He was a kind of energy-manifestation that mimicked life, but wasn't alive in the biological sense.
This is word for word how an ex-girlfriend described me to her parents. I miss her.
On the movie, I enjoyed it for the most part. But I agree with a lot of you that are saying the killing scene was not earned in the writing and the consequences (to Kal-El's state of mind) were not adequately shown. The scream (which by the way should really have burst the eardrums of Lois and the family he was just trying to save) is not enough.
I wasn't calling you out. Using what you were saying as an example, yes but not personally calling out. And I am aware that my post was one giant block and probably difficult to read that way. Working the 3rd shift at a clinical laboratory and getting my masters in microbiology and consequently having been up for 24 hours straight after seeing the movie, I didn't really care about paragraph structure. But I do appreciate you going all junior high english teacher on me. Although on a comic book forum on a Saturday morning it seems sarcastic remarks about paragraph structure is kind of the lowest common denominator as fas as responses go. Wait, isn't that what you're criticizing DC for doing? Regardless, you are entitled to your opinion no matter how antiquated and naive it may be.
You are new here, so let me take this moment, with my moderator's cap on, to suggest you consider your tone. Ad hominem attacks are not how we prefer to do things here.
Breaking up text into paragraphs, while appreciated and suggested (and likely to get more people to take the time to read your post) is not required. But civility is. And things tend to stay civil when you deal with the idea or point someone is putting forward, and not making it about that person, or how you feel you would categorize an individual based on the point they are making. Better to just discuss the point rather than getting the discussion mired in discussing the person behind the point.
Thanks in advance. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to PM me. And now back to the discussion. . .
Interesting that you referred to my post as a dissenting opinion. On this forum where its trendy to criticize DC for every decision they make, sure I can see that. The comic book reading community as whole? Not so much. The top selling comic book in April being Batman actually proves my point. Snyder's Batman run has been consistently popular and critically acclaimed and is a darker, more violent book. If the fans did not want that kind of a Batman book, it wouldn't be one of the more consistently high selling books. Call it what you want, "gimmick" or "appealing to the lowest common denominator" as @Wetrats put it but there is a sizable market out there for darker characters and adult themes. And I think DC is trying to access that market.
As a life long comic book fan and staunch defender of comic books I consistently encounter the same reaction from various people once they find out I'm into comics. Its always some variation of "aren't comic books for kids". No doubt comic book publishers are aware of this opinion by people who don't read comics. And if you're DC and you're trying to create new comic book fans and you're aware of this particular stigma attached to comics then you're going to produce some more adult comics that appeal to a more mature audience. And I think thats what they are doing with their main line and tv shows and movies.
Interesting that you referred to my post as a dissenting opinion. On this forum where its trendy to criticize DC for every decision they make, sure I can see that. The comic book reading community as whole? Not so much. The top selling comic book in April being Batman actually proves my point. Snyder's Batman run has been consistently popular and critically acclaimed and is a darker, more violent book. If the fans did not want that kind of a Batman book, it wouldn't be one of the more consistently high selling books. Call it what you want, "gimmick" or "appealing to the lowest common denominator" as @Wetrats put it but there is a sizable market out there for darker characters and adult themes. And I think DC is trying to access that market.
As a life long comic book fan and staunch defender of comic books I consistently encounter the same reaction from various people once they find out I'm into comics. Its always some variation of "aren't comic books for kids". No doubt comic book publishers are aware of this opinion by people who don't read comics. And if you're DC and you're trying to create new comic book fans and you're aware of this particular stigma attached to comics then you're going to produce some more adult comics that appeal to a more mature audience. And I think thats what they are doing with their main line and tv shows and movies.
I know our episodes aren't superior, but I recall doing a lot of Marvel bashing as well. Look at the recent Age of Ultron review.
I'm not 100% certain why there's a nice chunk of your post going defending DC in a thread that hasn't really been bashing the current status quo at DC. Then again, I'm not 100% certain why your initial post needed to take a dig at the show's quality when talking about something else.
I understand the need to defend something you're passionate about (in this case DC), but surely you can at least see some of the issues with what DC has been doing lately? WTF month, this villains month that's coming up with the 3D covers, eliminate some characters (Steph Brown, Wally West) & pushing others instead.
I find the entire The Dark Knight trilogy one of the best versions of Batman (aside from Year One) in the media. I've had to defend TDKR on several occasions, but I always see where the criticism is coming from. All I'm saying is you don't have to agree with other people's POV, but at least try to understand it.
Plus, the first few years of CGS there was a DC love fest; some by hosts regardless of what was going on!
Zod killed himself, just used Superman as the means in which to do it. That is what happened. The movie even preps us for it.
"Only one ending here, Kal.. You die or I do.."
Zod goes insane w/the loss of his people and acts out. Supes didn't want to be the means of his ending, but Zod is the one who forced his hand on a YOUNG, barely out of the metaphorically womb superhero. Supes isn't the murderer certain people want to think he is. Cuz Zod committed suicide, plain and simple.
Interesting that you referred to my post as a dissenting opinion. On this forum where its trendy to criticize DC for every decision they make, sure I can see that. The comic book reading community as whole? Not so much. The top selling comic book in April being Batman actually proves my point. Snyder's Batman run has been consistently popular and critically acclaimed and is a darker, more violent book. If the fans did not want that kind of a Batman book, it wouldn't be one of the more consistently high selling books. Call it what you want, "gimmick" or "appealing to the lowest common denominator" as @Wetrats put it but there is a sizable market out there for darker characters and adult themes. And I think DC is trying to access that market.
As a life long comic book fan and staunch defender of comic books I consistently encounter the same reaction from various people once they find out I'm into comics. Its always some variation of "aren't comic books for kids". No doubt comic book publishers are aware of this opinion by people who don't read comics. And if you're DC and you're trying to create new comic book fans and you're aware of this particular stigma attached to comics then you're going to produce some more adult comics that appeal to a more mature audience. And I think thats what they are doing with their main line and tv shows and movies.
Actually, I referred to your opinion as dissenting earlier because that is how *you* seemed to see it-- rather than posting in the ongoing discussion (that was started positive about the movie, and has in it a mix of positive and negative opinions on it) you started a separate thread called something like "the minority opinion" or something like that. So I only brought up dissent to say that even if you see yourself as dissenting from what you perceive as the majority opinion, that is better off added to the ongoing discussion, rather than in it's own, separate place. Threads dedicated to the positive and to the negative feel to me more like an echo chamber than a lively and diverse discussion. (And I would also question whether your opinion of Man of Steel is really in the minority. I haven't counted, because who cares, but those of us that didn't dig it, while vocal, might actually be the minority so far.)
Also, I can't help but take a moment to appreciate that the forum and the show is being criticized for being anti-DC. Having been around these forums and the show for a long time, I can remember a point when the forums and the show were routinely criticized as being anti-Marvel and filled with DC apologists.
I think both of those takes are generalizations, and there is and has always been a pretty diverse range of opinion. Is there a lot of negativity about DC to be found on the forums and show right now? Sure. But that does not happen in a vacuum. If it seems trendy, well it may be worth looking at what has been getting done on the DC side to squander a lot of the interest and good will around the New 52 and cause that trend.
When the New 52 launched (and this was a prior volume of the forums, unfortunately lost to a crash) there was a thread dedicated to reviewing each and every one of the new #1s. Every one was reviewed and discussed on the show, as you know as a longtime listener. There was a lot of interest and good will. Not everyone was thrilled, of course, as there is always a variety of opinion. But a lot of us were game to give it a chance.
Flash forward almost 2 years later, and a lot of that enthusiasm has gone away. I think there are things to talk about that DC has done as a publisher that have contributed to that. (Though I don't think this thread about a movie is the place for it). I will agree with you that Snyder's Batman is still great. I just wish, for me, it wasn't such an outlier in being great. Again, though, that is a discussion best in a different topic.
To get back to the topic at hand- it may be that a darker, more violent Superman is WB's calculation for reaching a different or older audience. The Batman movies succeeded wildly, a family-oriented Green Lantern underperformed against expectations, so maybe the suits thought it would be best to try to make Superman more like Batman. While I could see that as a valid bit of business practice, personally, creatively, it didn't work out. I'm not much of a Superman fan, in general, I tend much more towards Batman. Heck, I like things that are dark. I read everything Garth Ennis does, for example. But to me probably some of the best and most sophisticated Superman material I've read- the kind of thing I would hand to a friend who is as skeptical about Superman as I tend to be- is All Star by Morrison and Quitely. And it strikes me that- to have a smart, fun, and big idea Superman was not to go dark. Rather to look back at the wonder and SF feel of the Silver Age, but with a modern sensibility and art. Fantastic.
To me, going dark with Superman is a square peg in a round hole. It punted on what can be great about Superman, and just made me wish I was watching another smarter, better Batman movie instead.
I'm just gonna throw this observation out there: In discussions about the Man of Steel movie that I've been involved in and read lately all around, I'm getting the (anecdotal) sense that there's a contingent of fans that are afraid of earnest feedback from other fans (who might be critical) in the fear that Warner Bros. might take away the promise of a Justice League movie if the MoS is not perceived to have been a success. At the least, this is certainly how the company has publicly framed their business plan for the movie franchise.
I don't think that the role of the fan is to be black mailed into rubber stamping every attempt. This is not (or should not be) the world of politics.
Actually, I referred to your opinion as dissenting earlier because that is how *you* seemed to see it-- rather than posting in the ongoing discussion (that was started positive about the movie, and has in it a mix of positive and negative opinions on it) you started a separate thread called something like "the minority opinion" or something like that. So I only brought up dissent to say that even if you see yourself as dissenting from what you perceive as the majority opinion, that is better off added to the ongoing discussion, rather than in it's own, separate place. Threads dedicated to the positive and to the negative feel to me more like an echo chamber than a lively and diverse discussion. (And I would also question whether your opinion of Man of Steel is really in the minority. I haven't counted, because who cares, but those of us that didn't dig it, while vocal, might actually be the minority so far.)
Also, I can't help but take a moment to appreciate that the forum and the show is being criticized for being anti-DC. Having been around these forums and the show for a long time, I can remember a point when the forums and the show were routinely criticized as being anti-Marvel and filled with DC apologists.
I think both of those takes are generalizations, and there is and has always been a pretty diverse range of opinion. Is there a lot of negativity about DC to be found on the forums and show right now? Sure. But that does not happen in a vacuum. If it seems trendy, well it may be worth looking at what has been getting done on the DC side to squander a lot of the interest and good will around the New 52 and cause that trend.
When the New 52 launched (and this was a prior volume of the forums, unfortunately lost to a crash) there was a thread dedicated to reviewing each and every one of the new #1s. Every one was reviewed and discussed on the show, as you know as a longtime listener. There was a lot of interest and good will. Not everyone was thrilled, of course, as there is always a variety of opinion. But a lot of us were game to give it a chance.
Flash forward almost 2 years later, and a lot of that enthusiasm has gone away. I think there are things to talk about that DC has done as a publisher that have contributed to that. (Though I don't think this thread about a movie is the place for it). I will agree with you that Snyder's Batman is still great. I just wish, for me, it wasn't such an outlier in being great. Again, though, that is a discussion best in a different topic.
To get back to the topic at hand- it may be that a darker, more violent Superman is WB's calculation for reaching a different or older audience. The Batman movies succeeded wildly, a family-oriented Green Lantern underperformed against expectations, so maybe the suits thought it would be best to try to make Superman more like Batman. While I could see that as a valid bit of business practice, personally, creatively, it didn't work out. I'm not much of a Superman fan, in general, I tend much more towards Batman. Heck, I like things that are dark. I read everything Garth Ennis does, for example. But to me probably some of the best and most sophisticated Superman material I've read- the kind of thing I would hand to a friend who is as skeptical about Superman as I tend to be- is All Star by Morrison and Quitely. And it strikes me that- to have a smart, fun, and big idea Superman was not to go dark. Rather to look back at the wonder and SF feel of the Silver Age, but with a modern sensibility and art. Fantastic.
To me, going dark with Superman is a square peg in a round hole. It punted on what can be great about Superman, and just made me wish I was watching another smarter, better Batman movie instead.
I think a 'darker' Superman is an angle of this movie gaining traction, but that's not how I see it. In a recent interview, Cavill described the movie as being grounded in realism (as close as can be done with aliens)
I don't think the angle of Kal-El being an orphan is any darker then it was previously. I don't think he was treated any differently (ie abused, mocked, etc) then previously done. Arguable advice from Pa were a little different, but Clark still seemed to have a good upbringing.
I know Clark spent time traveling the world trying to find his place in the world. I don't think that's a darker version either. People try to find their place in the world a lot. I didn't travel the world, but I went on a soul searching journey & part of that was finding my place in the world.
Now the reaction of the public to Kal-El might be darker, BUT realistic. Think about it, if you found out a foreign spy has been living in your community for years, wouldn't you be cautious & concerned? Now imagine discovering the person is foreign as in alien...and with superpowers.
I do agree I could go for another (Nolan, Bale) Batman movie, though!
I would like to say pertaining to Man Of Steel Movie. Firstly, the movie was good, however, Snyder made errors in Directing and after seeing it, the thought of seeing scenes that were reminiscent of Thor, Independence Day, Matrix, etc, it should've been Directed by Mr. Nolan and not Synder, inexperienced for such big movie and what really stood out in the movie, the scenes where Superman is floating in air, the desert scene with the Army and that reminded me of Jesus Christ superstar, you'll never see such cheesy, ridiculous scene in the original Superman movies. Furthermore, Superman with his hands out like that, not right and it was really not the Superman Comic Character you expect.
I don't understand what went through Snyder's brain when speaks to his holographic father, Jor-El and then turns away and does that stupid Jesus Christ posture, it ruins that scene and makes it so lame, maybe he shouldn't direct the second Superman.
The beginning scene on Krypton Planet was brilliant, but, the movie lacked drama/story and not much dialogue interaction by Henry Cavill, story wasn't great and it should have been more focused on story build up, it was apparently missing.
If you look back at Richard Donner's Superman movies, they had story, Clark Kent was busy playing the bumbling Daily Planet Reporter and secretly saving the humans from death, this background story in Man Of Steel was evidently not present. Mr Snyder made so many mistakes in this movie and it shows that it'll make the money, but, they need someone else with more experience when masterminding a big project like Superman.
I would suggest Mr Nolan, he's a really a master of story telling of characters and he builds them up gradually, it was lacking. The movie wasn't rubbish, but, it lacked Clark Kent, Lois Lane didn't have the charismatic dialogue you expect from her, if you look at the Comic, Lois Lane's character is quite intuitive and even her character was utilized properly.
If one looks back at the TV Series, 'The New Adventures Of Superman', Dean Cain playing Superman and Terri Hatcher playing Lois Lane, these characters were utilized properly and more of the comic sense.
Where was the old archaic story where Lois Lane, the hot, beautiful lass finding stories and at times trying to ascertain the truth about Clark Kent, it was nowhere seen, so I believe with honesty, Snyder made dramatic changes to the movie and neglected the foundations of a true movie about Clark Kent/Superman and Lois Lane and you build the story around it, if the movie was more the way the comic was, this movie could or should have the ingredients to stand worthy of its praise, but, unfortunately, it was missing.
The Kryptonians were awesome, Faora, General Zod and so forth, they were what the comics portrayed them has, powerful and skilled in Kryptonian Martial Arts. Richard Donner's Kryptonians version wasn't as good as the ones created in Man Of Steel and apart from that, the old Superman movies were perfect, good base storyline and the perfect chemistry between Clark Kent and Lois Lane, the new version by Snyder wasn't, he truly messed up on a larger scale, movie was good, but, so many flaws and that's why I believe the man for the job is Mr Nolan, a story teller and Nolan is really good at Directing a well drama story movie.
Summary of the points that I've discussed here.
1.Average story. 2. Clark Kent/Superman and Lois Lane. 3. Poor Directing by Snyder. 4. No story about Clark Kent and Lois Lane's life at the Daily Planet.
I would like to say pertaining to Man Of Steel Movie. Firstly, the movie was good, however, Snyder made errors in Directing and after seeing it, the thought of seeing scenes that were reminiscent of Thor, Independence Day, Matrix, etc, it should've been Directed by Mr. Nolan and not Synder, inexperienced for such big movie and what really stood out in the movie, the scenes where Superman is floating in air, the desert scene with the Army and that reminded me of Jesus Christ superstar, you'll never see such cheesy, ridiculous scene in the original Superman movies. Furthermore, Superman with his hands out like that, not right and it was really not the Superman Comic Character you expect.
I don't understand what went through Snyder's brain when speaks to his holographic father, Jor-El and then turns away and does that stupid Jesus Christ posture, it ruins that scene and makes it so lame, maybe he shouldn't direct the second Superman.
The beginning scene on Krypton Planet was brilliant, but, the movie lacked drama/story and not much dialogue interaction by Henry Cavill, story wasn't great and it should have been more focused on story build up, it was apparently missing.
If you look back at Richard Donner's Superman movies, they had story, Clark Kent was busy playing the bumbling Daily Planet Reporter and secretly saving the humans from death, this background story in Man Of Steel was evidently not present. Mr Snyder made so many mistakes in this movie and it shows that it'll make the money, but, they need someone else with more experience when masterminding a big project like Superman.
I would suggest Mr Nolan, he's a really a master of story telling of characters and he builds them up gradually, it was lacking. The movie wasn't rubbish, but, it lacked Clark Kent, Lois Lane didn't have the charismatic dialogue you expect from her, if you look at the Comic, Lois Lane's character is quite intuitive and even her character was utilized properly.
If one looks back at the TV Series, 'The New Adventures Of Superman', Dean Cain playing Superman and Terri Hatcher playing Lois Lane, these characters were utilized properly and more of the comic sense.
Where was the old archaic story where Lois Lane, the hot, beautiful lass finding stories and at times trying to ascertain the truth about Clark Kent, it was nowhere seen, so I believe with honesty, Snyder made dramatic changes to the movie and neglected the foundations of a true movie about Clark Kent/Superman and Lois Lane and you build the story around it, if the movie was more the way the comic was, this movie could or should have the ingredients to stand worthy of its praise, but, unfortunately, it was missing.
The Kryptonians were awesome, Faora, General Zod and so forth, they were what the comics portrayed them has, powerful and skilled in Kryptonian Martial Arts. Richard Donner's Kryptonians version wasn't as good as the ones created in Man Of Steel and apart from that, the old Superman movies were perfect, good base storyline and the perfect chemistry between Clark Kent and Lois Lane, the new version by Snyder wasn't, he truly messed up on a larger scale, movie was good, but, so many flaws and that's why I believe the man for the job is Mr Nolan, a story teller and Nolan is really good at Directing a well drama story movie.
Summary of the points that I've discussed here.
1.Average story. 2. Clark Kent/Superman and Lois Lane. 3. Poor Directing by Snyder. 4. No story about Clark Kent and Lois Lane's life at the Daily Planet.
I think you were looking for things that weren't supposed to be in the story. You're right, Lois & Clark had that comic book type relationship, but that's why the show was titled: Lois and Clark: the New Adventures of Superman instead of The New Adventures of Superman: Lois and Clark.
Again, basing on my own experiences, you can't be "humorous & joyous" with self-confidence until you're comfortable with who you are. There is no way I could have the strong relationship with my wife (or career) without first gaining confidence in myself. I needed to discover how I fit in the world before I could be the person I am today.
Before the end of this movie, Kal-El couldn't have been in that type of relationship like Lois & Clark. He was trying to find himself first. Crowbarring a Daily Planet reporter trying to woo Lois halfway through the movie would've undercut the movie's theme. In the Donner movies (which you're using as the bar), we didn't see the Daily Planet reporter until after he was confident & purpose filled exiting the Fortress.
I can't argue with some of the points you made, but I think you (and many others) are expecting Year Three without getting Year One & Two first.
I would heavily argue there ARE cheesy, ridiculous scenes in the original.
Its amazing how people thought the Donner films were nostalgic, but flawed & not really Superman before Man of Steel. NOW, those movies are the definitive Superman movies. Amazing!
Just for the sake of discussion: Didn't Batman kill Ra's at the end of "Batman Begins?" I recall a line of dialogue where he says "I don't have to save you" or something to that effect. Is that any different from the Superman/Zod final confrontation? It's been a long time since I took an ethics/philosophy class.
I was going to wait til Tuesday AM but reading these posts have made me ramp up the plans. As soon as I am off the clock I'm waking the kids, up eating IHOP and going to the 1100 hours show by me. I look forward to being disappointed by an all action finale.
Happy Father's Day to me and to you fathers out there and when my sons grows up I hope they would snaps Zod's neck if presented with a General Zod.
Just for the sake of discussion: Didn't Batman kill Ra's at the end of "Batman Begins?" I recall a line of dialogue where he says "I don't have to save you" or something to that effect. Is that any different from the Superman/Zod final confrontation? It's been a long time since I took an ethics/philosophy class.
No. Batman didn't directly kill Ras. He died due to his own actions. Batman stated "I'm not going to kill you. But I don't have to save you."
Its similar to just walking away. You might argue that Batman did kill him since he destroyed the controls, making it unstoppable. Add Gordon to the list for destroying the tracks then.
Ras didn't get trapped or pinned in the train. He technically could've made some attempt to escape.
Although Zod committed "death by police officer" (brilliantly put by someone), Kal-El was directly responsible for the death.
I was going to wait til Tuesday AM but reading these posts have made me ramp up the plans. As soon as I am off the clock I'm waking the kids, up eating IHOP and going to the 1100 hours show by me. I look forward to being disappointed by an all action finale.
Happy Father's Day to me and to you fathers out there and when my sons grows up I hope they would snaps Zod's neck if presented with a General Zod.
I just hope your sons would have the sense to get him out of the populated area first.
I think a lot of what you blame Snyder for is more the fault of the scriptwriters*, although I completely agree about the heavy-handed Christ imagery.
*Among whom was, I believe, Nolan.
3 shots (totaling about 15 secs) is heavy-handed with only 1 being overt?
That scene with the priest felt forced to me because his relationship to faith in Clark's life had not been established. The decision that comes out of that scene, to me, would have been much more effective if it came out of a conversation with his mother. THAT was a relationship that was established and I was invested in, and it would have given Diane Lane more to do later in the film. (As opposed to some 20something who was almost a complete non-presence as an actor. He looked like he was someone's boyfriend or son that got a part. If you are going to have that weighty moment with a priest that is a stranger to Clark, why not at least have it be an actor with some gravitas, who is around the same age as his adoptive father?)
Regardless of the casting of the priest, it seems that the decision to trust humanity should have come out of an interaction with the mother, or, barring that, out of his growing relationship with Lois. Or even a conversation with Pete- a human he has a lifelong relationship with.
Having it get Christian felt like pandering. It made me wonder if the Catholic Church had financial participation in the movie the same way the US military did.
That scene with the priest felt forced to me because his relationship to faith in Clark's life had not been established. The decision that comes out of that scene, to me, would have been much more effective if it came out of a conversation with his mother. THAT was a relationship that was established and I was invested in, and it would have given Diane Lane more to do later in the film. (As opposed to some 20something who was almost a complete non-presence as an actor. He looked like he was someone's boyfriend or son that got a part. If you are going to have that weighty moment with a priest that is a stranger to Clark, why not at least have it be an actor with some gravitas, who is around the same age as his adoptive father?)
Regardless of the casting of the priest, it seems that the decision to trust humanity should have come out of an interaction with the mother, or, barring that, out of his growing relationship with Lois. Or even a conversation with Pete- a human he has a lifelong relationship with.
Having it get Christian felt like pandering. It made me wonder if the Catholic Church had financial participation in the movie the same way the US military did.
The scene at the church didn't feel forced to me or as any sort of pandering because that's an act true to growing up in a small-town in the Midwest. While Clark religious nature hasn't been established, it's not uncommon for people to seek guidance from a priest or minster (I actually think the character was supposed to be either Methodist or Presbyterian minister, not Catholic) in time of trouble or self-examination.
Having grown up in and served as a minster at churches in farming communities, I can tell you it's not an all to uncommon occurrence for even the most antagonistic of people to come to a minister during dark hours. In many of the communities you'll the local minister serve as guiding voice during town halls or meetings with the church serving as the venue for such discussions (think Hoosiers, the vote on whether or not to keep Norman Dale was at the local church and the minister was involved).
I do think that Goyer was leaning heavily on a form of cultural shorthand that isn't as prominent as it once was outside of the Midwest. Also I agree with you that Snyder would have been better suited choosing an actor a bit older that Cavil's Supermen for the role of the minister, and also given the character another scene outside of that one showing some form of interaction between him and a young Clark. It would have given the character a bit more gravitas and explained why his advice was so taken to heart.
I just saw it & loved it! I'm looking forward to here what the CGS crew thinks. I thought the casting was great throughout. A couple of quick points:
I missed the nods to Bruce Wayne & Luthor. Where were they?
I didn't see any for Batman, you can see the LexCorp building as Superman and Zod re-enter the atmosphere after battling in space, and also Zod kicks a LexCorp tanker truck at Superman after punching him into the parking garage.
Zod killed himself, just used Superman as the means in which to do it. That is what happened. The movie even preps us for it.
"Only one ending here, Kal.. You die or I do.."
Zod goes insane w/the loss of his people and acts out. Supes didn't want to be the means of his ending, but Zod is the one who forced his hand on a YOUNG, barely out of the metaphorically womb superhero. Supes isn't the murderer certain people want to think he is. Cuz Zod committed suicide, plain and simple.
That was obvious. But it doesn't make it right.
If anything, it makes Zod the winner in the confrontation, because he forced Superman into giving him what he wanted, instead of being taken down and forced to face punishment for his actions. And he sullied Superman's hands in the process.
I think a 'darker' Superman is an angle of this movie gaining traction, but that's not how I see it. In a recent interview, Cavill described the movie as being grounded in realism (as close as can be done with aliens)M
Realism!?
Dagnabbit! I specifically requested metaphor and symbolism with my Superman! Consarned whippersnappers!
If anything, it makes Zod the winner in the confrontation, because he forced Superman into giving him what he wanted, instead of being taken down and forced to face punishment for his actions. And he sullied Superman's hands in the process.
I don't blame Superman for this. Really.
I blame the writers.
What punishment could he have possible faced had Superman kept him alive? If you keep him here on Earth there's no prison that can hold him, no possible weapon to kill him short of nuclear bomb (which would cruel and unusual punishment); in other words, no form of justice or punishment is possible. Earth doesn't have the technology or means to send him into space or to the Phantom Zone. Superman does what is necessary and right; Zod doesn't win because Superman isn't brought down in the eyes of humanity. He's just dead.
I just saw it & loved it! I'm looking forward to here what the CGS crew thinks. I thought the casting was great throughout. A couple of quick points:
I think the refocusing of the Lois & Clark relationship is refreshing.
I thought it was much too soon, too abrupt, and too distracting; it should have been tentatively introduced and allowed to progress through future films. As is, the relationship feels shoehorned. Besides, once Lois finds Clark, she really gets lost as an individual for the rest of the film, being not much better than any better NPC.
I think Superman's terminating Zod was appropriate. I liken it to having to put down a rabid dog.
Except that Zod is not a dog. I don't buy that it was necessary, I really don't think the scene built it up convincingly enough to be necessary, I think the scene cheapens Superman's character and makes Zod the ultimate winner. (See previous post on that point.)
I missed the nods to Bruce Wayne & Luthor. Where were they?
I missed the Wayne nod, but apparently one of the destroyed satellites belong to Wayne Tech. The Luthor nod was in one of the battle scenes, when the Kryptonians throw a LexCorp oil tanker at Superman.
Just for the sake of discussion: Didn't Batman kill Ra's at the end of "Batman Begins?" I recall a line of dialogue where he says "I don't have to save you" or something to that effect. Is that any different from the Superman/Zod final confrontation? It's been a long time since I took an ethics/philosophy class.
No. Batman didn't directly kill Ras. He died due to his own actions. Batman stated "I'm not going to kill you. But I don't have to save you."
Its similar to just walking away. You might argue that Batman did kill him since he destroyed the controls, making it unstoppable. Add Gordon to the list for destroying the tracks then.
Ras didn't get trapped or pinned in the train. He technically could've made some attempt to escape.
Although Zod committed "death by police officer" (brilliantly put by someone), Kal-El was directly responsible for the death.
M
Batman was Ra’s’ only reasonable chance to survive. By actively choosing not to save Ra’s’ life, Batman effectively killed him. If an innocent civilian had been in that position and Batman said, “I don’t have to save you,” everyone would have been outraged, and rightly so. Just because Ra’s is the bad guy doesn’t make it any less of an offense. A life is still a life, morally and according to the laws that govern us. Given the circumstances of the impending crash and the limited amount of time he had, I doubt Batman could have been convicted of murder or even manslaughter in a court of law, even if Ra’s had been an innocent civilian, but morally he is guilty. Perhaps it is justifiable, but we humans can justify a lot of things that we know are morally wrong.
As for Man of Steel, legally it was self-defense, but morally it was still murder. It’s as justifiable a murder as can be, and perfectly acceptable in the eyes of the law, but it doesn’t change the fact that it’s murder. How people come to terms with the act is up to their individual codes of ethics.
But the real debate here—as has been pointed out—isn’t over Superman’s actions per se, it’s over the producers’/writers’/director’s/editor’s decisions (without having the shooting script and without knowing what ended up on the cutting room floor, it’s difficult to know exactly who is responsible for what). They obviously went into production knowing that Superman killing Zod was going to be the climax of the film. We don’t know the exact reason why they chose to do this. Maybe to show that this Superman “isn’t your father’s Superman.” Maybe because it’s the central theme of the overall story arc—Act I: Superman sins, Act II: Superman seeks redemption, Act III: Superman finds redemption. Maybe it was simply to generate buzz and excitement for the film (“there’s no such thing as bad publicity”). Either way, it was their decision. So it was their job to convince us that it was the right decision. I haven’t seen the movie yet (unfortunately I don’t get out to the theater very often), but judging by the posts here and elsewhere, I’d have to say they didn’t do their job as well as they could have.
Comments
On the movie, I enjoyed it for the most part. But I agree with a lot of you that are saying the killing scene was not earned in the writing and the consequences (to Kal-El's state of mind) were not adequately shown. The scream (which by the way should really have burst the eardrums of Lois and the family he was just trying to save) is not enough.
Breaking up text into paragraphs, while appreciated and suggested (and likely to get more people to take the time to read your post) is not required. But civility is. And things tend to stay civil when you deal with the idea or point someone is putting forward, and not making it about that person, or how you feel you would categorize an individual based on the point they are making. Better to just discuss the point rather than getting the discussion mired in discussing the person behind the point.
Thanks in advance. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to PM me. And now back to the discussion. . .
Interesting that you referred to my post as a dissenting opinion. On this forum where its trendy to criticize DC for every decision they make, sure I can see that. The comic book reading community as whole? Not so much. The top selling comic book in April being Batman actually proves my point. Snyder's Batman run has been consistently popular and critically acclaimed and is a darker, more violent book. If the fans did not want that kind of a Batman book, it wouldn't be one of the more consistently high selling books. Call it what you want, "gimmick" or "appealing to the lowest common denominator" as @Wetrats put it but there is a sizable market out there for darker characters and adult themes. And I think DC is trying to access that market.
As a life long comic book fan and staunch defender of comic books I consistently encounter the same reaction from various people once they find out I'm into comics. Its always some variation of "aren't comic books for kids". No doubt comic book publishers are aware of this opinion by people who don't read comics. And if you're DC and you're trying to create new comic book fans and you're aware of this particular stigma attached
to comics then you're going to produce some more adult comics that appeal to a more mature audience. And I think thats what they are doing with their main line and tv shows and movies.
I'm not 100% certain why there's a nice chunk of your post going defending DC in a thread that hasn't really been bashing the current status quo at DC. Then again, I'm not 100% certain why your initial post needed to take a dig at the show's quality when talking about something else.
I understand the need to defend something you're passionate about (in this case DC), but surely you can at least see some of the issues with what DC has been doing lately? WTF month, this villains month that's coming up with the 3D covers, eliminate some characters (Steph Brown, Wally West) & pushing others instead.
I find the entire The Dark Knight trilogy one of the best versions of Batman (aside from Year One) in the media. I've had to defend TDKR on several occasions, but I always see where the criticism is coming from. All I'm saying is you don't have to agree with other people's POV, but at least try to understand it.
Plus, the first few years of CGS there was a DC love fest; some by hosts regardless of what was going on!
M
"Only one ending here, Kal.. You die or I do.."
Zod goes insane w/the loss of his people and acts out. Supes didn't want to be the means of his ending, but Zod is the one who forced his hand on a YOUNG, barely out of the metaphorically womb superhero. Supes isn't the murderer certain people want to think he is. Cuz Zod committed suicide, plain and simple.
Also, I can't help but take a moment to appreciate that the forum and the show is being criticized for being anti-DC. Having been around these forums and the show for a long time, I can remember a point when the forums and the show were routinely criticized as being anti-Marvel and filled with DC apologists.
I think both of those takes are generalizations, and there is and has always been a pretty diverse range of opinion. Is there a lot of negativity about DC to be found on the forums and show right now? Sure. But that does not happen in a vacuum. If it seems trendy, well it may be worth looking at what has been getting done on the DC side to squander a lot of the interest and good will around the New 52 and cause that trend.
When the New 52 launched (and this was a prior volume of the forums, unfortunately lost to a crash) there was a thread dedicated to reviewing each and every one of the new #1s. Every one was reviewed and discussed on the show, as you know as a longtime listener. There was a lot of interest and good will. Not everyone was thrilled, of course, as there is always a variety of opinion. But a lot of us were game to give it a chance.
Flash forward almost 2 years later, and a lot of that enthusiasm has gone away. I think there are things to talk about that DC has done as a publisher that have contributed to that. (Though I don't think this thread about a movie is the place for it). I will agree with you that Snyder's Batman is still great. I just wish, for me, it wasn't such an outlier in being great. Again, though, that is a discussion best in a different topic.
To get back to the topic at hand- it may be that a darker, more violent Superman is WB's calculation for reaching a different or older audience. The Batman movies succeeded wildly, a family-oriented Green Lantern underperformed against expectations, so maybe the suits thought it would be best to try to make Superman more like Batman. While I could see that as a valid bit of business practice, personally, creatively, it didn't work out. I'm not much of a Superman fan, in general, I tend much more towards Batman. Heck, I like things that are dark. I read everything Garth Ennis does, for example. But to me probably some of the best and most sophisticated Superman material I've read- the kind of thing I would hand to a friend who is as skeptical about Superman as I tend to be- is All Star by Morrison and Quitely. And it strikes me that- to have a smart, fun, and big idea Superman was not to go dark. Rather to look back at the wonder and SF feel of the Silver Age, but with a modern sensibility and art. Fantastic.
To me, going dark with Superman is a square peg in a round hole. It punted on what can be great about Superman, and just made me wish I was watching another smarter, better Batman movie instead.
I don't think that the role of the fan is to be black mailed into rubber stamping every attempt. This is not (or should not be) the world of politics.
Also, I can't help but take a moment to appreciate that the forum and the show is being criticized for being anti-DC. Having been around these forums and the show for a long time, I can remember a point when the forums and the show were routinely criticized as being anti-Marvel and filled with DC apologists.
I think both of those takes are generalizations, and there is and has always been a pretty diverse range of opinion. Is there a lot of negativity about DC to be found on the forums and show right now? Sure. But that does not happen in a vacuum. If it seems trendy, well it may be worth looking at what has been getting done on the DC side to squander a lot of the interest and good will around the New 52 and cause that trend.
When the New 52 launched (and this was a prior volume of the forums, unfortunately lost to a crash) there was a thread dedicated to reviewing each and every one of the new #1s. Every one was reviewed and discussed on the show, as you know as a longtime listener. There was a lot of interest and good will. Not everyone was thrilled, of course, as there is always a variety of opinion. But a lot of us were game to give it a chance.
Flash forward almost 2 years later, and a lot of that enthusiasm has gone away. I think there are things to talk about that DC has done as a publisher that have contributed to that. (Though I don't think this thread about a movie is the place for it). I will agree with you that Snyder's Batman is still great. I just wish, for me, it wasn't such an outlier in being great. Again, though, that is a discussion best in a different topic.
To get back to the topic at hand- it may be that a darker, more violent Superman is WB's calculation for reaching a different or older audience. The Batman movies succeeded wildly, a family-oriented Green Lantern underperformed against expectations, so maybe the suits thought it would be best to try to make Superman more like Batman. While I could see that as a valid bit of business practice, personally, creatively, it didn't work out. I'm not much of a Superman fan, in general, I tend much more towards Batman. Heck, I like things that are dark. I read everything Garth Ennis does, for example. But to me probably some of the best and most sophisticated Superman material I've read- the kind of thing I would hand to a friend who is as skeptical about Superman as I tend to be- is All Star by Morrison and Quitely. And it strikes me that- to have a smart, fun, and big idea Superman was not to go dark. Rather to look back at the wonder and SF feel of the Silver Age, but with a modern sensibility and art. Fantastic.
To me, going dark with Superman is a square peg in a round hole. It punted on what can be great about Superman, and just made me wish I was watching another smarter, better Batman movie instead.
I think a 'darker' Superman is an angle of this movie gaining traction, but that's not how I see it. In a recent interview, Cavill described the movie as being grounded in realism (as close as can be done with aliens)
I don't think the angle of Kal-El being an orphan is any darker then it was previously. I don't think he was treated any differently (ie abused, mocked, etc) then previously done. Arguable advice from Pa were a little different, but Clark still seemed to have a good upbringing.
I know Clark spent time traveling the world trying to find his place in the world. I don't think that's a darker version either. People try to find their place in the world a lot. I didn't travel the world, but I went on a soul searching journey & part of that was finding my place in the world.
Now the reaction of the public to Kal-El might be darker, BUT realistic. Think about it, if you found out a foreign spy has been living in your community for years, wouldn't you be cautious & concerned? Now imagine discovering the person is foreign as in alien...and with superpowers.
I do agree I could go for another (Nolan, Bale) Batman movie, though!
M
I think the refocusing of the Lois & Clark relationship is refreshing.
I think Superman's terminating Zod was appropriate. I liken it to having to put down a rabid dog.
The casting was spot on throughout. - Costner was especially effective. Cavill makes the role human and powerful.
Some have said they miss a sense of humor. I didn't and was glad it was free of Robert Downey-like patter.
I missed the nods to Bruce Wayne & Luthor. Where were they?
OK, let's start speculating on a sequel. Who would you pick for a villain & should they do a cameo for a JLA member?
I don't understand what went through Snyder's brain when speaks to his holographic father, Jor-El and then turns away and does that stupid Jesus Christ posture, it ruins that scene and makes it so lame, maybe he shouldn't direct the second Superman.
The beginning scene on Krypton Planet was brilliant, but, the movie lacked drama/story and not much dialogue interaction by Henry Cavill, story wasn't great and it should have been more focused on story build up, it was apparently missing.
If you look back at Richard Donner's Superman movies, they had story, Clark Kent was busy playing the bumbling Daily Planet Reporter and secretly saving the humans from death, this background story in Man Of Steel was evidently not present. Mr Snyder made so many mistakes in this movie and it shows that it'll make the money, but, they need someone else with more experience when masterminding a big project like Superman.
I would suggest Mr Nolan, he's a really a master of story telling of characters and he builds them up gradually, it was lacking. The movie wasn't rubbish, but, it lacked Clark Kent, Lois Lane didn't have the charismatic dialogue you expect from her, if you look at the Comic, Lois Lane's character is quite intuitive and even her character was utilized properly.
If one looks back at the TV Series, 'The New Adventures Of Superman', Dean Cain playing Superman and Terri Hatcher playing Lois Lane, these characters were utilized properly and more of the comic sense.
Where was the old archaic story where Lois Lane, the hot, beautiful lass finding stories and at times trying to ascertain the truth about Clark Kent, it was nowhere seen, so I believe with honesty, Snyder made dramatic changes to the movie and neglected the foundations of a true movie about Clark Kent/Superman and Lois Lane and you build the story around it, if the movie was more the way the comic was, this movie could or should have the ingredients to stand worthy of its praise, but, unfortunately, it was missing.
The Kryptonians were awesome, Faora, General Zod and so forth, they were what the comics portrayed them has, powerful and skilled in Kryptonian Martial Arts. Richard Donner's Kryptonians version wasn't as good as the ones created in Man Of Steel and apart from that, the old Superman movies were perfect, good base storyline and the perfect chemistry between Clark Kent and Lois Lane, the new version by Snyder wasn't, he truly messed up on a larger scale, movie was good, but, so many flaws and that's why I believe the man for the job is Mr Nolan, a story teller and Nolan is really good at Directing a well drama story movie.
Summary of the points that I've discussed here.
1.Average story.
2. Clark Kent/Superman and Lois Lane.
3. Poor Directing by Snyder.
4. No story about Clark Kent and Lois Lane's life at the Daily Planet.
I think a lot of what you blame Snyder for is more the fault of the scriptwriters*, although I completely agree about the heavy-handed Christ imagery.
*Among whom was, I believe, Nolan.
Again, basing on my own experiences, you can't be "humorous & joyous" with self-confidence until you're comfortable with who you are. There is no way I could have the strong relationship with my wife (or career) without first gaining confidence in myself. I needed to discover how I fit in the world before I could be the person I am today.
Before the end of this movie, Kal-El couldn't have been in that type of relationship like Lois & Clark. He was trying to find himself first. Crowbarring a Daily Planet reporter trying to woo Lois halfway through the movie would've undercut the movie's theme. In the Donner movies (which you're using as the bar), we didn't see the Daily Planet reporter until after he was confident & purpose filled exiting the Fortress.
I can't argue with some of the points you made, but I think you (and many others) are expecting Year Three without getting Year One & Two first.
I would heavily argue there ARE cheesy, ridiculous scenes in the original.
Its amazing how people thought the Donner films were nostalgic, but flawed & not really Superman before Man of Steel. NOW, those movies are the definitive Superman movies. Amazing!
M
M
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/62885
Happy Father's Day to me and to you fathers out there and when my sons grows up I hope they would snaps Zod's neck if presented with a General Zod.
Its similar to just walking away. You might argue that Batman did kill him since he destroyed the controls, making it unstoppable. Add Gordon to the list for destroying the tracks then.
Ras didn't get trapped or pinned in the train. He technically could've made some attempt to escape.
Although Zod committed "death by police officer" (brilliantly put by someone), Kal-El was directly responsible for the death.
M
Regardless of the casting of the priest, it seems that the decision to trust humanity should have come out of an interaction with the mother, or, barring that, out of his growing relationship with Lois. Or even a conversation with Pete- a human he has a lifelong relationship with.
Having it get Christian felt like pandering. It made me wonder if the Catholic Church had financial participation in the movie the same way the US military did.
Having grown up in and served as a minster at churches in farming communities, I can tell you it's not an all to uncommon occurrence for even the most antagonistic of people to come to a minister during dark hours. In many of the communities you'll the local minister serve as guiding voice during town halls or meetings with the church serving as the venue for such discussions (think Hoosiers, the vote on whether or not to keep Norman Dale was at the local church and the minister was involved).
I do think that Goyer was leaning heavily on a form of cultural shorthand that isn't as prominent as it once was outside of the Midwest. Also I agree with you that Snyder would have been better suited choosing an actor a bit older that Cavil's Supermen for the role of the minister, and also given the character another scene outside of that one showing some form of interaction between him and a young Clark. It would have given the character a bit more gravitas and explained why his advice was so taken to heart.
Brother Eye?
If anything, it makes Zod the winner in the confrontation, because he forced Superman into giving him what he wanted, instead of being taken down and forced to face punishment for his actions. And he sullied Superman's hands in the process.
I don't blame Superman for this. Really.
I blame the writers.
Dagnabbit! I specifically requested metaphor and symbolism with my Superman! Consarned whippersnappers!
Batman was Ra’s’ only reasonable chance to survive. By actively choosing not to save Ra’s’ life, Batman effectively killed him. If an innocent civilian had been in that position and Batman said, “I don’t have to save you,” everyone would have been outraged, and rightly so. Just because Ra’s is the bad guy doesn’t make it any less of an offense. A life is still a life, morally and according to the laws that govern us. Given the circumstances of the impending crash and the limited amount of time he had, I doubt Batman could have been convicted of murder or even manslaughter in a court of law, even if Ra’s had been an innocent civilian, but morally he is guilty. Perhaps it is justifiable, but we humans can justify a lot of things that we know are morally wrong.
As for Man of Steel, legally it was self-defense, but morally it was still murder. It’s as justifiable a murder as can be, and perfectly acceptable in the eyes of the law, but it doesn’t change the fact that it’s murder. How people come to terms with the act is up to their individual codes of ethics.
But the real debate here—as has been pointed out—isn’t over Superman’s actions per se, it’s over the producers’/writers’/director’s/editor’s decisions (without having the shooting script and without knowing what ended up on the cutting room floor, it’s difficult to know exactly who is responsible for what). They obviously went into production knowing that Superman killing Zod was going to be the climax of the film. We don’t know the exact reason why they chose to do this. Maybe to show that this Superman “isn’t your father’s Superman.” Maybe because it’s the central theme of the overall story arc—Act I: Superman sins, Act II: Superman seeks redemption, Act III: Superman finds redemption. Maybe it was simply to generate buzz and excitement for the film (“there’s no such thing as bad publicity”). Either way, it was their decision. So it was their job to convince us that it was the right decision. I haven’t seen the movie yet (unfortunately I don’t get out to the theater very often), but judging by the posts here and elsewhere, I’d have to say they didn’t do their job as well as they could have.