunately, It's a dogs breakfast of a movie, disjointed and sloppy, terrified of slowing down long enough to allow the story to breath. I kept playing the first Christopher Reeve Superman in my head in tandem with this movie, all the time thinking to myself; "Would it kill the movie makers to just allow the camera to remain stationary once in a while, so I could actually see what's going on?" All the action sequences seemed to feature either extreme closeups, so you couldn't see the choreography, or extreme wide shots, making the characters look like specks. Henry Cavill makes a fine Superman, but like everything else, you only see it in snatches.
I mean ultimately, if this leads to a movie where Superman explores his moral compass, and we get more thrilling action and adventure from DC characters, so be it.
I am willing to forgive the flaws of this movie, if there's more cohesion in the next one, if the moral quandry eats at Superman, if people don't forget that this demigod killed someone to save them, and should be a little freaked out.
If you're going for "Realistic" that has to be the next plot. Lex Luthor playing on the paranoia of the people. Government approval of anti-Superman ordinance and projects (Metallo, Parasite, Atomic Skull = Anti-Superman Squad) Make Superman earn that trust. If people love him in the next movie from Jump Street, that's just plain BS. Dude's people (and people will see him as Kryptonian and not human) destroyed the planet. He can't be a beloved icon. He has to expose Luthor, or valiantly risk his life against the homicidal Metallo or whoever they decide to use. Make him look noble. At this point, this is what I want. I want to build on Man of Steel in a meaningful, logical manner.
Matt, I know we as fans have to make concessions to see these characters on the big screen, but we don't have to like them. Right before Zod throws that tanker at Supes, we see people surrounding the area, instead of grabbing the tanker, he jumps over it, allowing it to explode. Even if no one was inside, someone nearby could've been hurt. I know they didn't SHOW ANYONE, but the idea that everyone escaped from the area is childishly optimistic.
Again, I'm gonna point to the fact that a father had to tell his 5 year old daughter what Superman did when he snapped Zod's neck. I never asked my dad about Superman snapping anyone's neck. It's the most violent act I've seen in any superhero movie. It's so... intimate. He held his neck and twisted it. It was visceral, raw... something Superman isn't in the habit of doing.
Look, the movie's out. It's made money. There's no taking it back. I just want the sequel to do all the things I mentioned a few paragraphs up.
Seeing as how I live in New Zealand, we've only just got Man Of Steel in our theaters. So what did I think of it? Not much unfortunately, It's a dogs breakfast of a movie, disjointed and sloppy, terrified of slowing down long enough to allow the story to breath. I kept playing the first Christopher Reeve Superman in my head in tandem with this movie, all the time thinking to myself; "Would it kill the movie makers to just allow the camera to remain stationary once in a while, so I could actually see what's going on?" All the action sequences seemed to feature either extreme closeups, so you couldn't see the choreography, or extreme wide shots, making the characters look like specks. Henry Cavill makes a fine Superman, but like everything else, you only see it in snatches.
I mean ultimately, if this leads to a movie where Superman explores his moral compass, and we get more thrilling action and adventure from DC characters, so be it.
I am willing to forgive the flaws of this movie, if there's more cohesion in the next one, if the moral quandry eats at Superman, if people don't forget that this demigod killed someone to save them, and should be a little freaked out.
If you're going for "Realistic" that has to be the next plot. Lex Luthor playing on the paranoia of the people. Government approval of anti-Superman ordinance and projects (Metallo, Parasite, Atomic Skull = Anti-Superman Squad) Make Superman earn that trust. If people love him in the next movie from Jump Street, that's just plain BS. Dude's people (and people will see him as Kryptonian and not human) destroyed the planet. He can't be a beloved icon. He has to expose Luthor, or valiantly risk his life against the homicidal Metallo or whoever they decide to use. Make him look noble. At this point, this is what I want. I want to build on Man of Steel in a meaningful, logical manner.
Matt, I know we as fans have to make concessions to see these characters on the big screen, but we don't have to like them. Right before Zod throws that tanker at Supes, we see people surrounding the area, instead of grabbing the tanker, he jumps over it, allowing it to explode. Even if no one was inside, someone nearby could've been hurt. I know they didn't SHOW ANYONE, but the idea that everyone escaped from the area is childishly optimistic.
Again, I'm gonna point to the fact that a father had to tell his 5 year old daughter what Superman did when he snapped Zod's neck. I never asked my dad about Superman snapping anyone's neck. It's the most violent act I've seen in any superhero movie. It's so... intimate. He held his neck and twisted it. It was visceral, raw... something Superman isn't in the habit of doing.
Look, the movie's out. It's made money. There's no taking it back. I just want the sequel to do all the things I mentioned a few paragraphs up.
You're right, the sequel does have to deal all these issues, especially the suicide by cop death of Zod. Its what really going to cement the themes of this movie.
As for the father & 5 yr old, I couldn't care less. The movie is PG-13. A parent assumes the risks when they take a child under that age into the movie. Both JAWS & E.T. are PG movies & there's scenes that scared the shit out of me at 13. The level of violence, language, & sexual situations has only increased over the years. So, to me, that's more shame on the parent then the movie.
As for the father & 5 yr old, I couldn't care less. The movie is PG-13. A parent assumes the risks when they take a child under that age into the movie. Both JAWS & E.T. are PG movies & there's scenes that scared the shit out of me at 13. The level of violence, language, & sexual situations has only increased over the years. So, to me, that's more shame on the parent then the movie.
Seeing as how I live in New Zealand, we've only just got Man Of Steel in our theaters. So what did I think of it? Not much unfortunately, It's a dogs breakfast of a movie, disjointed and sloppy, terrified of slowing down long enough to allow the story to breath. I kept playing the first Christopher Reeve Superman in my head in tandem with this movie, all the time thinking to myself; "Would it kill the movie makers to just allow the camera to remain stationary once in a while, so I could actually see what's going on?" All the action sequences seemed to feature either extreme closeups, so you couldn't see the choreography, or extreme wide shots, making the characters look like specks. Henry Cavill makes a fine Superman, but like everything else, you only see it in snatches.
Heh.
"Dog's Breakfast."
Hmmm...Maby that should've been "Krypto's Breakfast". ;)
I saw the movie a week and a half ago, and just wanted it to sink in a bit.
Overall, I would say was okay.
First, to get it out of the way, I didn't have a huge issue with Superman killing Zod. Likely, it is because I am a (mostly) Post-COIE Superman reader, but "my" Superman has, when it was absolutely necessary, killed. In my head, I always thought of him like Captain America in that regard, but I can't really say why.
That said, I wish, maybe, that my Superman was the one that a lot of you carry with you. I didn't really think that until I read this thread, but there is a wonderful passion for the character that I don't have, and that may be a part of it.
I've never been a huge fan of the Reeve films, despite the fact that I should be right in the pocket of that era, given I am in my late 30's, so those films do not inform my opinion of this current film all that much.
I appreciated the "fleshing" out of Krypton, and, though I have a bit of an issue with how Jor El was handled in this film, I thought Russell Crowe was great.
I found the pacing of the film a bit wonky. The length of the final fight was a bit much, especially in light of the feeling that some things were so rushed throughout the film, like the almost inexplicable "love" story of Lois and Superman. (Really, kissing over the ruins of a city, with virtually no foundation for a romance?)
The destruction of everything, though... that was more than a bit much. I get that Superman is new to this whole "hero" thing... so maybe one or two buildings get knocked down, but then you take the fight somewhere less crowded. You don't stick around and keep destroying things until Metropolis and Smallville look like post-apocalyptic wastelands.
Superman doesn't come off very "heroic" in this, which is an issue. Those he saves, it seems more like an immediate reaction, a happenstance. Protecting people NEVER seems like his primary goal. He never makes the effort to proactively save people. We could certainly have used a lot more scenes of him pulling people out of danger WHILE battling the Kryptonians, instead of the odd soldier here or the family there.
And, while there were fewer examples in this movie than in Superman Returns, the Christ Allegory was, if possible, handled even more ham-handedly. Jor El saying "You can save them all," as Supes takes the Nestea Plunge with outstretched arms toward the Earth? Really? Ugh.
Zod was fine. I liked him better in Groundhog Day.
Amy Adams was fine. Nothing spectacular. She did the role, but I'm not sure she brought much to it. She said and did things that implied "spunk," but I never really got that idea from her.
I think that it was an error to have Zod in the film. Or, rather, I think it was a general error to have an off-world threat in the movie. I think that Superman needed to be established as a hero first, before the waters were muddied by folks from the same planet with the same powers being enemies of Earth. I think that people need to learn to trust Superman, embrace him, before seeing him as "Defender of the Earth." He needed to battle a threat to Earth that was from Earth.
Superman needed, say, mad-scientist Lex Luthor building giant robots to take over the world, or something like that. Man of Steel presented a threat directly relating to Superman... essentially caused by his presence. This builds in the instant feeling of, "No Superman, no threat."
Had Superman been slightly established, the public could have embraced him as Earth's adopted son. Earth would have a reason to back him, and not blame him. And, that is what we are left with - billions of dollars in damage, massive death toll, all because some alien decided to hide here. What will come next? What terrible new threat will come because of the alien's presence on this world?
Mind you, this may be setting up for future films to have the public with that point of view... but, while this idea has been expressed in the past in comics, it always felt like it was the minority. In the situation set up in the movie, how could it possibly be NOT the majority view? It is a very Nolan-Batman view at the end of Dark Knight returns- Batman as the "villain." It just doesn't sit well with me when it comes to Superman. In this movie, Superman may say the "S" stands for hope, but for the general public, it will represent fear, destruction, and terror.
My biggest problem of the whole movie, though, was the inversion of the reason that Superman became... well, Superman.
They made his being raised on Earth the thing he had to overcome to become a hero, not the reason for him becoming a hero.
And, it is all Pa Kent's fault.
Traditionally, the moral compass of Superman, that which guided Clark all his life, was set by the Kents. It is what makes him "human" in spite of his birth heritage. Pa Kent is the midwest farmer who sees life as mostly black and white, right and wrong, and has strong convictions that keep him grounded - even while raising an alien son.
When Clark asked if he should have just let that busload of kids die, Pa Kent would never entertain the thought of "Yes," even for a moment. The fact that in this film he did struggle with that bothered me a lot.
I could have accepted, "Of course not, but you need to be more careful!" but we didn't get that. Instead, we get Jonathan Kent considering the sacrifice of a busload of kids out of fear - not of his son being found out, exactly, but of the reaction of the world, that it would change the way they thought about everything. It is a ridiculously philosophical debate for a "real life" (in the film) situation.
Even down to that scene where Clark lets Jonathan Kent die. That scene was the culmination that, in Pa Kent's eyes, keeping the secret was more important than doing what was right. Clark's inaction showed that this was how he was raised - not to do right above all, but to hide.
It was learned behavior, to protect that secret, over doing what was right. It turns the whole story of Superman on its head. The way he was raised is now what must be fought against, not what leads him to become the man he could be.
And, where did Jonathan Kent's center go in this film? To Jor El.
I did really like the depth of characterization of Jor El in the film, but I did not like that he seemed to become the only influence on Clark to do the right thing. Jor El is the one that convinces Clark to show himself to the world, to step out.
It just rubs me wrong, taking that from Jonathan Kent and giving it to Jor El.
I think that it was an error to have Zod in the film. Or, rather, I think it was a general error to have an off-world threat in the movie. I think that Superman needed to be established as a hero first, before the waters were muddied by folks from the same planet with the same powers being enemies of Earth. I think that people need to learn to trust Superman, embrace him, before seeing him as "Defender of the Earth." He needed to battle a threat to Earth that was from Earth.
Superman needed, say, mad-scientist Lex Luthor building giant robots to take over the world, or something like that. Man of Steel presented a threat directly relating to Superman... essentially caused by his presence. This builds in the instant feeling of, "No Superman, no threat."
Had Superman been slightly established, the public could have embraced him as Earth's adopted son. Earth would have a reason to back him, and not blame him. And, that is what we are left with - billions of dollars in damage, massive death toll, all because some alien decided to hide here. What will come next? What terrible new threat will come because of the alien's presence on this world?
Mind you, this may be setting up for future films to have the public with that point of view... but, while this idea has been expressed in the past in comics, it always felt like it was the minority. In the situation set up in the movie, how could it possibly be NOT the majority view? It is a very Nolan-Batman view at the end of Dark Knight returns- Batman as the "villain." It just doesn't sit well with me when it comes to Superman. In this movie, Superman may say the "S" stands for hope, but for the general public, it will represent fear, destruction, and terror.
My biggest problem of the whole movie, though, was the inversion of the reason that Superman became... well, Superman.
They made his being raised on Earth the thing he had to overcome to become a hero, not the reason for him becoming a hero.
And, it is all Pa Kent's fault.
Traditionally, the moral compass of Superman, that which guided Clark all his life, was set by the Kents. It is what makes him "human" in spite of his birth heritage. Pa Kent is the midwest farmer who sees life as mostly black and white, right and wrong, and has strong convictions that keep him grounded - even while raising an alien son.
When Clark asked if he should have just let that busload of kids die, Pa Kent would never entertain the thought of "Yes," even for a moment. The fact that in this film he did struggle with that bothered me a lot.
I could have accepted, "Of course not, but you need to be more careful!" but we didn't get that. Instead, we get Jonathan Kent considering the sacrifice of a busload of kids out of fear - not of his son being found out, exactly, but of the reaction of the world, that it would change the way they thought about everything. It is a ridiculously philosophical debate for a "real life" (in the film) situation.
Even down to that scene where Clark lets Jonathan Kent die. That scene was the culmination that, in Pa Kent's eyes, keeping the secret was more important than doing what was right. Clark's inaction showed that this was how he was raised - not to do right above all, but to hide.
It was learned behavior, to protect that secret, over doing what was right. It turns the whole story of Superman on its head. The way he was raised is now what must be fought against, not what leads him to become the man he could be.
And, where did Jonathan Kent's center go in this film? To Jor El.
I did really like the depth of characterization of Jor El in the film, but I did not like that he seemed to become the only influence on Clark to do the right thing. Jor El is the one that convinces Clark to show himself to the world, to step out.
It just rubs me wrong, taking that from Jonathan Kent and giving it to Jor El.
(Sorry about the length!)
I hope the Lex we get is the one set up in the movie; corporate Lex. The mad scientist & the real estate versions always bored me. They seemed so goofy rather then threatening.
I've been thinking more about the response of Pa. I still say his response was to help Clark think about how & when to use his powers. I've recently thought about Pa's selfish reason; keeping Clark safe.
I hope my daughter gets inspired to help others. As her father, however, if it comes down to the safety of some classmate or my daughter, I want her to think of herself & be safe.
I'm betting Jonathan was selfishly to some degree, felt the same way.
There are a lot of posts about the movie and it's way too much to go and read them all so I am sorry if my views have been covered but I enjoyed this movie. A lot. I thought the beginning was cool. I liked how we got a bit of a John Byrne Man of Steel visuals from the Kryptonians. I liked the idea that Kal-El is different in that he was the first natural birth in who knows how long. It makes him special among both Humans and Kryptonians. It makes him so much more unique when you also consider his upbringing on Earth.
I loved the flashbacks with Ma and Pa Kent. I don't think Jonathan really was telling Clark to let the bus full of kids die. I don't think he knew what to say. He was scared for his son and didn't know what to say and I think all of that really played into Jonathan's ultimate fate which made sad. I don't know how many times I saw it in the trailer but when young Clark asks Jonathan why can't he just be his son and Pa Kent tells him that he is, it still choked me up. There are so many moments in this movie that made me laugh or gave me an emotional response that I really liked.
I thought the action scenes were amazing. I think by the end it was a bit over-the-top but I liked them very much. I think Kal-El had to kill Zod. It was in his nature to kill for the preservation of Krypton. Zod wasn't going to change and that was the flaw of growing Kryptonians instead of birthing them in the way Kal-El was. Also, it's not like Superman just did it without a care in the world. I say this will haunt him for years to come. I am sure you will see this as a plot point in the sequel and I think it will be interesting.
I loved all of the cameos. Especially the guy who played Lt. Gaeta. He also played Professor Hamilton in Smallville. Also, I got a question that maybe someone can answer. When we see the flashback of Zod and his small group looking around at various planets, the costume that they are wearing looked a whole lot like the battle suit Lex Luthor wears in the comics. I wonder if Lex does make his appearance in the next movie if he'll have that technology suit. That would be kind of interesting.
Overall, I enjoyed this movie. It was a different take on the character but it was interesting and refreshing and I enjoyed it a whole lot.
Seeing as how I live in New Zealand, we've only just got Man Of Steel in our theaters. So what did I think of it? Not much unfortunately, It's a dogs breakfast of a movie, disjointed and sloppy, terrified of slowing down long enough to allow the story to breath. I kept playing the first Christopher Reeve Superman in my head in tandem with this movie, all the time thinking to myself; "Would it kill the movie makers to just allow the camera to remain stationary once in a while, so I could actually see what's going on?" All the action sequences seemed to feature either extreme closeups, so you couldn't see the choreography, or extreme wide shots, making the characters look like specks. Henry Cavill makes a fine Superman, but like everything else, you only see it in snatches.
Heh.
"Dog's Breakfast."
Hmmm...Maby that should've been "Krypto's Breakfast". ;)
That's one of those phrases, I always want to add to my lexicon, but it never presents itself. "Manky", on the other hand, gets used often now.
I think that it was an error to have Zod in the film. Or, rather, I think it was a general error to have an off-world threat in the movie. I think that Superman needed to be established as a hero first, before the waters were muddied by folks from the same planet with the same powers being enemies of Earth. I think that people need to learn to trust Superman, embrace him, before seeing him as "Defender of the Earth." He needed to battle a threat to Earth that was from Earth.
I think that it was an error to have Zod in the film. Or, rather, I think it was a general error to have an off-world threat in the movie. I think that Superman needed to be established as a hero first, before the waters were muddied by folks from the same planet with the same powers being enemies of Earth. I think that people need to learn to trust Superman, embrace him, before seeing him as "Defender of the Earth." He needed to battle a threat to Earth that was from Earth.
I could not agree with this more.
I don't know. First, if it wasn't a Kryptonian threat, we would probably get Luthor again. Second, doesn't this show Superman chose Earth over his heritage? Finally, its a building block for a better Lex angle. Lex sees himself as the hero, so the mass destruction Superman caused really plays into his plans of "battling" him.
I didn't mind the choice of Zod for the first movie (though I wish Zod had someone in his group of baddies worth talking to, so that Shannon's Zod got to have some dialogue other than "I WILL GET HIM!" and "OPEN THE POD BAY DOORS!" or whatever that was. . .)
I like the use of Zod as, and here I agree with @Matt, it did make it a story about choosing between Krypton and Earth. To me it cuts the cord on his origin story and signals, perhaps, that anything to do with Krypton is now done. That there won't be future Kryptonian Effect On Earth Monster of the Week stories. But. . .
I do wish they had given a hint as to, now that the Kryptonian threat that pushed Superman to emerge has been dealt with, what it is that he is going to do next. What it is that he sees as his place or role in the world. Is he just a countermeasure in case more Kryptonians somehow come? Is he just there to deal with alien threats? The movie gives us no sense of his post-alien invasion status quo or purpose other than he is hiding, and that he will be keeping 'his ear to the ground' whatever that means.
Now, sure, we know the Superman brand, so based on that we can guess that the next movie he will be doing more rescuing and saving the day around Metropolis and beyond. But the movie doesn't establish that. And if we are supposed to check what we know about Superman at the door and take the movie on its own terms, then I think they could have given us a better sense of what the character now sees as his place and responsibility going forward. What things he would intervene in and what he won't. Something like that.
To further explore the infamous school bus scene: Imagine it but simply reversed. Taking all his fathers warnings to heart along with his own fear of discovery/uncertainty Clark allows all his classmates to perish while he of course survives. Mrs. Ross (now grieving) confronts the Kents about Clarks miraculous survival and how it mustve been devine intervention Etc. The Kents snicker and try to reasure her nothing "supernatural" occurred. Meenwhile Clark is outside pouting and pondering whether or not he did the right thing. Pa approaches Clark and attempts to comfort and council him. Clark asks "what was I supposed to do, save them and risk exposing my abilities?". To which pa Kent replies, "I dunno, maybe"?. Honestly, Is there anyone who would be defending that scene? Would you agree and understand pa Kent or say it was fitting of the character in any way? I think outrage at Mr. Kent would be appropriate. What the hell do you mean "maybe"!? there is no maybe. Absolutely of course you should have saved those kids. Son Im glad youre okay and your secret is safe, but If you have the ability to do something then you have the responsibility to do something! If nothing else than in cases of whether or not a dozen innocent children are going to die (or when hundreds of thousands are dying all around you in downtown).
To further explore the infamous school bus scene: Imagine it but simply reversed. Taking all his fathers warnings to heart along with his own fear of discovery/uncertainty Clark allows all his classmates to perish while he of course survives. Mrs. Ross (now grieving) confronts the Kents about Clarks miraculous survival and how it mustve been devine intervention Etc. The Kents snicker and try to reasure her nothing "supernatural" occurred. Meenwhile Clark is outside pouting and pondering whether or not he did the right thing. Pa approaches Clark and attempts to comfort and council him. Clark asks "what was I supposed to do, save them and risk exposing my abilities?". To which pa Kent replies, "I dunno, maybe"?. Honestly, Is there anyone who would be defending that scene? Would you agree and understand pa Kent or say it was fitting of the character in any way? I think outrage at Mr. Kent would be appropriate. What the hell do you mean "maybe"!? there is no maybe. Absolutely of course you should have saved those kids. Son Im glad youre okay and your secret is safe, but If you have the ability to do something then you have the responsibility to do something! If nothing else than in cases of whether or not a dozen innocent children are going to die (or when hundreds of thousands are dying all around you in downtown).
OR Clark decided he made the wrong choice and made a vow that he would learn to use his powers responsibly and help people.
To further explore the infamous school bus scene: Imagine it but simply reversed. Taking all his fathers warnings to heart along with his own fear of discovery/uncertainty Clark allows all his classmates to perish while he of course survives. Mrs. Ross (now grieving) confronts the Kents about Clarks miraculous survival and how it mustve been devine intervention Etc. The Kents snicker and try to reasure her nothing "supernatural" occurred. Meenwhile Clark is outside pouting and pondering whether or not he did the right thing. Pa approaches Clark and attempts to comfort and council him. Clark asks "what was I supposed to do, save them and risk exposing my abilities?". To which pa Kent replies, "I dunno, maybe"?. Honestly, Is there anyone who would be defending that scene? Would you agree and understand pa Kent or say it was fitting of the character in any way? I think outrage at Mr. Kent would be appropriate. What the hell do you mean "maybe"!? there is no maybe. Absolutely of course you should have saved those kids. Son Im glad youre okay and your secret is safe, but If you have the ability to do something then you have the responsibility to do something! If nothing else than in cases of whether or not a dozen innocent children are going to die (or when hundreds of thousands are dying all around you in downtown).
OR Clark decided he made the wrong choice and made a vow that he would learn to use his powers responsibly and help people.
M
Which really would make Pa the villain, and one with blood on his hands, at that.
To further explore the infamous school bus scene: Imagine it but simply reversed. Taking all his fathers warnings to heart along with his own fear of discovery/uncertainty Clark allows all his classmates to perish while he of course survives. Mrs. Ross (now grieving) confronts the Kents about Clarks miraculous survival and how it mustve been devine intervention Etc. The Kents snicker and try to reasure her nothing "supernatural" occurred. Meenwhile Clark is outside pouting and pondering whether or not he did the right thing. Pa approaches Clark and attempts to comfort and council him. Clark asks "what was I supposed to do, save them and risk exposing my abilities?". To which pa Kent replies, "I dunno, maybe"?. Honestly, Is there anyone who would be defending that scene? Would you agree and understand pa Kent or say it was fitting of the character in any way? I think outrage at Mr. Kent would be appropriate. What the hell do you mean "maybe"!? there is no maybe. Absolutely of course you should have saved those kids. Son Im glad youre okay and your secret is safe, but If you have the ability to do something then you have the responsibility to do something! If nothing else than in cases of whether or not a dozen innocent children are going to die (or when hundreds of thousands are dying all around you in downtown).
OR Clark decided he made the wrong choice and made a vow that he would learn to use his powers responsibly and help people.
M
Which really would make Pa the villain, and one with blood on his hands, at that.
I'm going to need a @David_D super sized post with an elaboration. I'm looking to understand your thought process.
i know this movie had some Easter eggs in it,but i hope this is one of them and if it is true!
I really hope that's a fan putting that in there. Reeve will also be a Superman of my childhood through nostalgia, BUT I want a clean break from Donner's superverse. Nolan didn't use anything from the 90s Batman movies, so I can't believe he'd have this in there.
To further explore the infamous school bus scene: Imagine it but simply reversed. Taking all his fathers warnings to heart along with his own fear of discovery/uncertainty Clark allows all his classmates to perish while he of course survives. Mrs. Ross (now grieving) confronts the Kents about Clarks miraculous survival and how it mustve been devine intervention Etc. The Kents snicker and try to reasure her nothing "supernatural" occurred. Meenwhile Clark is outside pouting and pondering whether or not he did the right thing. Pa approaches Clark and attempts to comfort and council him. Clark asks "what was I supposed to do, save them and risk exposing my abilities?". To which pa Kent replies, "I dunno, maybe"?. Honestly, Is there anyone who would be defending that scene? Would you agree and understand pa Kent or say it was fitting of the character in any way? I think outrage at Mr. Kent would be appropriate. What the hell do you mean "maybe"!? there is no maybe. Absolutely of course you should have saved those kids. Son Im glad youre okay and your secret is safe, but If you have the ability to do something then you have the responsibility to do something! If nothing else than in cases of whether or not a dozen innocent children are going to die (or when hundreds of thousands are dying all around you in downtown).
OR Clark decided he made the wrong choice and made a vow that he would learn to use his powers responsibly and help people.
M
To help everyone but his dad a few years later and all the citizens of Metropolis years after that?
The scene and my post is about Pa not Clark or his future. However you slice it, pa Kent, his character, and the scene are just all kinds of wrong I think.
I think that it was an error to have Zod in the film. Or, rather, I think it was a general error to have an off-world threat in the movie. I think that Superman needed to be established as a hero first, before the waters were muddied by folks from the same planet with the same powers being enemies of Earth. I think that people need to learn to trust Superman, embrace him, before seeing him as "Defender of the Earth." He needed to battle a threat to Earth that was from Earth.
I could not agree with this more.
I don't know. First, if it wasn't a Kryptonian threat, we would probably get Luthor again. Second, doesn't this show Superman chose Earth over his heritage? Finally, its a building block for a better Lex angle. Lex sees himself as the hero, so the mass destruction Superman caused really plays into his plans of "battling" him.
M
I know this would not be as blockbustery, but here's the way I'd have liked to see the trilogy laid out
First film: Lois as POV character as she finds herself in a race to find and expose the mysterious benefactor before the (competent) government finds and claims. Establish Luthor as industrialist with heavy political/military connections, but leave him minor. Between Lois' reporting and Superman's saving thousands from a major natural disaster to two, the world at large embraces him as a hero. Lois and Clark establish partnership and SHE gets him the Daily Planet job. TEASE: Escape from Phantom Zone.
Second film: Phantom Zone/Kryptonian invasion. Huge public debate as to whether Superman should surrender, Luthor emerges as leader of anti-Superman faction. Superman surrenders, Zod betrays, much destruction, though with lots of heroism, including possible emergence of "lesser" heroes. Superman gains upper hand on Zod, is in process of getting him to see reason, Luthor's allies show up with captured Krypronian tech, kill Zod. Luthor announces run for presidency in Metropolis rubble on "alien menace" platform. TEASE: Luthor & crew discussing anti-Superman options.
Third film: Luthor presidency. Superman as outcast/fugitive, once again working in secret/fighting off anti-Superman tech (Metallo?), while Lois & Clark attempt to find dirt on Luthor's increasingly ruthless administration. Huge threat emerges (non-Kryptonian Braniac? Darkseid's lackeys?) Superman and emerging "other" heroes win the day. Public opinion shifts. Luthor administration in trouble. TEASE: Formation of Justice League
To further explore the infamous school bus scene: Imagine it but simply reversed. Taking all his fathers warnings to heart along with his own fear of discovery/uncertainty Clark allows all his classmates to perish while he of course survives. Mrs. Ross (now grieving) confronts the Kents about Clarks miraculous survival and how it mustve been devine intervention Etc. The Kents snicker and try to reasure her nothing "supernatural" occurred. Meenwhile Clark is outside pouting and pondering whether or not he did the right thing. Pa approaches Clark and attempts to comfort and council him. Clark asks "what was I supposed to do, save them and risk exposing my abilities?". To which pa Kent replies, "I dunno, maybe"?. Honestly, Is there anyone who would be defending that scene? Would you agree and understand pa Kent or say it was fitting of the character in any way? I think outrage at Mr. Kent would be appropriate. What the hell do you mean "maybe"!? there is no maybe. Absolutely of course you should have saved those kids. Son Im glad youre okay and your secret is safe, but If you have the ability to do something then you have the responsibility to do something! If nothing else than in cases of whether or not a dozen innocent children are going to die (or when hundreds of thousands are dying all around you in downtown).
OR Clark decided he made the wrong choice and made a vow that he would learn to use his powers responsibly and help people.
M
To help everyone but his dad a few years later and all the citizens of Metropolis years after that?
The scene and my post is about Pa not Clark or his future. However you slice it, pa Kent, his character, and the scene are just all kinds of wrong I think.
Oh. I was under the impression when you altered that scene, it'd only fit that the subsequent scenes would also be altered. Clark DOES save Pa and shows concern for "the PEOPLE!"
If you're altering the circumstances & Pa's response, then who's to say that wouldn't alter Clark? It seems as the movie stands, people are noting this conversation as a reason Clark doesn't save Pa later & hides his powers. I'm just using the mirror image of that same argument with the alteration you made.
I think that it was an error to have Zod in the film. Or, rather, I think it was a general error to have an off-world threat in the movie. I think that Superman needed to be established as a hero first, before the waters were muddied by folks from the same planet with the same powers being enemies of Earth. I think that people need to learn to trust Superman, embrace him, before seeing him as "Defender of the Earth." He needed to battle a threat to Earth that was from Earth.
I could not agree with this more.
I don't know. First, if it wasn't a Kryptonian threat, we would probably get Luthor again. Second, doesn't this show Superman chose Earth over his heritage? Finally, its a building block for a better Lex angle. Lex sees himself as the hero, so the mass destruction Superman caused really plays into his plans of "battling" him.
M
I know this would not be as blockbustery, but here's the way I'd have liked to see the trilogy laid out
First film: Lois as POV character as she finds herself in a race to find and expose the mysterious benefactor before the (competent) government finds and claims. Establish Luthor as industrialist with heavy political/military connections, but leave him minor. Between Lois' reporting and Superman's saving thousands from a major natural disaster to two, the world at large embraces him as a hero. Lois and Clark establish partnership and SHE gets him the Daily Planet job. TEASE: Escape from Phantom Zone.
Second film: Phantom Zone/Kryptonian invasion. Huge public debate as to whether Superman should surrender, Luthor emerges as leader of anti-Superman faction. Superman surrenders, Zod betrays, much destruction, though with lots of heroism, including possible emergence of "lesser" heroes. Superman gains upper hand on Zod, is in process of getting him to see reason, Luthor's allies show up with captured Krypronian tech, kill Zod. Luthor announces run for presidency in Metropolis rubble on "alien menace" platform. TEASE: Luthor & crew discussing anti-Superman options.
Third film: Luthor presidency. Superman as outcast/fugitive, once again working in secret/fighting off anti-Superman tech (Metallo?), while Lois & Clark attempt to find dirt on Luthor's increasingly ruthless administration. Huge threat emerges (non-Kryptonian Braniac? Darkseid's lackeys?) Superman and emerging "other" heroes win the day. Public opinion shifts. Luthor administration in trouble. TEASE: Formation of Justice League
So who'd/what'd be the big threat in the first installment? Natural disasters? If you're leaning toward the military there'd be callbacks to the Hulk movies. This would be the 6th Superman movie where we wouldn't really get to see Superman's full powers against the main antagonist.
To further explore the infamous school bus scene: Imagine it but simply reversed. Taking all his fathers warnings to heart along with his own fear of discovery/uncertainty Clark allows all his classmates to perish while he of course survives. Mrs. Ross (now grieving) confronts the Kents about Clarks miraculous survival and how it mustve been devine intervention Etc. The Kents snicker and try to reasure her nothing "supernatural" occurred. Meenwhile Clark is outside pouting and pondering whether or not he did the right thing. Pa approaches Clark and attempts to comfort and council him. Clark asks "what was I supposed to do, save them and risk exposing my abilities?". To which pa Kent replies, "I dunno, maybe"?. Honestly, Is there anyone who would be defending that scene? Would you agree and understand pa Kent or say it was fitting of the character in any way? I think outrage at Mr. Kent would be appropriate. What the hell do you mean "maybe"!? there is no maybe. Absolutely of course you should have saved those kids. Son Im glad youre okay and your secret is safe, but If you have the ability to do something then you have the responsibility to do something! If nothing else than in cases of whether or not a dozen innocent children are going to die (or when hundreds of thousands are dying all around you in downtown).
OR Clark decided he made the wrong choice and made a vow that he would learn to use his powers responsibly and help people.
M
Which really would make Pa the villain, and one with blood on his hands, at that.
I'm going to need a @David_D super sized post with an elaboration. I'm looking to understand your thought process.
M
I can probably keep it (somewhat) concise, actually-- in the film we got, Pa, out of love for Clark, kept pressure on him to stay 'in the closet', but Pa's desire for Clark to keep the secret was something that Clark resisted. Including saving those kids from the bus even though it may have gone against what Pa wanted.
However, if the fear and pressure that Pa put into Clark ACTUALLY kept him from saving those kids? Then that would be blood on Pa's hands. And any good deed that Clark did in the future as Superman would become an attempt to undo that shame (or that sin, for those that want to think of it in those terms-- a la the Act of Contrition 'in what I've done and what I failed to do').
Those kids dying would be the difference between a father whose heart was in the right place, and eventually you had to understand where he was coming from but still defy him vs. 'I did what I thought he wanted and it led to the worst decision of my life'.
I think that it was an error to have Zod in the film. Or, rather, I think it was a general error to have an off-world threat in the movie. I think that Superman needed to be established as a hero first, before the waters were muddied by folks from the same planet with the same powers being enemies of Earth. I think that people need to learn to trust Superman, embrace him, before seeing him as "Defender of the Earth." He needed to battle a threat to Earth that was from Earth.
I could not agree with this more.
I don't know. First, if it wasn't a Kryptonian threat, we would probably get Luthor again. Second, doesn't this show Superman chose Earth over his heritage? Finally, its a building block for a better Lex angle. Lex sees himself as the hero, so the mass destruction Superman caused really plays into his plans of "battling" him.
M
I know this would not be as blockbustery, but here's the way I'd have liked to see the trilogy laid out
First film: Lois as POV character as she finds herself in a race to find and expose the mysterious benefactor before the (competent) government finds and claims. Establish Luthor as industrialist with heavy political/military connections, but leave him minor. Between Lois' reporting and Superman's saving thousands from a major natural disaster to two, the world at large embraces him as a hero. Lois and Clark establish partnership and SHE gets him the Daily Planet job. TEASE: Escape from Phantom Zone.
Second film: Phantom Zone/Kryptonian invasion. Huge public debate as to whether Superman should surrender, Luthor emerges as leader of anti-Superman faction. Superman surrenders, Zod betrays, much destruction, though with lots of heroism, including possible emergence of "lesser" heroes. Superman gains upper hand on Zod, is in process of getting him to see reason, Luthor's allies show up with captured Krypronian tech, kill Zod. Luthor announces run for presidency in Metropolis rubble on "alien menace" platform. TEASE: Luthor & crew discussing anti-Superman options.
Third film: Luthor presidency. Superman as outcast/fugitive, once again working in secret/fighting off anti-Superman tech (Metallo?), while Lois & Clark attempt to find dirt on Luthor's increasingly ruthless administration. Huge threat emerges (non-Kryptonian Braniac? Darkseid's lackeys?) Superman and emerging "other" heroes win the day. Public opinion shifts. Luthor administration in trouble. TEASE: Formation of Justice League
So who'd/what'd be the big threat in the first installment? Natural disasters? If you're leaning toward the military there'd be callbacks to the Hulk movies. This would be the 6th Superman movie where we wouldn't really get to see Superman's full powers against the main antagonist.
To further explore the infamous school bus scene: Imagine it but simply reversed. Taking all his fathers warnings to heart along with his own fear of discovery/uncertainty Clark allows all his classmates to perish while he of course survives. Mrs. Ross (now grieving) confronts the Kents about Clarks miraculous survival and how it mustve been devine intervention Etc. The Kents snicker and try to reasure her nothing "supernatural" occurred. Meenwhile Clark is outside pouting and pondering whether or not he did the right thing. Pa approaches Clark and attempts to comfort and council him. Clark asks "what was I supposed to do, save them and risk exposing my abilities?". To which pa Kent replies, "I dunno, maybe"?. Honestly, Is there anyone who would be defending that scene? Would you agree and understand pa Kent or say it was fitting of the character in any way? I think outrage at Mr. Kent would be appropriate. What the hell do you mean "maybe"!? there is no maybe. Absolutely of course you should have saved those kids. Son Im glad youre okay and your secret is safe, but If you have the ability to do something then you have the responsibility to do something! If nothing else than in cases of whether or not a dozen innocent children are going to die (or when hundreds of thousands are dying all around you in downtown).
OR Clark decided he made the wrong choice and made a vow that he would learn to use his powers responsibly and help people.
M
Which really would make Pa the villain, and one with blood on his hands, at that.
I'm going to need a @David_D super sized post with an elaboration. I'm looking to understand your thought process.
M
I can probably keep it (somewhat) concise, actually-- in the film we got, Pa, out of love for Clark, kept pressure on him to stay 'in the closet', but Pa's desire for Clark to keep the secret was something that Clark resisted. Including saving those kids from the bus even though it may have gone against what Pa wanted.
However, if the fear and pressure that Pa put into Clark ACTUALLY kept him from saving those kids? Then that would be blood on Pa's hands. And any good deed that Clark did in the future as Superman would become an attempt to undo that shame (or that sin, for those that want to think of it in those terms-- a la the Act of Contrition 'in what I've done and what I failed to do').
Those kids dying would be the difference between a father whose heart was in the right place, and eventually you had to understand where he was coming from but still defy him vs. 'I did what I thought he wanted and it led to the worst decision of my life'.
Wouldn't Pa, see the deaths, realized he was wrong to shelter Clark & his powers? Now he's helping Clark to hone his abilities & help him help others?
In the actual movie, would you say (based on your above post) all the unseen deaths in Smallville & Metropolis then are blood on Pa's deceased hands? Had he (supposedly) coddled Clark & have him use his powers early on, he'd be more confident in the limitations & save the citizens? In a way, pursuing the battle with Zod could be the same as keeping his secret during the bus incident. It was more important to Clark to save his classmates (as opposed to keeping the secret), just as it was more important for Superman to fight Zod (as opposed to worrying about all the endangered people).
To further explore the infamous school bus scene: Imagine it but simply reversed. Taking all his fathers warnings to heart along with his own fear of discovery/uncertainty Clark allows all his classmates to perish while he of course survives. Mrs. Ross (now grieving) confronts the Kents about Clarks miraculous survival and how it mustve been devine intervention Etc. The Kents snicker and try to reasure her nothing "supernatural" occurred. Meenwhile Clark is outside pouting and pondering whether or not he did the right thing. Pa approaches Clark and attempts to comfort and council him. Clark asks "what was I supposed to do, save them and risk exposing my abilities?". To which pa Kent replies, "I dunno, maybe"?. Honestly, Is there anyone who would be defending that scene? Would you agree and understand pa Kent or say it was fitting of the character in any way? I think outrage at Mr. Kent would be appropriate. What the hell do you mean "maybe"!? there is no maybe. Absolutely of course you should have saved those kids. Son Im glad youre okay and your secret is safe, but If you have the ability to do something then you have the responsibility to do something! If nothing else than in cases of whether or not a dozen innocent children are going to die (or when hundreds of thousands are dying all around you in downtown).
OR Clark decided he made the wrong choice and made a vow that he would learn to use his powers responsibly and help people.
M
Which really would make Pa the villain, and one with blood on his hands, at that.
I'm going to need a @David_D super sized post with an elaboration. I'm looking to understand your thought process.
M
I can probably keep it (somewhat) concise, actually-- in the film we got, Pa, out of love for Clark, kept pressure on him to stay 'in the closet', but Pa's desire for Clark to keep the secret was something that Clark resisted. Including saving those kids from the bus even though it may have gone against what Pa wanted.
However, if the fear and pressure that Pa put into Clark ACTUALLY kept him from saving those kids? Then that would be blood on Pa's hands. And any good deed that Clark did in the future as Superman would become an attempt to undo that shame (or that sin, for those that want to think of it in those terms-- a la the Act of Contrition 'in what I've done and what I failed to do').
Those kids dying would be the difference between a father whose heart was in the right place, and eventually you had to understand where he was coming from but still defy him vs. 'I did what I thought he wanted and it led to the worst decision of my life'.
Wouldn't Pa, see the deaths, realized he was wrong to shelter Clark & his powers? Now he's helping Clark to hone his abilities & help him help others?
In the actual movie, would you say (based on your above post) all the unseen deaths in Smallville & Metropolis then are blood on Pa's deceased hands? Had he (supposedly) coddled Clark & have him use his powers early on, he'd be more confident in the limitations & save the citizens? In a way, pursuing the battle with Zod could be the same as keeping his secret during the bus incident. It was more important to Clark to save his classmates (as opposed to keeping the secret), just as it was more important for Superman to fight Zod (as opposed to worrying about all the endangered people).
M
It might have inspired Pa to get on Team Superman, but it would have been too late. No amount of regret or help towards Clark doing better in the future would bring those kids back. To be clear, I am not saying Pa would be the villain like Clark would actually fight against him. Rather that he would have been a part of making Clark do something that perhaps could never be redeemed.
As for the unseen deaths in Smallville and Metropolis. . . are you now conceding that maybe those buildings weren't empty? ;)
Comments
Surveys of enthusiasm like Cinemascore or aggregators of reviews can say one thing. And I am not saying they are without value.
But when the rubber met the road in the second weekend, all of those reviews and enthusiasm on the part of the first week audience did not translate into enough of them seeing it again, or influencing others to see it to face the competition and avoid that steep decline. Surveys can use samples to try to measure enthusiasm. But I think that decline of box office has within it some facts about that same enthusiasm.
Again, to be clear, I am not saying the movie has failed. There is still a lot of money made and being made.
But the experts at projecting these things say that it underperformed in its second weekend.
I am willing to forgive the flaws of this movie, if there's more cohesion in the next one, if the moral quandry eats at Superman, if people don't forget that this demigod killed someone to save them, and should be a little freaked out.
If you're going for "Realistic" that has to be the next plot. Lex Luthor playing on the paranoia of the people. Government approval of anti-Superman ordinance and projects (Metallo, Parasite, Atomic Skull = Anti-Superman Squad) Make Superman earn that trust. If people love him in the next movie from Jump Street, that's just plain BS. Dude's people (and people will see him as Kryptonian and not human) destroyed the planet. He can't be a beloved icon. He has to expose Luthor, or valiantly risk his life against the homicidal Metallo or whoever they decide to use. Make him look noble. At this point, this is what I want. I want to build on Man of Steel in a meaningful, logical manner.
Matt, I know we as fans have to make concessions to see these characters on the big screen, but we don't have to like them. Right before Zod throws that tanker at Supes, we see people surrounding the area, instead of grabbing the tanker, he jumps over it, allowing it to explode. Even if no one was inside, someone nearby could've been hurt. I know they didn't SHOW ANYONE, but the idea that everyone escaped from the area is childishly optimistic.
Again, I'm gonna point to the fact that a father had to tell his 5 year old daughter what Superman did when he snapped Zod's neck. I never asked my dad about Superman snapping anyone's neck. It's the most violent act I've seen in any superhero movie. It's so... intimate. He held his neck and twisted it. It was visceral, raw... something Superman isn't in the habit of doing.
Look, the movie's out. It's made money. There's no taking it back. I just want the sequel to do all the things I mentioned a few paragraphs up.
"Dog's Breakfast."
As for the father & 5 yr old, I couldn't care less. The movie is PG-13. A parent assumes the risks when they take a child under that age into the movie. Both JAWS & E.T. are PG movies & there's scenes that scared the shit out of me at 13. The level of violence, language, & sexual situations has only increased over the years. So, to me, that's more shame on the parent then the movie.
M
Shame on the parent indeed.
http://i.imgur.com/kLTGf0B.gif
i know this movie had some Easter eggs in it,but i hope this is one of them and if it is true!
Overall, I would say was okay.
First, to get it out of the way, I didn't have a huge issue with Superman killing Zod. Likely, it is because I am a (mostly) Post-COIE Superman reader, but "my" Superman has, when it was absolutely necessary, killed. In my head, I always thought of him like Captain America in that regard, but I can't really say why.
That said, I wish, maybe, that my Superman was the one that a lot of you carry with you. I didn't really think that until I read this thread, but there is a wonderful passion for the character that I don't have, and that may be a part of it.
I've never been a huge fan of the Reeve films, despite the fact that I should be right in the pocket of that era, given I am in my late 30's, so those films do not inform my opinion of this current film all that much.
I appreciated the "fleshing" out of Krypton, and, though I have a bit of an issue with how Jor El was handled in this film, I thought Russell Crowe was great.
I found the pacing of the film a bit wonky. The length of the final fight was a bit much, especially in light of the feeling that some things were so rushed throughout the film, like the almost inexplicable "love" story of Lois and Superman. (Really, kissing over the ruins of a city, with virtually no foundation for a romance?)
The destruction of everything, though... that was more than a bit much. I get that Superman is new to this whole "hero" thing... so maybe one or two buildings get knocked down, but then you take the fight somewhere less crowded. You don't stick around and keep destroying things until Metropolis and Smallville look like post-apocalyptic wastelands.
Superman doesn't come off very "heroic" in this, which is an issue. Those he saves, it seems more like an immediate reaction, a happenstance. Protecting people NEVER seems like his primary goal. He never makes the effort to proactively save people. We could certainly have used a lot more scenes of him pulling people out of danger WHILE battling the Kryptonians, instead of the odd soldier here or the family there.
And, while there were fewer examples in this movie than in Superman Returns, the Christ Allegory was, if possible, handled even more ham-handedly. Jor El saying "You can save them all," as Supes takes the Nestea Plunge with outstretched arms toward the Earth? Really? Ugh.
Zod was fine. I liked him better in Groundhog Day.
Amy Adams was fine. Nothing spectacular. She did the role, but I'm not sure she brought much to it. She said and did things that implied "spunk," but I never really got that idea from her.
(cont'd)
Superman needed, say, mad-scientist Lex Luthor building giant robots to take over the world, or something like that. Man of Steel presented a threat directly relating to Superman... essentially caused by his presence. This builds in the instant feeling of, "No Superman, no threat."
Had Superman been slightly established, the public could have embraced him as Earth's adopted son. Earth would have a reason to back him, and not blame him. And, that is what we are left with - billions of dollars in damage, massive death toll, all because some alien decided to hide here. What will come next? What terrible new threat will come because of the alien's presence on this world?
Mind you, this may be setting up for future films to have the public with that point of view... but, while this idea has been expressed in the past in comics, it always felt like it was the minority. In the situation set up in the movie, how could it possibly be NOT the majority view? It is a very Nolan-Batman view at the end of Dark Knight returns- Batman as the "villain." It just doesn't sit well with me when it comes to Superman. In this movie, Superman may say the "S" stands for hope, but for the general public, it will represent fear, destruction, and terror.
My biggest problem of the whole movie, though, was the inversion of the reason that Superman became... well, Superman.
They made his being raised on Earth the thing he had to overcome to become a hero, not the reason for him becoming a hero.
And, it is all Pa Kent's fault.
Traditionally, the moral compass of Superman, that which guided Clark all his life, was set by the Kents. It is what makes him "human" in spite of his birth heritage. Pa Kent is the midwest farmer who sees life as mostly black and white, right and wrong, and has strong convictions that keep him grounded - even while raising an alien son.
When Clark asked if he should have just let that busload of kids die, Pa Kent would never entertain the thought of "Yes," even for a moment. The fact that in this film he did struggle with that bothered me a lot.
I could have accepted, "Of course not, but you need to be more careful!" but we didn't get that. Instead, we get Jonathan Kent considering the sacrifice of a busload of kids out of fear - not of his son being found out, exactly, but of the reaction of the world, that it would change the way they thought about everything. It is a ridiculously philosophical debate for a "real life" (in the film) situation.
Even down to that scene where Clark lets Jonathan Kent die. That scene was the culmination that, in Pa Kent's eyes, keeping the secret was more important than doing what was right. Clark's inaction showed that this was how he was raised - not to do right above all, but to hide.
It was learned behavior, to protect that secret, over doing what was right. It turns the whole story of Superman on its head. The way he was raised is now what must be fought against, not what leads him to become the man he could be.
And, where did Jonathan Kent's center go in this film? To Jor El.
I did really like the depth of characterization of Jor El in the film, but I did not like that he seemed to become the only influence on Clark to do the right thing. Jor El is the one that convinces Clark to show himself to the world, to step out.
It just rubs me wrong, taking that from Jonathan Kent and giving it to Jor El.
(Sorry about the length!)
I've been thinking more about the response of Pa. I still say his response was to help Clark think about how & when to use his powers. I've recently thought about Pa's selfish reason; keeping Clark safe.
I hope my daughter gets inspired to help others. As her father, however, if it comes down to the safety of some classmate or my daughter, I want her to think of herself & be safe.
I'm betting Jonathan was selfishly to some degree, felt the same way.
M
I loved the flashbacks with Ma and Pa Kent. I don't think Jonathan really was telling Clark to let the bus full of kids die. I don't think he knew what to say. He was scared for his son and didn't know what to say and I think all of that really played into Jonathan's ultimate fate which made sad. I don't know how many times I saw it in the trailer but when young Clark asks Jonathan why can't he just be his son and Pa Kent tells him that he is, it still choked me up. There are so many moments in this movie that made me laugh or gave me an emotional response that I really liked.
I thought the action scenes were amazing. I think by the end it was a bit over-the-top but I liked them very much. I think Kal-El had to kill Zod. It was in his nature to kill for the preservation of Krypton. Zod wasn't going to change and that was the flaw of growing Kryptonians instead of birthing them in the way Kal-El was. Also, it's not like Superman just did it without a care in the world. I say this will haunt him for years to come. I am sure you will see this as a plot point in the sequel and I think it will be interesting.
I loved all of the cameos. Especially the guy who played Lt. Gaeta. He also played Professor Hamilton in Smallville. Also, I got a question that maybe someone can answer. When we see the flashback of Zod and his small group looking around at various planets, the costume that they are wearing looked a whole lot like the battle suit Lex Luthor wears in the comics. I wonder if Lex does make his appearance in the next movie if he'll have that technology suit. That would be kind of interesting.
Overall, I enjoyed this movie. It was a different take on the character but it was interesting and refreshing and I enjoyed it a whole lot.
M
I like the use of Zod as, and here I agree with @Matt, it did make it a story about choosing between Krypton and Earth. To me it cuts the cord on his origin story and signals, perhaps, that anything to do with Krypton is now done. That there won't be future Kryptonian Effect On Earth Monster of the Week stories. But. . .
I do wish they had given a hint as to, now that the Kryptonian threat that pushed Superman to emerge has been dealt with, what it is that he is going to do next. What it is that he sees as his place or role in the world. Is he just a countermeasure in case more Kryptonians somehow come? Is he just there to deal with alien threats? The movie gives us no sense of his post-alien invasion status quo or purpose other than he is hiding, and that he will be keeping 'his ear to the ground' whatever that means.
Now, sure, we know the Superman brand, so based on that we can guess that the next movie he will be doing more rescuing and saving the day around Metropolis and beyond. But the movie doesn't establish that. And if we are supposed to check what we know about Superman at the door and take the movie on its own terms, then I think they could have given us a better sense of what the character now sees as his place and responsibility going forward. What things he would intervene in and what he won't. Something like that.
Imagine it but simply reversed. Taking all his fathers warnings to heart along with his own fear of discovery/uncertainty Clark allows all his classmates to perish while he of course survives. Mrs. Ross (now grieving) confronts the Kents about Clarks miraculous survival and how it mustve been devine intervention Etc. The Kents snicker and try to reasure her nothing "supernatural" occurred. Meenwhile Clark is outside pouting and pondering whether or not he did the right thing. Pa approaches Clark and attempts to comfort and council him. Clark asks "what was I supposed to do, save them and risk exposing my abilities?". To which pa Kent replies, "I dunno, maybe"?. Honestly, Is there anyone who would be defending that scene? Would you agree and understand pa Kent or say it was fitting of the character in any way? I think outrage at Mr. Kent would be appropriate. What the hell do you mean "maybe"!? there is no maybe. Absolutely of course you should have saved those kids. Son Im glad youre okay and your secret is safe, but If you have the ability to do something then you have the responsibility to do something! If nothing else than in cases of whether or not a dozen innocent children are going to die (or when hundreds of thousands are dying all around you in downtown).
M
M
M
The scene and my post is about Pa not Clark or his future. However you slice it, pa Kent, his character, and the scene are just all kinds of wrong I think.
First film:
Lois as POV character as she finds herself in a race to find and expose the mysterious benefactor before the (competent) government finds and claims. Establish Luthor as industrialist with heavy political/military connections, but leave him minor. Between Lois' reporting and Superman's saving thousands from a major natural disaster to two,
the world at large embraces him as a hero. Lois and Clark establish partnership and SHE gets him the Daily Planet job.
TEASE: Escape from Phantom Zone.
Second film:
Phantom Zone/Kryptonian invasion. Huge public debate as to whether Superman should surrender, Luthor emerges as leader of anti-Superman faction. Superman surrenders,
Zod betrays, much destruction, though with lots of heroism, including possible emergence of "lesser" heroes. Superman gains upper hand on Zod, is in process of getting him to see reason, Luthor's allies show up with captured Krypronian tech, kill Zod. Luthor announces run for presidency in Metropolis rubble on "alien menace" platform.
TEASE: Luthor & crew discussing anti-Superman options.
Third film:
Luthor presidency. Superman as outcast/fugitive, once again working in secret/fighting off anti-Superman tech (Metallo?), while Lois & Clark attempt to find dirt on Luthor's increasingly ruthless administration. Huge threat emerges (non-Kryptonian Braniac? Darkseid's lackeys?) Superman and emerging "other" heroes win the day. Public opinion shifts. Luthor administration in trouble.
TEASE: Formation of Justice League
If you're altering the circumstances & Pa's response, then who's to say that wouldn't alter Clark? It seems as the movie stands, people are noting this conversation as a reason Clark doesn't save Pa later & hides his powers. I'm just using the mirror image of that same argument with the alteration you made.
M
M
However, if the fear and pressure that Pa put into Clark ACTUALLY kept him from saving those kids? Then that would be blood on Pa's hands. And any good deed that Clark did in the future as Superman would become an attempt to undo that shame (or that sin, for those that want to think of it in those terms-- a la the Act of Contrition 'in what I've done and what I failed to do').
Those kids dying would be the difference between a father whose heart was in the right place, and eventually you had to understand where he was coming from but still defy him vs. 'I did what I thought he wanted and it led to the worst decision of my life'.
As I said, not as blockbustery.
It would be unlikely to work in today's market.
In the actual movie, would you say (based on your above post) all the unseen deaths in Smallville & Metropolis then are blood on Pa's deceased hands? Had he (supposedly) coddled Clark & have him use his powers early on, he'd be more confident in the limitations & save the citizens? In a way, pursuing the battle with Zod could be the same as keeping his secret during the bus incident. It was more important to Clark to save his classmates (as opposed to keeping the secret), just as it was more important for Superman to fight Zod (as opposed to worrying about all the endangered people).
M
As for the unseen deaths in Smallville and Metropolis. . . are you now conceding that maybe those buildings weren't empty? ;)