In all honesty, shouldn't the repairs to Smallville & Metropolis really only take about a month? With his abilities, Supes should easily be able to rebuild at the majority of what he destroyed. The labor alone should save a good bit of the costs for repairs.
In all honesty, shouldn't the repairs to Smallville & Metropolis really only take about a month? With his abilities, Supes should easily be able to rebuild at the majority of what he destroyed. The labor alone should save a good bit of the costs for repairs.
M
How's he gonna have time when he's busy establishing himself as a reporter and making cutesy-pie with Lois?
In all honesty, shouldn't the repairs to Smallville & Metropolis really only take about a month? With his abilities, Supes should easily be able to rebuild at the majority of what he destroyed. The labor alone should save a good bit of the costs for repairs.
M
I think it would be great if that was made a part of the next movie. It would help give a sense that Superman now has a relationship to, and compassion for, the people of Metropolis. (It would have been nice to include that at the end of MOS, actually).
As it was, at the end of MOS we saw that Clark now connected himself to Metropolis, but that Superman was keeping what seemed like a wary distance from America.
Who's to say it wasn't done before he started at the Daily Planet. Something of THAT magnitude would be difficult to get around the city. Kent had little trouble riding a bike to the building & you didn't see any clean up occurring. Its possible (much like in TDKR & Bruce's return to Gotham from that prison) there's no specific timeline established between the 2 events. Kent couldve been hired 6 months after the battle!
Who's to say it wasn't done before he started at the Daily Planet. Something of THAT magnitude would be difficult to get around the city. Kent had little trouble riding a bike to the building & you didn't see any clean up occurring. Its possible (much like in TDKR & Bruce's return to Gotham from that prison) there's no specific timeline established between the 2 events. Kent couldve been hired 6 months after the battle!
M
It's possible that could have happened off screen. But wouldn't that have changed the tone of the scene between Superman and the General (the 'here's your drone'/'he's kinda hot' scene)? That scene felt like military had been trying to find Superman and were still very wary of him. It didn't feel like he had just spent weeks clearing debris, building new buildings, and being all friendly and accessible, you know what I mean?
It also felt like, in the 'welcome to the Planet' scene with Clark and Lois that she had not seen him (as Clark or Superman) since the day of cataclysm. Had Superman been hanging around helping Metropolis, Lois would have been there to cover it.
So, yes, you could imagine that it happened. But it is hard to fit the tone of those last scenes. What would have been better would have been if your idea of him helping to repair actually got shown, as I think it would have helped lighten the end of the movie, and given more of a sense of Superman's status quo going forward (e.g. he is now the defender of Metropolis and feels indebted to them for all the Kryptonian destruction they suffered).
Who's to say it wasn't done before he started at the Daily Planet. Something of THAT magnitude would be difficult to get around the city. Kent had little trouble riding a bike to the building & you didn't see any clean up occurring. Its possible (much like in TDKR & Bruce's return to Gotham from that prison) there's no specific timeline established between the 2 events. Kent couldve been hired 6 months after the battle!
M
It's possible that could have happened off screen. But wouldn't that have changed the tone of the scene between Superman and the General (the 'here's your drone'/'he's kinda hot' scene)? That scene felt like military had been trying to find Superman and were still very wary of him. It didn't feel like he had just spent weeks clearing debris, building new buildings, and being all friendly and accessible, you know what I mean?
It also felt like, in the 'welcome to the Planet' scene with Clark and Lois that she had not seen him (as Clark or Superman) since the day of cataclysm. Had Superman been hanging around helping Metropolis, Lois would have been there to cover it.
So, yes, you could imagine that it happened. But it is hard to fit the tone of those last scenes. What would have been better would have been if your idea of him helping to repair actually got shown, as I think it would have helped lighten the end of the movie, and given more of a sense of Superman's status quo going forward (e.g. he is now the defender of Metropolis and feels indebted to them for all the Kryptonian destruction they suffered).
I'll give you the Lois scene, but can't the military scene. I think as long as they can't control/stop/kill him they'll be skeptism no matter how altruistic.
Who's to say it wasn't done before he started at the Daily Planet. Something of THAT magnitude would be difficult to get around the city. Kent had little trouble riding a bike to the building & you didn't see any clean up occurring. Its possible (much like in TDKR & Bruce's return to Gotham from that prison) there's no specific timeline established between the 2 events. Kent couldve been hired 6 months after the battle!
M
It's possible that could have happened off screen. But wouldn't that have changed the tone of the scene between Superman and the General (the 'here's your drone'/'he's kinda hot' scene)? That scene felt like military had been trying to find Superman and were still very wary of him. It didn't feel like he had just spent weeks clearing debris, building new buildings, and being all friendly and accessible, you know what I mean?
It also felt like, in the 'welcome to the Planet' scene with Clark and Lois that she had not seen him (as Clark or Superman) since the day of cataclysm. Had Superman been hanging around helping Metropolis, Lois would have been there to cover it.
So, yes, you could imagine that it happened. But it is hard to fit the tone of those last scenes. What would have been better would have been if your idea of him helping to repair actually got shown, as I think it would have helped lighten the end of the movie, and given more of a sense of Superman's status quo going forward (e.g. he is now the defender of Metropolis and feels indebted to them for all the Kryptonian destruction they suffered).
I'll give you the Lois scene, but can't the military scene. I think as long as they can't control/stop/kill him they'll be skeptism no matter how altruistic.
M
Sure. But they might be a little less concerned with controlling him, or knowing what he'd been up to if what he actually had been up to was helping people in a big, public way. That just didn't feel like the tone of that scene, at least, to me.
Of course, if we are talking about what is hypothetically happening off screen. Maybe Superman has been destroying more buildings while fighting crime. I mean, there is more precedent for that established in the movie than there is any sense he is interested in helping to rebuild.
At the end of the day, they are better off showing, rather than leaving it to us to imagine it for them.
Who's to say it wasn't done before he started at the Daily Planet. Something of THAT magnitude would be difficult to get around the city. Kent had little trouble riding a bike to the building & you didn't see any clean up occurring. Its possible (much like in TDKR & Bruce's return to Gotham from that prison) there's no specific timeline established between the 2 events. Kent couldve been hired 6 months after the battle!
M
It's possible that could have happened off screen. But wouldn't that have changed the tone of the scene between Superman and the General (the 'here's your drone'/'he's kinda hot' scene)? That scene felt like military had been trying to find Superman and were still very wary of him. It didn't feel like he had just spent weeks clearing debris, building new buildings, and being all friendly and accessible, you know what I mean?
It also felt like, in the 'welcome to the Planet' scene with Clark and Lois that she had not seen him (as Clark or Superman) since the day of cataclysm. Had Superman been hanging around helping Metropolis, Lois would have been there to cover it.
So, yes, you could imagine that it happened. But it is hard to fit the tone of those last scenes. What would have been better would have been if your idea of him helping to repair actually got shown, as I think it would have helped lighten the end of the movie, and given more of a sense of Superman's status quo going forward (e.g. he is now the defender of Metropolis and feels indebted to them for all the Kryptonian destruction they suffered).
I'll give you the Lois scene, but can't the military scene. I think as long as they can't control/stop/kill him they'll be skeptism no matter how altruistic.
M
Sure. But they might be a little less concerned with controlling him, or knowing what he'd been up to if what he actually had been up to was helping people in a big, public way. That just didn't feel like the tone of that scene, at least, to me.
Of course, if we are talking about what is hypothetically happening off screen. Maybe Superman has been destroying more buildings while fighting crime. I mean, there is more precedent for that established in the movie than there is any sense he is interested in helping to rebuild.
At the end of the day, they are better off showing, rather than leaving it to us to imagine it for them.
Was it a drone to see what he's been up to or keep track of him? I took it more as a way to monitor & collect data.
Superman was one of those characters I never really bought fighting crime. Responding to emergencies or high profile situations (such as a hostage situation), yes. Patrolling for muggers & car theives, no. Hair splitting, I know, but just the way I've always seen his "hero-ing."
Any damage he'd cause in those situation is probably the same a SWAT team or firefighters might create. To hold that against him wouldn't be too fair.
Who's to say it wasn't done before he started at the Daily Planet. Something of THAT magnitude would be difficult to get around the city. Kent had little trouble riding a bike to the building & you didn't see any clean up occurring. Its possible (much like in TDKR & Bruce's return to Gotham from that prison) there's no specific timeline established between the 2 events. Kent couldve been hired 6 months after the battle!
M
It's possible that could have happened off screen. But wouldn't that have changed the tone of the scene between Superman and the General (the 'here's your drone'/'he's kinda hot' scene)? That scene felt like military had been trying to find Superman and were still very wary of him. It didn't feel like he had just spent weeks clearing debris, building new buildings, and being all friendly and accessible, you know what I mean?
It also felt like, in the 'welcome to the Planet' scene with Clark and Lois that she had not seen him (as Clark or Superman) since the day of cataclysm. Had Superman been hanging around helping Metropolis, Lois would have been there to cover it.
So, yes, you could imagine that it happened. But it is hard to fit the tone of those last scenes. What would have been better would have been if your idea of him helping to repair actually got shown, as I think it would have helped lighten the end of the movie, and given more of a sense of Superman's status quo going forward (e.g. he is now the defender of Metropolis and feels indebted to them for all the Kryptonian destruction they suffered).
I'll give you the Lois scene, but can't the military scene. I think as long as they can't control/stop/kill him they'll be skeptism no matter how altruistic.
M
Sure. But they might be a little less concerned with controlling him, or knowing what he'd been up to if what he actually had been up to was helping people in a big, public way. That just didn't feel like the tone of that scene, at least, to me.
Of course, if we are talking about what is hypothetically happening off screen. Maybe Superman has been destroying more buildings while fighting crime. I mean, there is more precedent for that established in the movie than there is any sense he is interested in helping to rebuild.
At the end of the day, they are better off showing, rather than leaving it to us to imagine it for them.
Was it a drone to see what he's been up to or keep track of him? I took it more as a way to monitor & collect data.
Superman was one of those characters I never really bought fighting crime. Responding to emergencies or high profile situations (such as a hostage situation), yes. Patrolling for muggers & car theives, no. Hair splitting, I know, but just the way I've always seen his "hero-ing."
Any damage he'd cause in those situation is probably the same a SWAT team or firefighters might create. To hold that against him wouldn't be too fair.
M
Sure, but would you need a drone to watch him if he had been out in the open, very publically rebuilding Metropolis? Again, that is why I find that offscreen business hard to imagine given how the military still feel about him. That is what I meant about the tone of the drone scene.
As for him destroying buildings while fighting crime, that is an over-the-top exaggeration, of course. But things can get easily exaggerated when we are dealing in hypotheticals. Like, hypothetically, Superman rebuilt Metropolis to make up for all that damage, we just didn't see it and no one mentioned it ;)
Who's to say it wasn't done before he started at the Daily Planet. Something of THAT magnitude would be difficult to get around the city. Kent had little trouble riding a bike to the building & you didn't see any clean up occurring. Its possible (much like in TDKR & Bruce's return to Gotham from that prison) there's no specific timeline established between the 2 events. Kent couldve been hired 6 months after the battle!
M
It's possible that could have happened off screen. But wouldn't that have changed the tone of the scene between Superman and the General (the 'here's your drone'/'he's kinda hot' scene)? That scene felt like military had been trying to find Superman and were still very wary of him. It didn't feel like he had just spent weeks clearing debris, building new buildings, and being all friendly and accessible, you know what I mean?
It also felt like, in the 'welcome to the Planet' scene with Clark and Lois that she had not seen him (as Clark or Superman) since the day of cataclysm. Had Superman been hanging around helping Metropolis, Lois would have been there to cover it.
So, yes, you could imagine that it happened. But it is hard to fit the tone of those last scenes. What would have been better would have been if your idea of him helping to repair actually got shown, as I think it would have helped lighten the end of the movie, and given more of a sense of Superman's status quo going forward (e.g. he is now the defender of Metropolis and feels indebted to them for all the Kryptonian destruction they suffered).
I'll give you the Lois scene, but can't the military scene. I think as long as they can't control/stop/kill him they'll be skeptism no matter how altruistic.
M
Sure. But they might be a little less concerned with controlling him, or knowing what he'd been up to if what he actually had been up to was helping people in a big, public way. That just didn't feel like the tone of that scene, at least, to me.
Of course, if we are talking about what is hypothetically happening off screen. Maybe Superman has been destroying more buildings while fighting crime. I mean, there is more precedent for that established in the movie than there is any sense he is interested in helping to rebuild.
At the end of the day, they are better off showing, rather than leaving it to us to imagine it for them.
Was it a drone to see what he's been up to or keep track of him? I took it more as a way to monitor & collect data.
Superman was one of those characters I never really bought fighting crime. Responding to emergencies or high profile situations (such as a hostage situation), yes. Patrolling for muggers & car theives, no. Hair splitting, I know, but just the way I've always seen his "hero-ing."
Any damage he'd cause in those situation is probably the same a SWAT team or firefighters might create. To hold that against him wouldn't be too fair.
M
Sure, but would you need a drone to watch him if he had been out in the open, very publically rebuilding Metropolis? Again, that is why I find that offscreen business hard to imagine given how the military still feel about him. That is what I meant about the tone of the drone scene.
As for him destroying buildings while fighting crime, that is an over-the-top exaggeration, of course. But things can get easily exaggerated when we are dealing in hypotheticals. Like, hypothetically, Superman rebuilt Metropolis to make up for all that damage, we just didn't see it and no one mentioned it ;)
I don't think Batman would "pause" BrotherEye on monitoring the JLA just because he was fighting alongside them. If I was apart of the military, I'd have satellites and drones monitoring Supes even if he's in plain sight rebuilding the city.
And it's all hypothetical...but still cannot be ruled out. LOL.
Who's to say it wasn't done before he started at the Daily Planet. Something of THAT magnitude would be difficult to get around the city. Kent had little trouble riding a bike to the building & you didn't see any clean up occurring. Its possible (much like in TDKR & Bruce's return to Gotham from that prison) there's no specific timeline established between the 2 events. Kent couldve been hired 6 months after the battle!
M
It's possible that could have happened off screen. But wouldn't that have changed the tone of the scene between Superman and the General (the 'here's your drone'/'he's kinda hot' scene)? That scene felt like military had been trying to find Superman and were still very wary of him. It didn't feel like he had just spent weeks clearing debris, building new buildings, and being all friendly and accessible, you know what I mean?
It also felt like, in the 'welcome to the Planet' scene with Clark and Lois that she had not seen him (as Clark or Superman) since the day of cataclysm. Had Superman been hanging around helping Metropolis, Lois would have been there to cover it.
So, yes, you could imagine that it happened. But it is hard to fit the tone of those last scenes. What would have been better would have been if your idea of him helping to repair actually got shown, as I think it would have helped lighten the end of the movie, and given more of a sense of Superman's status quo going forward (e.g. he is now the defender of Metropolis and feels indebted to them for all the Kryptonian destruction they suffered).
I'll give you the Lois scene, but can't the military scene. I think as long as they can't control/stop/kill him they'll be skeptism no matter how altruistic.
M
But they might be a little less concerned with controlling him, or knowing what he'd been up to if what he actually had been up to was helping people in a big, public way. That just didn't feel like the tone of that scene, at least, to me.
Of course, if we are talking about what is hypothetically happening off screen. Maybe Superman has been destroying more buildings while fighting crime. I mean, there is more precedent for that established in the movie than there is any sense he is interested in helping to rebuild.
At the end of the day, they are better off showing, rather than leaving it to us to imagine it for them.
Was it a drone to see what he's been up to or keep track of him? I took it more as a way to monitor & collect data.
Superman was one of those characters I never really bought fighting crime. Responding to emergencies or high profile situations (such as a hostage situation), yes. Patrolling for muggers & car theives, no. Hair splitting, I know, but just the way I've always seen his "hero-ing."
Any damage he'd cause in those situation is probably the same a SWAT team or firefighters might create. To hold that against him wouldn't be too fair.
M
Sure, but would you need a drone to watch him if he had been out in the open, very publically rebuilding Metropolis? Again, that is why I find that offscreen business hard to imagine given how the military still feel about him. That is what I meant about the tone of the drone scene.
As for him destroying buildings while fighting crime, that is an over-the-top exaggeration, of course. But things can get easily exaggerated when we are dealing in hypotheticals. Like, hypothetically, Superman rebuilt Metropolis to make up for all that damage, we just didn't see it and no one mentioned it ;)
I don't think Batman would "pause" BrotherEye on monitoring the JLA just because he was fighting alongside them. If I was apart of the military, I'd have satellites and drones monitoring Supes even if he's in plain sight rebuilding the city.
And it's all hypothetical...but still cannot be ruled out. LOL.
M
True. And of course it is best to assume the military would be as vigilant as a Batman. I totally get why they would still be wary. Just not as wary as they are in that scene. There would be some acknowledgement of the good he has been doing since the battle, and where he has been.
Don't get me wrong- I really like your idea. I wish they had done that, but actually put it on the screen. That would have made me like the ending, and the overall movie, a lot better.
Unfortunately, at least to me, they decided to spend their budget almost entirely on destruction. Shots of Superman using his powers to help rebuild would have been expensive, too, and to me, well worth it. I would have traded a few collapsing buildings for that. But that is not what they decided to show.
Superman was one of those characters I never really bought fighting crime. Responding to emergencies or high profile situations (such as a hostage situation), yes. Patrolling for muggers & car theives, no. Hair splitting, I know, but just the way I've always seen his "hero-ing."
I always liked best the original version of Superman, as done by Siegel and Shuster, and as done by Morrison at the start of the New52, as the guy who went after Tammany Hall and the Robber Barons of the modern era -- as the guy who stood between the little guy and the corporate bullies.
Superman was one of those characters I never really bought fighting crime. Responding to emergencies or high profile situations (such as a hostage situation), yes. Patrolling for muggers & car theives, no. Hair splitting, I know, but just the way I've always seen his "hero-ing."
To me, Superman is one of the few heroes where patrolling actually makes sense. With his power of flight, his speed, and his super-vision, he can actually cover a whole city and be aware of anything amiss as it’s happening, while always being close enough to help.
Heroes like Batman and Daredevil seem much better suited to stake-outs and tracking down leads than patrolling, as they can only cover so much ground in a certain amount of time. Realistically, if a bank alarm went off on the other side of town, the robbers would be long gone by the time they could get to the scene via swinging on a line or jumping from rooftop to rooftop. Even a relatively small area like Hell’s Kitchen—which encompasses 34th St. to 59th St. and 8th Ave. to 12th Ave.—would be pretty tough to cover effectively.
Of course if they didn’t patrol, we wouldn’t get those great, moody shots of them crouched atop stone gargoyles.
I love Kevin Smiths recent comparisons/observations between the Avengers and MoS. Specifically in reference to Hulk and the first words out of his mouth when he wakes up after his fall from the helicarrier. "did I hurt anyone?... Thats a hero".
A review from one-time comic writer and magazine editor Mike Tiefenbacher. I came across this on Facebook and didn't want to link directly to it because it was posted in someone else's page, so I'm pasting it, intact, here. He goes on further to give quick one-line assessments of practically every other super-hero movie ever made, but I'm keeping to this first batch since it's all about his opinion of Man Of Steel. Now, I don't quite agree with him on every point he makes, but I agree with him more than I disagree with him.
For better or worse, here's Mr Tiefenbacher:
"Well, it appears that I won't get the opportunity to excoriate the MAN OF STEEL movie from personal viewing for at least a year when it starts shwoing on cable, and I won't feel like I was contributing anything directly to the box office for this abomination of a movie. It seems to have closed at our local theatre right before my vacation began. But I've been sitting on an exploration of my feelings about it for a long time, and I believe I'll post it here. It's very simple, really. What I look for when I go to a super-hero movie is a true super-hero movie. True super-hero movies require these basics on the part of their title characters: an operating or code name, a costume (at minimum, a mask), a secret identity (one which remains secret!), super-powers or special abilities, and heroism as defined by the dictionary (i.e., no murdering anybody). There are infinite variables after that, but without these things, they do not fulfill the requirements that every comic-book hero we grew up with possessed. Far too many "comic-book" movies fail to fill out this checklist. In fact, most of today's comic books do too.
"Re: MAN OF STEEL’s destructive battle between two Kryptonians: back in 1980, I viewed the original fight scenes in SUPERMAN II as patently ridiculous (Ursa knocks Superman into a taxicab using a manhole cover (!) which should simply shatter on his chest; Zod flings Superman into a newspaper truck, somehow overcoming Superman’s inner inertia simply because Zod has super-powers too), but the ridiculous extremes in the new movie heighten the absurdity to new proportions. Even accepting that a guy who’s only just arrived on Earth would be as skilled in dealing with the gravity and newly gained powers as someone who grew up here, these two guys would have no more chance of flinging each other through walls or buildings as you or I would: they are as relatively equal in strength as any two men, and if Zod was able to instantly adjust to the new atmosphere, both have the ability (with their own developed inertia which allows them to function on this world) to withstand the force of the other and remain as stationary as any of us would be against anyone else—or they shouldn’t have the ability to walk, or lift anything without flinging it into space, or, indeed, engage with anything on Earth without destroying it. And if being able to function on Earth is due to abilities Clark developed in his years in our atmosphere, Zod should be completely unable to control any of his actions, and a being such as Superman would make quick work of him.
"Clearly, logic (which is often missing in all three of Nolan’s BATMAN movies—movies I view with a range of indifference to total distaste) in a movie as intrinsically awful as this one has little place, but anyone who gives it any thought at all would realize that being on Earth shouldn’t alter their relative abilities: their Kryptonian super-powers would have zero effect on each other. Anything they couldn’t do to each other on Krypton, they shouldn’t be able to do on Earth. Their fistfight should create no more destruction than any normal movie dust up, never mind the wanton destruction (and implied carnage) of their moronic melee. And Superman shouldn’t have been able to snap Zod’s neck like a twig, either—something the real Superman (sic) would never have done in any case.
"Forget the destruction of two cities in the film, and the inherent impossibility of all this carnage not resulting in the deaths of dozens or hundreds of (computer generated) occupants of the buildings or the unlucky bystanders in the path of the flying debris. Perhaps the most objectionable part of the film happens earlier in the film. Goyer and Snyder and Nolan seem to believe that of all the things in the Superman legend they needed to fix was the relationship of Clark Kent with his adoptive parents. I’ve read enough to learn that what they did, essentially, was destroy what makes Superman Superman. It wasn’t enough to alter Jor-El and Lara into all-knowing all-seeing (and absurdly present after death as computer consciousness) beings who, like God, send their only son to Earth to save everyone (I guess that was meant to be ironic in light of the ending of the movie). Nope, they also needed to alter the reason Superman is the hero he is: he was raised by loving, magnanimous, moral parents who, as replacements for his birth parents, influenced everything he ever did in his life. By making Jonathan Kent into a paranoid and selfish man who prevented his son from saving him from death, nothing of the inherent goodness of the original comic-book character can be salvaged. That Superman—the one who was not only Superboy but Superbaby—could never have caused any of the mass destruction the movie portrays. And he certainly wouldn’t have killed Zod.
"In fact, the inherent theme, which it has in common with the Justice League of America, is that of the U.S. being a melting pot of immigrants who (ultimately) accept outsiders as their own. Superman, an illegal alien infant, grows up to be the protector of the American way. The JLA, consisting of two aliens from other planets, a woman from a Mediterranean island and a half-Atlantean joined with three born and bred Americans, join to protect the world at large, but America in particular, because that’s where they live. The real Clark Kent is an American, through and through, and simply wouldn’t have participated in destruction that makes 9/11 look like a car accident."
"The costume can be replaced (and will, if they have any sense) by one of his own design (sadly, his mom can’t have designed and sewn it from his baby blankets) since it just looks like a blue wetsuit, but the stupid idea that the “S” is a family crest (instituted by Richard Donner solely so that all the stills of Marlon Brando as Jor-El could be used to instantly publicize the movie in 1978, since his character didn’t physically interact with Superman himself) must, unfortunately, remain. But the 2015 sequel, and the subsequent JUSTICE LEAGUE film, will have to get over the enormous impediment of this horrible first film: they’ll have to explain how Earth can forgive this alien for causing the deaths of so many people, much less accept him as any kind of a hero. That this film will also feature yet another rebooted version of Batman which (judging from the cited quotation by Snyder from BATMAN: THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS, the comics most responsible for the destruction of the true version of Batman) looks to be as distorted and off-character as all of the modern-day Batman movies have been, presents another character who is wanted by the police—so how exactly is this supposed to develop into anything like the comic book Justice League (even one as altered as the current comics feature)? Perhaps what is most depressing of all is that the same men responsible for this cinematic gem, despite evident proof that they have zero recognition of the character’s most well-known (and beloved) aspects, will be in place for the sequel and the JL movie, if current press is correct. (I’ll have to wait till the cable airing to adjudge the actual direction of the film, which has been almost universally panned.)
"With the current abominable murderer-as-hero interpretation of Green Arrow airing as ARROW promising an equally unpromising new version of the Flash as a potential spin-off which isn’t likely to have much in common with the classic Flash (from the same guys who got Superman so very wrong in SMALLVILLE), even while Marvel counters with S.H.I.E.L.D., which looks to actually pay attention to the comics’ version, I don’t think Marvel has anything to worry about from DC for the foreseeable future—if ever. And as a lifelong DC fan (for reasons I can’t even explain anymore) that makes me very sad."
"The costume can be replaced (and will, if they have any sense) by one of his own design (sadly, his mom can’t have designed and sewn it from his baby blankets) since it just looks like a blue wetsuit, but the stupid idea that the “S” is a family crest (instituted by Richard Donner solely so that all the stills of Marlon Brando as Jor-El could be used to instantly publicize the movie in 1978, since his character didn’t physically interact with Superman himself) must, unfortunately, remain. But the 2015 sequel, and the subsequent JUSTICE LEAGUE film, will have to get over the enormous impediment of this horrible first film: they’ll have to explain how Earth can forgive this alien for causing the deaths of so many people, much less accept him as any kind of a hero. That this film will also feature yet another rebooted version of Batman which (judging from the cited quotation by Snyder from BATMAN: THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS, the comics most responsible for the destruction of the true version of Batman) looks to be as distorted and off-character as all of the modern-day Batman movies have been, presents another character who is wanted by the police—so how exactly is this supposed to develop into anything like the comic book Justice League (even one as altered as the current comics feature)? Perhaps what is most depressing of all is that the same men responsible for this cinematic gem, despite evident proof that they have zero recognition of the character’s most well-known (and beloved) aspects, will be in place for the sequel and the JL movie, if current press is correct. (I’ll have to wait till the cable airing to adjudge the actual direction of the film, which has been almost universally panned.)
"With the current abominable murderer-as-hero interpretation of Green Arrow airing as ARROW promising an equally unpromising new version of the Flash as a potential spin-off which isn’t likely to have much in common with the classic Flash (from the same guys who got Superman so very wrong in SMALLVILLE), even while Marvel counters with S.H.I.E.L.D., which looks to actually pay attention to the comics’ version, I don’t think Marvel has anything to worry about from DC for the foreseeable future—if ever. And as a lifelong DC fan (for reasons I can’t even explain anymore) that makes me very sad."
So...he hasn't seen the movie, correct? That's interesting. And I guess the "real Superman" stopped existing following Crisis. Plus, if 2 people with the same levels of powers, wouldnt they negate it each other? So, then when Zod & Supes hit each other it'd be same as 2 non-superpowered people fighting.
I don’t think Marvel has anything to worry about from DC for the foreseeable future—if ever. And as a lifelong DC fan (for reasons I can’t even explain anymore) that makes me very sad."
It doesn't appear so. It sounds like he's heard enough about it in detail to know beforehand that it isn't something he really wants to see, at least not until it goes to cable where he's not paying (beyond the cable access) to see it. He certainly seems to have a good handle on the film in general, and very definitely on the points that he is specifically bothered by.
I remember his columns from years agone that he was very adamant on the specific qualities of heroes in general and on a few in specific. He was not one of those who was enamored of the 'darkening' of Batman, allowing him to kill through indirect means or through inaction, and that was back in the 80's -- I can only imagine that he despises what's been done since.
It doesn't appear so. It sounds like he's heard enough about it in detail to know beforehand that it isn't something he really wants to see, at least not until it goes to cable where he's not paying (beyond the cable access) to see it. He certainly seems to have a good handle on the film in general, and very definitely on the points that he is specifically bothered by.
I remember his columns from years agone that he was very adamant on the specific qualities of heroes in general and on a few in specific. He was not one of those who was enamored of the 'darkening' of Batman, allowing him to kill through indirect means or through inaction, and that was back in the 80's -- I can only imagine that he despises what's been done since.
I think reading/hearing about a movie is a little different then seeing it. I wasn't for the ending or Jonathan Kent's bits until I saw them in the context of the movie (verse the Wikipedia page.) yeah, I haven't read any Batman since Morrison's run, BUT that doesn't mean I'm not aware of what's happening. Pages, reviews, summaries are all online (and print is different then a movie) for me to see I have no interest. Whether or not its wrong (in my opinion) is not WHY I don't read the books anymore. Its because the material isn't interesting me.
To some extent, it feels like he wants Golden/Silver Age of comics. There's things from the "old days" of my era I do long for, but I also see why things are changing. The new Spider-man movies are feeling to fall in the same vision as Twilight & CW shows. I despise it, ignore it, but understand why its done.
Here's from people who actually did see it (madness!). A mom and a son. Because we've heard enough from old men. For those who can't see it (or won't), the kid's "best part" of the movie? The action. Suckas.
Personally, I don't care if an opinion comes from someone young or old. Both are valid (if anecdotal).
But I am only interested in the reaction of someone who has actually seen it. It is one thing when you are speculating before release, but now that it is available to be seen, then I'm not interested in reactions that aren't informed by the work.
EDIT- And, yes, I feel that about comics discussion, too. If you haven't read the work, then you can only speak from the works' reputation, marketing, or the synopses of others. Which is not nothing... but it is also not much. It is always most interesting to engage with those who are reacting to the work itself.
I really don't think seeing the work in this case matters much to the basic arguments that Tiefenbacher was making. I saw the movie and I thought a number of his points were dead on or at least resonated.
I really don't think seeing the work in this case matters much to the basic arguments that Tiefenbacher was making. I saw the movie and I thought a number of his points were dead on or at least resonated.
And therefore I find your reactions more compelling than his, even if they were identical observations. I would (and have) read a long post from you. But a long post that starts out saying they haven't seen it? That's a pass for me.
Personally, I don't care if an opinion comes from someone young or old. Both are valid (if anecdotal).
But I am only interested in the reaction of someone who has actually seen it. It is one thing when you are speculating before release, but now that it is available to be seen, then I'm not interested in reactions that aren't informed by the work.
EDIT- And, yes, I feel that about comics discussion, too. If you haven't read the work, then you can only speak from the works' reputation, marketing, or the synopses of others. Which is not nothing... but it is also not much. It is always most interesting to engage with those who are reacting to the work itself.
Good thing I've read all but the actual issue in my hands (issue pages are even uploaded now.) Can I add opinions such as "this is the best (insert character) has ever been written/drawn" by someone who only came onboard to the title because of a specific writer or artist. If someone read a specific character for years, through different writers & artists THEN makes that comment, I'll give it weight. Someone who's more again other the talent then character has an opinion that doesn't hold too much water for me.
I really don't think seeing the work in this case matters much to the basic arguments that Tiefenbacher was making. I saw the movie and I thought a number of his points were dead on or at least resonated.
David D is correct, your similar opinion holds more weight then someone's who didn't bother to see it. It's funny to me that some of what he was complaining NOT in the movie are things that I liked. In fact, if some of what he wanted in it was in the movie, I'd have walked out.
I still (and will always) argue the misinterpretation of how Jonathan Kent was portrayed. You don't have to agree with it, but he wasn't the heartless, selfish, introvert haters claim he was portrayed in the movie.
Also, if Superman is this 'murderer' then I guess there are thousands of military & law enforcement personnel who should be added to that list.
Also, if Superman is this 'murderer' then I guess there are thousands of military & law enforcement personnel who should be added to that list.
Not even comparable, given that they are are lawfully appointed agents who are legally authorized to use deadly force when necessary within the scope of their duties. Superman (particularly in this film) has no such legal authority.
Personally, I don't care if an opinion comes from someone young or old. Both are valid (if anecdotal).
But I am only interested in the reaction of someone who has actually seen it. It is one thing when you are speculating before release, but now that it is available to be seen, then I'm not interested in reactions that aren't informed by the work.
EDIT- And, yes, I feel that about comics discussion, too. If you haven't read the work, then you can only speak from the works' reputation, marketing, or the synopses of others. Which is not nothing... but it is also not much. It is always most interesting to engage with those who are reacting to the work itself.
Good thing I've read all but the actual issue in my hands (issue pages are even uploaded now.) Can I add opinions such as "this is the best (insert character) has ever been written/drawn" by someone who only came onboard to the title because of a specific writer or artist. If someone read a specific character for years, through different writers & artists THEN makes that comment, I'll give it weight. Someone who's more again other the talent then character has an opinion that doesn't hold too much water for me.
M
I'm not sure I follow. But, in general, whether judging a single comic, or a lot of comics, best to judge the comics based on the comics themselves.
And I take your point that if people want to speak in superlatives, they probably need to do a lot of reading to do so. (Unless they are just comparing to their own reading, at which point you could decide what you like best within the covers of a single anthology)
Also, if Superman is this 'murderer' then I guess there are thousands of military & law enforcement personnel who should be added to that list.
Not even comparable, given that they are are lawfully appointed agents who are legally authorized to use deadly force when necessary within the scope of their duties. Superman (particularly in this film) has no such legal authority.
I don't know if I completely accept that. In police shootings, the officers have to take time off & have the matter looked into. If an off-duty police officer kills someone to protect others, is he a murderer too?
Plus, if I kill an intruder threatening my family at home, it'll be looked into and I'm not a duly appointed protector of the piece. Am I a murderer?
But, okay, so swap out 2 Kryptonians with 2 regular person, but with the same type of scenario with Zod uses a machine gun or flamethrower. You'd label the person in Superman's place a murderer? If I see some armed psycho hurting people I shouldn't act to stop them even if it means killing them because I'll be a murderer?
Saying Superman in Man of Steel was a murderer is as inaccurate as stating you were robbed because you found someone had broken into your house & stole your stuff.
Comments
M
M
Plus the unions would scream bloody murder. ;)
As it was, at the end of MOS we saw that Clark now connected himself to Metropolis, but that Superman was keeping what seemed like a wary distance from America.
M
It also felt like, in the 'welcome to the Planet' scene with Clark and Lois that she had not seen him (as Clark or Superman) since the day of cataclysm. Had Superman been hanging around helping Metropolis, Lois would have been there to cover it.
So, yes, you could imagine that it happened. But it is hard to fit the tone of those last scenes. What would have been better would have been if your idea of him helping to repair actually got shown, as I think it would have helped lighten the end of the movie, and given more of a sense of Superman's status quo going forward (e.g. he is now the defender of Metropolis and feels indebted to them for all the Kryptonian destruction they suffered).
M
Of course, if we are talking about what is hypothetically happening off screen. Maybe Superman has been destroying more buildings while fighting crime. I mean, there is more precedent for that established in the movie than there is any sense he is interested in helping to rebuild.
At the end of the day, they are better off showing, rather than leaving it to us to imagine it for them.
Superman was one of those characters I never really bought fighting crime. Responding to emergencies or high profile situations (such as a hostage situation), yes. Patrolling for muggers & car theives, no. Hair splitting, I know, but just the way I've always seen his "hero-ing."
Any damage he'd cause in those situation is probably the same a SWAT team or firefighters might create. To hold that against him wouldn't be too fair.
M
As for him destroying buildings while fighting crime, that is an over-the-top exaggeration, of course. But things can get easily exaggerated when we are dealing in hypotheticals. Like, hypothetically, Superman rebuilt Metropolis to make up for all that damage, we just didn't see it and no one mentioned it ;)
And it's all hypothetical...but still cannot be ruled out. LOL.
M
But it would still be a little weird for Superman to say "I know you are trying to find out where I hang my cape", and why the General would wonder how he can 'know Superman wouldn't act against America's interests' if Superman has been out in the open, rebuilding a great American city, you know what I mean?
(You can actually see a shaky, handheld version of that scene here. Doesn't look like much, but the dialogue is clear..)
Don't get me wrong- I really like your idea. I wish they had done that, but actually put it on the screen. That would have made me like the ending, and the overall movie, a lot better.
Unfortunately, at least to me, they decided to spend their budget almost entirely on destruction. Shots of Superman using his powers to help rebuild would have been expensive, too, and to me, well worth it. I would have traded a few collapsing buildings for that. But that is not what they decided to show.
Heroes like Batman and Daredevil seem much better suited to stake-outs and tracking down leads than patrolling, as they can only cover so much ground in a certain amount of time. Realistically, if a bank alarm went off on the other side of town, the robbers would be long gone by the time they could get to the scene via swinging on a line or jumping from rooftop to rooftop. Even a relatively small area like Hell’s Kitchen—which encompasses 34th St. to 59th St. and 8th Ave. to 12th Ave.—would be pretty tough to cover effectively.
Of course if they didn’t patrol, we wouldn’t get those great, moody shots of them crouched atop stone gargoyles.
For better or worse, here's Mr Tiefenbacher:
"Well, it appears that I won't get the opportunity to excoriate the MAN OF STEEL movie from personal viewing for at least a year when it starts shwoing on cable, and I won't feel like I was contributing anything directly to the box office for this abomination of a movie. It seems to have closed at our local theatre right before my vacation began. But I've been sitting on an exploration of my feelings about it for a long time, and I believe I'll post it here. It's very simple, really. What I look for when I go to a super-hero movie is a true super-hero movie. True super-hero movies require these basics on the part of their title characters: an operating or code name, a costume (at minimum, a mask), a secret identity (one which remains secret!), super-powers or special abilities, and heroism as defined by the dictionary (i.e., no murdering anybody). There are infinite variables after that, but without these things, they do not fulfill the requirements that every comic-book hero we grew up with possessed. Far too many "comic-book" movies fail to fill out this checklist. In fact, most of today's comic books do too.
"Re: MAN OF STEEL’s destructive battle between two Kryptonians: back in 1980, I viewed the original fight scenes in SUPERMAN II as patently ridiculous (Ursa knocks Superman into a taxicab using a manhole cover (!) which should simply shatter on his chest; Zod flings Superman into a newspaper truck, somehow overcoming Superman’s inner inertia simply because Zod has super-powers too), but the ridiculous extremes in the new movie heighten the absurdity to new proportions. Even accepting that a guy who’s only just arrived on Earth would be as skilled in dealing with the gravity and newly gained powers as someone who grew up here, these two guys would have no more chance of flinging each other through walls or buildings as you or I would: they are as relatively equal in strength as any two men, and if Zod was able to instantly adjust to the new atmosphere, both have the ability (with their own developed inertia which allows them to function on this world) to withstand the force of the other and remain as stationary as any of us would be against anyone else—or they shouldn’t have the ability to walk, or lift anything without flinging it into space, or, indeed, engage with anything on Earth without destroying it. And if being able to function on Earth is due to abilities Clark developed in his years in our atmosphere, Zod should be completely unable to control any of his actions, and a being such as Superman would make quick work of him.
"Clearly, logic (which is often missing in all three of Nolan’s BATMAN movies—movies I view with a range of indifference to total distaste) in a movie as intrinsically awful as this one has little place, but anyone who gives it any thought at all would realize that being on Earth shouldn’t alter their relative abilities: their Kryptonian super-powers would have zero effect on each other. Anything they couldn’t do to each other on Krypton, they shouldn’t be able to do on Earth. Their fistfight should create no more destruction than any normal movie dust up, never mind the wanton destruction (and implied carnage) of their moronic melee. And Superman shouldn’t have been able to snap Zod’s neck like a twig, either—something the real Superman (sic) would never have done in any case.
"Forget the destruction of two cities in the film, and the inherent impossibility of all this carnage not resulting in the deaths of dozens or hundreds of (computer generated) occupants of the buildings or the unlucky bystanders in the path of the flying debris. Perhaps the most objectionable part of the film happens earlier in the film. Goyer and Snyder and Nolan seem to believe that of all the things in the Superman legend they needed to fix was the relationship of Clark Kent with his adoptive parents. I’ve read enough to learn that what they did, essentially, was destroy what makes Superman Superman. It wasn’t enough to alter Jor-El and Lara into all-knowing all-seeing (and absurdly present after death as computer consciousness) beings who, like God, send their only son to Earth to save everyone (I guess that was meant to be ironic in light of the ending of the movie). Nope, they also needed to alter the reason Superman is the hero he is: he was raised by loving, magnanimous, moral parents who, as replacements for his birth parents, influenced everything he ever did in his life. By making Jonathan Kent into a paranoid and selfish man who prevented his son from saving him from death, nothing of the inherent goodness of the original comic-book character can be salvaged. That Superman—the one who was not only Superboy but Superbaby—could never have caused any of the mass destruction the movie portrays. And he certainly wouldn’t have killed Zod.
"In fact, the inherent theme, which it has in common with the Justice League of America, is that of the U.S. being a melting pot of immigrants who (ultimately) accept outsiders as their own. Superman, an illegal alien infant, grows up to be the protector of the American way. The JLA, consisting of two aliens from other planets, a woman from a Mediterranean island and a half-Atlantean joined with three born and bred Americans, join to protect the world at large, but America in particular, because that’s where they live. The real Clark Kent is an American, through and through, and simply wouldn’t have participated in destruction that makes 9/11 look like a car accident."
(to be continued)
"The costume can be replaced (and will, if they have any sense) by one of his own design (sadly, his mom can’t have designed and sewn it from his baby blankets) since it just looks like a blue wetsuit, but the stupid idea that the “S” is a family crest (instituted by Richard Donner solely so that all the stills of Marlon Brando as Jor-El could be used to instantly publicize the movie in 1978, since his character didn’t physically interact with Superman himself) must, unfortunately, remain. But the 2015 sequel, and the subsequent JUSTICE LEAGUE film, will have to get over the enormous impediment of this horrible first film: they’ll have to explain how Earth can forgive this alien for causing the deaths of so many people, much less accept him as any kind of a hero. That this film will also feature yet another rebooted version of Batman which (judging from the cited quotation by Snyder from BATMAN: THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS, the comics most responsible for the destruction of the true version of Batman) looks to be as distorted and off-character as all of the modern-day Batman movies have been, presents another character who is wanted by the police—so how exactly is this supposed to develop into anything like the comic book Justice League (even one as altered as the current comics feature)? Perhaps what is most depressing of all is that the same men responsible for this cinematic gem, despite evident proof that they have zero recognition of the character’s most well-known (and beloved) aspects, will be in place for the sequel and the JL movie, if current press is correct. (I’ll have to wait till the cable airing to adjudge the actual direction of the film, which has been almost universally panned.)
"With the current abominable murderer-as-hero interpretation of Green Arrow airing as ARROW promising an equally unpromising new version of the Flash as a potential spin-off which isn’t likely to have much in common with the classic Flash (from the same guys who got Superman so very wrong in SMALLVILLE), even while Marvel counters with S.H.I.E.L.D., which looks to actually pay attention to the comics’ version, I don’t think Marvel has anything to worry about from DC for the foreseeable future—if ever. And as a lifelong DC fan (for reasons I can’t even explain anymore) that makes me very sad."
This makes @peter argument all the more for me.
M
I remember his columns from years agone that he was very adamant on the specific qualities of heroes in general and on a few in specific. He was not one of those who was enamored of the 'darkening' of Batman, allowing him to kill through indirect means or through inaction, and that was back in the 80's -- I can only imagine that he despises what's been done since.
To some extent, it feels like he wants Golden/Silver Age of comics. There's things from the "old days" of my era I do long for, but I also see why things are changing. The new Spider-man movies are feeling to fall in the same vision as Twilight & CW shows. I despise it, ignore it, but understand why its done.
M
But I am only interested in the reaction of someone who has actually seen it. It is one thing when you are speculating before release, but now that it is available to be seen, then I'm not interested in reactions that aren't informed by the work.
EDIT- And, yes, I feel that about comics discussion, too. If you haven't read the work, then you can only speak from the works' reputation, marketing, or the synopses of others. Which is not nothing... but it is also not much. It is always most interesting to engage with those who are reacting to the work itself.
M
I still (and will always) argue the misinterpretation of how Jonathan Kent was portrayed. You don't have to agree with it, but he wasn't the heartless, selfish, introvert haters claim he was portrayed in the movie.
Also, if Superman is this 'murderer' then I guess there are thousands of military & law enforcement personnel who should be added to that list.
M
And I take your point that if people want to speak in superlatives, they probably need to do a lot of reading to do so. (Unless they are just comparing to their own reading, at which point you could decide what you like best within the covers of a single anthology)
Plus, if I kill an intruder threatening my family at home, it'll be looked into and I'm not a duly appointed protector of the piece. Am I a murderer?
But, okay, so swap out 2 Kryptonians with 2 regular person, but with the same type of scenario with Zod uses a machine gun or flamethrower. You'd label the person in Superman's place a murderer? If I see some armed psycho hurting people I shouldn't act to stop them even if it means killing them because I'll be a murderer?
Saying Superman in Man of Steel was a murderer is as inaccurate as stating you were robbed because you found someone had broken into your house & stole your stuff.
M