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? ;)
I'm not conceding those buildings were full anymore then I am that Pa insinuated Clark should've let those kids die. Haha.
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
Why are we discussing something that didn't happen in the movie?.... We're just telling ourselves stories.
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
Why are we discussing something that didn't happen in the movie?.... We're just telling ourselves stories.
This spun out of an earlier post that looked at the bus scene a different way, and then tracked forward from there. (Which creates another way of looking at what is, I think, the somewhat muddy POV of Jonathan Kent that *is* in the movie.)
Regardless, where's the problem? Are we going to run out of Internet? You can always skip this particular sidebar if you want.
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
Why are we discussing something that didn't happen in the movie?.... We're just telling ourselves stories.
This spun out of an earlier post that looked at the bus scene a different way, and then tracked forward from there. (Which creates another way of looking at what is, I think, the somewhat muddy POV of Jonathan Kent that *is* in the movie.)
Regardless, where's the problem? Are we going to run out of Internet? You can always skip this particular sidebar if you want.
No problem, just seems like getting overly emotional and intense with each other about an alternate version of the movie that doesn't exist
Does it? It all seems pretty calm and dry talk to me.
Actually...yeah, it was calm and dry. I don't think any of us went zero to fight club on each other. I was enjoying the sidebar conversation (not a "sidebar argument.")
Does it? It all seems pretty calm and dry talk to me.
Actually...yeah, it was calm and dry. I don't think any of us went zero to fight club on each other. I was enjoying the sidebar conversation (not a "sidebar argument.")
M
I mean. . . that was you that called me up crying last night, right? I could barely make out the voice on the phone. But I know you are very hormonal right now, so I understood.
Does it? It all seems pretty calm and dry talk to me.
Actually...yeah, it was calm and dry. I don't think any of us went zero to fight club on each other. I was enjoying the sidebar conversation (not a "sidebar argument.")
M
I mean. . . that was you that called me up crying last night, right? I could barely make out the voice on the phone. But I know you are very hormonal right now, so I understood.
No. That was me.
I was upset that your alternative scenario got more attention than my alternative scenario.
You know what? I want *more* neck snapping in my Superman tales.
"Behold, Superman! I am Mr. Mxylptlik! And with my magical 5th-dimensional powers I shall vex ye until you make me speak my name backwa-"
*SNAP!*
If this happens in the second movie I will officially - and I'm saying it right here - declare MoSII the greatest motion picture ever made and will proselytize it to anyone and everyone until I am dead, cremated and my ashes are scattered all over my worst enemy.
Does it? It all seems pretty calm and dry talk to me.
Actually...yeah, it was calm and dry. I don't think any of us went zero to fight club on each other. I was enjoying the sidebar conversation (not a "sidebar argument.")
M
I mean. . . that was you that called me up crying last night, right? I could barely make out the voice on the phone. But I know you are very hormonal right now, so I understood.
I called you crying?! I thought it was you calling me trying to get me to dirty talk with you. "What's wrong with manure? Its man & ure!"
You know what? I want *more* neck snapping in my Superman tales.
"Behold, Superman! I am Mr. Mxylptlik! And with my magical 5th-dimensional powers I shall vex ye until you make me speak my name backwa-"
*SNAP!*
If this happens in the second movie I will officially - and I'm saying it right here - declare MoSII the greatest motion picture ever made and will proselytize it to anyone and everyone until I am dead, cremated and my ashes are scattered all over my worst enemy.
How does everyone imagine this film will be looked at ten years from now? 20? I dont think time will be kind to Man of Steel. As one reviewer put it, this movie has an expiration date. I agree with that. Regardless of how entertaining it may be, if I had to describe it in one word, it would be superficial.
How does everyone imagine this film will be looked at ten years from now? 20? I dont think time will be kind to Man of Steel. As one reviewer put it, this movie has an expiration date. I agree with that. Regardless of how entertaining it may be, if I had to describe it in one word, it would be superficial.
Probably. Much like the 1978 movie. If MOS is superficial, then the 1978 movie should be camp.
Finally saw 'Man of Steel'. It was a good movie to be sure. But, it was far too much action and not enough HEART. Don't get me wrong, I didn't go into this thinking it would knock the original Superman movie (Christopher Reeve) off it's pedestal. Nor did I think I would get LESS action out of a Zach Snyder film. But that whole movie felt like it was...missing something.
Cavill was a great Supes. Amy Adams, I thought, did wonderful as Lois. Spunky and cute and courageous. Costner was a believable Jonathan Kent, especially towards the end of the film, though I admit I was leery at first. Crowe was fairly decent Jor-El, though the movie could have used less of him. All in all it was a good film, and I'm glad I saw it in theaters, but it just was missing something.
"Couple of blocks". Some of you need to, you know, actually WATCH the Avengers final battle again. Iron Man zooming through several streets while the aliens crash into buildings or shoot at Iron Man, causing hits to smash into buildings. Those big floating vessels crashing into several buildings and collapsing the top of one building - clearly showing the building falling. The vessel that Iron Man "brings to the party" clearly travels a half a mile if not more before Hulk punches it. Speaking of Hulk, he's shown running through a building - full of people - to stop another vessel. That vessel's wings smash right into said building sending debris scattering among those people. And the list goes on and on.
This isn't to negate the amount of destruction in Man of Steel. It's just to show that some of you are parroting a meme that clearly is wrong. People WERE in the Avengers battle, building DID fall - and if you make the claim that Superman allowed people to die in Man of Steel, the same could be said of Avengers.
Never thought I'd live to see comic book readers arguing over destruction in a superhero battle. I sure hope none of you read Miracleman. Your heads will esplode. :)
"Couple of blocks". Some of you need to, you know, actually WATCH the Avengers final battle again. Iron Man zooming through several streets while the aliens crash into buildings or shoot at Iron Man, causing hits to smash into buildings. Those big floating vessels crashing into several buildings and collapsing the top of one building - clearly showing the building falling. The vessel that Iron Man "brings to the party" clearly travels a half a mile if not more before Hulk punches it. Speaking of Hulk, he's shown running through a building - full of people - to stop another vessel. That vessel's wings smash right into said building sending debris scattering among those people. And the list goes on and on.
This isn't to negate the amount of destruction in Man of Steel. It's just to show that some of you are parroting a meme that clearly is wrong. People WERE in the Avengers battle, building DID fall - and if you make the claim that Superman allowed people to die in Man of Steel, the same could be said of Avengers.
Never thought I'd live to see comic book readers arguing over destruction in a superhero battle. I sure hope none of you read Miracleman. Your heads will esplode. :)
Totally agree, although I don't think its as egregious on this here board as on others. Some are acting as if maybe a few dozen people died in Avengers. C'mon. The whole city was on fire. There were tens of thousands of aliens, maybe hundreds of thousands, storming the city.
"Couple of blocks". Some of you need to, you know, actually WATCH the Avengers final battle again. Iron Man zooming through several streets while the aliens crash into buildings or shoot at Iron Man, causing hits to smash into buildings. Those big floating vessels crashing into several buildings and collapsing the top of one building - clearly showing the building falling. The vessel that Iron Man "brings to the party" clearly travels a half a mile if not more before Hulk punches it. Speaking of Hulk, he's shown running through a building - full of people - to stop another vessel. That vessel's wings smash right into said building sending debris scattering among those people. And the list goes on and on.
This isn't to negate the amount of destruction in Man of Steel. It's just to show that some of you are parroting a meme that clearly is wrong. People WERE in the Avengers battle, building DID fall - and if you make the claim that Superman allowed people to die in Man of Steel, the same could be said of Avengers.
Never thought I'd live to see comic book readers arguing over destruction in a superhero battle. I sure hope none of you read Miracleman. Your heads will esplode. :)
Sure. Except Miracleman is *supposed* to be a cautionary tale about the dangers and terrible reality of actual super humans.
I wasn't expecting a Superman movie to be one. And when the level of destruction in a Superman story is even comparable to Miracleman, then your Superman movie might have tone problems.
Way back on the second page of this discussion, before that meme started making the rounds, I mentioned that the climax in Avengers was contained to a relatively small area. Because it was. I live in New York, and one of the things I've praised about that movie was how well the were specific about their geography. The whole climax takes place in Midtown East near Grand Central. Which shows some restraint. They didn't tear down half the city. And it also has the effect of feeling specific- it feels like they chose a particular neighborhood for the fight, as opposed to only using famous, general bits of NYC regardless of where they are. (In that way their geography was way more grounded than, say, Amazing Spider-Man, which felt like the producers of the film didn't even get a subway map to work with).
Now, I'm not saying that doesn't mean no one died or there wasn't some destruction porn. There was. But nowhere near as much. At least, it felt like a lot less to me. I will admit I did not count the falling buildings in each.
At one point in MOS there is a scene that takes place on a wide, open plain of scorched Earth. It looks like something from The Day After. I don't think we ever see that amount of chaos and destruction in Avengers.
And, in Avengers there are waves and waves of aliens and vehicles attacking to cause all that destruction. And, yes, Hulk and Iron Man cause some of it. In MOS, there are two combatants causing all that destruction. And one of them is Superman. So half of all of that is on him. And, to me, that doesn't feel very Superman.
And I take your point that there was a lot of destruction. It just felt different to me, though. I think It also helps that you see them spend more time and effort saving people than they gave Superman to do.
Others had a different experience, and I respect that. But my experience of actually, you know, watching Avengers- despite being set where I actually live- is that it ultimately felt uplifting and hopeful. Wheras Man of Steel, tearing apart a mostly CG city I didn't recognize, felt over the top and gross. Which is not what I want from a Superman movie. It felt wrong. And maybe the casualty math of the two wasn't that different. I don't know. I am not an atrocitologist (a real job- can you imagine?) but I can say, subjectively, MOS looked and felt worse. Avengers made me go 'yay!' and MOS felt excessive and unheroic to me. The scale got too big. It made it seem like the world of the story would be better off if there never was a Superman.
Comments
M
Regardless, where's the problem? Are we going to run out of Internet? You can always skip this particular sidebar if you want.
Official Notice: I will be stealing this line.
M
I was upset that your alternative scenario got more attention than my alternative scenario.
Jerk.
:D
"Behold, Superman! I am Mr. Mxylptlik! And with my magical 5th-dimensional powers I shall vex ye until you make me speak my name backwa-"
*SNAP!*
If this happens in the second movie I will officially - and I'm saying it right here - declare MoSII the greatest motion picture ever made and will proselytize it to anyone and everyone until I am dead, cremated and my ashes are scattered all over my worst enemy.
M
"Solomon Grundy. Born on a/"
*SNAP!*
"Hey Superman, I've turned into a/"
*SNAP!*
"You need to come with us to the 31st/"
*SNAP!*
"Help mister! My cat is stuck up a/"
(I didn't have it in me to finish that last one)
M
M
I'm off to IMDB!
So, she reminds you of Antonio Banderas?! ;))
M
Cavill was a great Supes. Amy Adams, I thought, did wonderful as Lois. Spunky and cute and courageous. Costner was a believable Jonathan Kent, especially towards the end of the film, though I admit I was leery at first. Crowe was fairly decent Jor-El, though the movie could have used less of him. All in all it was a good film, and I'm glad I saw it in theaters, but it just was missing something.
you would think a guy that's a solar battery would have a better tan.
"Couple of blocks". Some of you need to, you know, actually WATCH the Avengers final battle again. Iron Man zooming through several streets while the aliens crash into buildings or shoot at Iron Man, causing hits to smash into buildings. Those big floating vessels crashing into several buildings and collapsing the top of one building - clearly showing the building falling. The vessel that Iron Man "brings to the party" clearly travels a half a mile if not more before Hulk punches it. Speaking of Hulk, he's shown running through a building - full of people - to stop another vessel. That vessel's wings smash right into said building sending debris scattering among those people. And the list goes on and on.
This isn't to negate the amount of destruction in Man of Steel. It's just to show that some of you are parroting a meme that clearly is wrong. People WERE in the Avengers battle, building DID fall - and if you make the claim that Superman allowed people to die in Man of Steel, the same could be said of Avengers.
Never thought I'd live to see comic book readers arguing over destruction in a superhero battle. I sure hope none of you read Miracleman. Your heads will esplode. :)
I wasn't expecting a Superman movie to be one. And when the level of destruction in a Superman story is even comparable to Miracleman, then your Superman movie might have tone problems.
Way back on the second page of this discussion, before that meme started making the rounds, I mentioned that the climax in Avengers was contained to a relatively small area. Because it was. I live in New York, and one of the things I've praised about that movie was how well the were specific about their geography. The whole climax takes place in Midtown East near Grand Central. Which shows some restraint. They didn't tear down half the city. And it also has the effect of feeling specific- it feels like they chose a particular neighborhood for the fight, as opposed to only using famous, general bits of NYC regardless of where they are. (In that way their geography was way more grounded than, say, Amazing Spider-Man, which felt like the producers of the film didn't even get a subway map to work with).
Now, I'm not saying that doesn't mean no one died or there wasn't some destruction porn. There was. But nowhere near as much. At least, it felt like a lot less to me. I will admit I did not count the falling buildings in each.
At one point in MOS there is a scene that takes place on a wide, open plain of scorched Earth. It looks like something from The Day After. I don't think we ever see that amount of chaos and destruction in Avengers.
And, in Avengers there are waves and waves of aliens and vehicles attacking to cause all that destruction. And, yes, Hulk and Iron Man cause some of it. In MOS, there are two combatants causing all that destruction. And one of them is Superman. So half of all of that is on him. And, to me, that doesn't feel very Superman.
And I take your point that there was a lot of destruction. It just felt different to me, though. I think It also helps that you see them spend more time and effort saving people than they gave Superman to do.
Others had a different experience, and I respect that. But my experience of actually, you know, watching Avengers- despite being set where I actually live- is that it ultimately felt uplifting and hopeful. Wheras Man of Steel, tearing apart a mostly CG city I didn't recognize, felt over the top and gross. Which is not what I want from a Superman movie. It felt wrong. And maybe the casualty math of the two wasn't that different. I don't know. I am not an atrocitologist (a real job- can you imagine?) but I can say, subjectively, MOS looked and felt worse. Avengers made me go 'yay!' and MOS felt excessive and unheroic to me. The scale got too big. It made it seem like the world of the story would be better off if there never was a Superman.