I posted a longish piece about it at my blog (that would be Trusty Plinko Stick... better living through junk culture since 2004! :-B ), but the short version is that I enjoyed it both in spite of and because of issues I may have had with certain story beats (which I won't get into because 8 pages in, we all know what they are). In fact, I'd go so far as to say that it's successful at what it does no matter what your actual opinion of it is, because love or hate it, you had a reaction and you're talking about it. A lot.
This never struck me as a "right" vs "wrong" argument. More of a "This is not the Superman I have grown up to believe in" as opposed to "This is the Superman movie I've been wanting to see them make."
Just to clarify, I’m not arguing for any particular (capital R) Right way to make a Superman film, and it’s my way or the highway (though I think a lot of people—not necessarily on this board—are expressing themselves that way). Although for the people who say, “This is not the Superman I have grown up to believe in,” this version of Superman does feel wrong.
But actually, I was using “right” and “wrong” in terms of how the decision to include the scene may or may not affect the financial and long-term success of the Superman franchise. If too many people are turned off by the scene (or the film as a whole) and don’t come back for the sequel, then it was the wrong decision. If the scene changes the way people see Superman and revitalizes the franchise, then it was the right decision. I put “right” and “wrong” in quotes because it will be almost impossible to say how much that one scene will be solely responsible for the overall public opinion of the film and Superman in general.
Does anyone else see the similarities between MOS and Batman Begins?
1. Origin stories 2. Flashbacks to when they were children 3. Killing the villain at the end 4. Not so much a superhero story, but more a crime (BAB) / sci-fi (MOS) story
More?
I agree with those that have described this movie as "Superman Begins". For me, one of the things that worked more in Batman Begins is that we had multiple kinds of villains for him to deal with: there was the villain tied to his origins (Ghul), but also the villain of old Gotham (Falcone), as well as the new kind of villain that might be emerging BECAUSE of Batman (Scarecrow, and the tease for Joker). For me, Batman Begins succeeded in getting beyond the origin story, because in fighting Falcone and Scarecrow, we got a sense of what Batman would continue to do moving forward.
Man of Steel only gave us the Kryptonian threat. I could have used a sense of what else Superman intends to do. And a sense of how the world has changed (other than in getting-ripped apart sorts of ways) now that there is a Superman in it. But, in the case of Man of Steel, I guess they are saving all of that for the next movie. Which feels a little stingy, compared to all that Batman Begins was able to do in the first film.
Interesting you used the term "threat". While not villains, as a whole, humans were seemingly, especially according to Pa Kent, a threat.
Does anyone else see the similarities between MOS and Batman Begins?
1. Origin stories 2. Flashbacks to when they were children 3. Killing the villain at the end 4. Not so much a superhero story, but more a crime (BAB) / sci-fi (MOS) story
More?
I agree with those that have described this movie as "Superman Begins". For me, one of the things that worked more in Batman Begins is that we had multiple kinds of villains for him to deal with: there was the villain tied to his origins (Ghul), but also the villain of old Gotham (Falcone), as well as the new kind of villain that might be emerging BECAUSE of Batman (Scarecrow, and the tease for Joker). For me, Batman Begins succeeded in getting beyond the origin story, because in fighting Falcone and Scarecrow, we got a sense of what Batman would continue to do moving forward.
Man of Steel only gave us the Kryptonian threat. I could have used a sense of what else Superman intends to do. And a sense of how the world has changed (other than in getting-ripped apart sorts of ways) now that there is a Superman in it. But, in the case of Man of Steel, I guess they are saving all of that for the next movie. Which feels a little stingy, compared to all that Batman Begins was able to do in the first film.
Interesting you used the term "threat". While not villains, as a whole, humans were seemingly, especially according to Pa Kent, a threat.
Sure, and I get what you are saying. I more meant threats in terms of 'what the world actually needs a Superman for'. In Batman Begins, there were a number of different sorts of threats that Gotham needed a Batman for. In Man of Steel, the humans were neither an actual threat to Superman (despite Jonathan's fears), nor were the humans a threat that Superman had to deal with. It was all Zod and his people. Which didn't make for as many moving parts in the story, not leave as many hooks for the future, as Batman Begins did.
I completely agree. The scene holds a lot more weight then that.
M
Not much more. "Clark, nobody can see you use your powers. You should have let the kids on the bus die. You can save me and the dog but in my messed up head that'd be wrong."
I'd watch Catwoman a second time before seeing this again.
@Matt when's the review episode going up? Looking forward to hearing everyone's views.
Probably on Tuesday. He finished earlier tonight. I've cracked the real reason why I think this movie will do very well, despite the criticism its getting here.
I completely agree. The scene holds a lot more weight then that.
M
Not much more. "Clark, nobody can see you use your powers. You should have let the kids on the bus die. You can save me and the dog but in my messed up head that'd be wrong."
I'd watch Catwoman a second time before seeing this again.
No. Its easy to think Pa Kent didn't want Clark to help people or use his powers, but that's inaccurate. It was able deciding how & when to use his powers.
Pa never said "you shouldn't have save those kids." It was "I don't know, maybe." It was a way of teaching Clark how to use his powers wisely; kinda like with great responsibility. In fact, Pa died helping people (not just the dog.)
When Pa died, it was because Clark wasn't ready to be "seen" and the world wasn't ready for Clark to be "seen." Pa was trying to protect Clark from the world...like fathers do.
Hey, don't get me wrong, its easy to see what this movie isn't instead of what it is. I've done the same thing with other movies. If the movie leaves a bad taste in your mouth, finding its faults is child's play.
I completely agree. The scene holds a lot more weight then that.
M
Not much more. "Clark, nobody can see you use your powers. You should have let the kids on the bus die. You can save me and the dog but in my messed up head that'd be wrong."
I'd watch Catwoman a second time before seeing this again.
No. Its easy to think Pa Kent didn't want Clark to help people or use his powers, but that's inaccurate. It was able deciding how & when to use his powers.
Pa never said "you shouldn't have save those kids." It was "I don't know, maybe." It was a way of teaching Clark how to use his powers wisely; kinda like with great responsibility. In fact, Pa died helping people (not just the dog.)
When Pa died, it was because Clark wasn't ready to be "seen" and the world wasn't ready for Clark to be "seen." Pa was trying to protect Clark from the world...like fathers do.
Hey, don't get me wrong, its easy to see what this movie isn't instead of what it is. I've done the same thing with other movies. If the movie leaves a bad taste in your mouth, finding its faults is child's play.
M
What I found unintentionally funny in Pa's death scene (though I am likely one of very few to have had this very particular reaction) is that I couldn't help thinking about the fact that you are not supposed to hide under an overpass. Back when my wife was at Discovery, she worked on a show called something like "How to Survive a Tornado" and they had a whole segment about why hiding under an overpass is a terrible idea, and actually worse shelter than being out in the open. The NWS explains it better than I could here.
(To be clear, though, It was just something I smirked at. I am not saying it is some big flaw of the movie.)
Im a sucker through and through for anything dealing with the relationships between father and son. No matter how corny. I personally felt NOTHING in the pa kent death scene. I also never really felt anything in any of their other scenes together. In fact, I never bought the Kents relationship w/ clark.there could be several reason why, but to me clark appeared almost more of a burdon to them than a son.
I completely agree. The scene holds a lot more weight then that.
M
Not much more. "Clark, nobody can see you use your powers. You should have let the kids on the bus die. You can save me and the dog but in my messed up head that'd be wrong."
I'd watch Catwoman a second time before seeing this again.
No. Its easy to think Pa Kent didn't want Clark to help people or use his powers, but that's inaccurate. It was able deciding how & when to use his powers.
Pa never said "you shouldn't have save those kids." It was "I don't know, maybe." It was a way of teaching Clark how to use his powers wisely; kinda like with great responsibility. In fact, Pa died helping people (not just the dog.)
When Pa died, it was because Clark wasn't ready to be "seen" and the world wasn't ready for Clark to be "seen." Pa was trying to protect Clark from the world...like fathers do.
Hey, don't get me wrong, its easy to see what this movie isn't instead of what it is. I've done the same thing with other movies. If the movie leaves a bad taste in your mouth, finding its faults is child's play.
M
"wasnt ready to be seen and the world wasnt ready to see him"? what does that even mean really? clark seemed ready to me. ready to save his fathers life. when was the world going to be "ready"? 1st, the cute family dog left behind and becomes jeopardized coupled with the clasic foot gets trapped and ankle sprained cliches tooped with risking your life for the dog cliche? really? and on a personal beat I take issue with anyone risking their life for the family pet and I somehow doubt Pa kent would be such a person (I know, im a monster). 2nd there were dozens of ways clark couldve pulled off rescuing his dad and safeguarded his secret. He was doing such things 2-3 times a week on smallville at the same age. Clark couldve run out to his dad and walked him back to safety w/o anyone really knowing/seeing his super strength/flight was keeping them grounded or any number of other scenarios where his abilities couldve / wouldve been concealed by the tornado or made to look so. at very least he couldve just held onto his dad and protected him while they both got swept away only to miraculaously be found safe later which could be explained realistically. Or even not, just like all the other such occurences in clarks life that caused people to wonder and then go on with their life. how about wise pa has clark get the dog seeing as how hes invincible and will be ok no matter what? Or perhaps I would just say to hell with it, my fathers life is more important than a secret and we'll go into hinding but at least alive and together? There are just an aweful lot of maybes in this case that no reasonable loving person would choose certain death over. Maybe people will see. maybe maybe people will be freaked out. maybe people will call the cops. maybe people will pester us. maybe people will question their religions. maybe the government will try to take clark away? Maybe if clark had still been 12 during that scene I wouldve bought it.
Now I can offically weigh in. Very happy with the movie. I suppose on the most controversial topic, I had no issue with it in theory and after watching it, I have no issue with it in practice. What was he suppossed to do, let Zod kill those people? I get the avoidance of death as weapon of choice but it was certainly morally and legally( as if that applies in a movie) justifiable in that circumstance.
Thought Cavill did a great job. Crowe was a great Jor El and I was happy to see him around even as a "shadow". I do not like Shannon at all but as Zod that worked in his favor. Costner's take on Pa Kent was..... I pass on that for now. I thought he was a great choice but I did not like the attitude and his death scene was heavy handed and manipulative. I have bigger issue with Clark letting his Dad die than snapping Zod's neck. Pa Kent's view on Clark's role in the world was not one I would have let him die for.
Lois was very good, best one yet even if it was a bit off. Any complaints with her age or look is ridiculous IMO. The action scenes were fantastic. The fight in Smallville was wonderfully done, every thing I could have wanted. As a disaster movie fan, I am sick of the scenes like the climax, disaster porn is a great term, I do not like the wanton destruction. I was getting sick of it a long time ago, I hate it now.
Man of Steel was a very strong re-boot. Glad to see it get green lit for sequels and hope to see Cavill launch a Justice League franchise. Sad that more of this community did not like it. I think it was the movie we wanted to see.
One other thing from my pov. Personally I never even noticed the music. maybe once i think while on Krypton in the begining. After that I couldnt even tell you for sure if there even was any music in the movie.
Was/is there any reason the krypton matrix thingie was a little broken black skull? just curious. seemed odd. also, why did Jor El implant it into clark rather than just send it with him? and what was ultimately expected or hoped to be done with it? anything? Im assuming sequel fodder?
Also bummed they made no attempt to explain why only the baby clark could be evacuated from krypton. its a question usually overlooked or ignored but something ive always wanted decent answer to. In theis movie for various reasons its even harder to justify or explain since they have countless ships of various designs (many jor els no less) and theyve already been travelling to earth and beyond for thousands of years?
Can someone tell me if they remember, what was the dialog exchange between superman and lois at the end in the crater? I missed it in the theater.
I wished the fights had been more creative but I dug em. I was annoyed by the big goofy looking cgi kryptonian. He was a distraction instead of a cool addition for me.
Just saw it today. Worst superhero movie since..well, I don't know when. Awful acting..boring story..Pa Kent died for a dog..sigh.
wow. If Man of Still was worst superhero movie in recent memory I want to hear your opinions on Iron Man 2 or Green Lantern. Those were far inferior to this on many levels and I just am confounded by the poor reception by so many. This isn't some B level camp classic we have to look for reasons to justify our preference. Despite it's flaws it was a well done well made tent pole for the DC franchise. It shows that Warner Bros will invest money and talent in attempting to keep pace with Marvel. Man of Steel could not backfire for DC and I think they swing big for a reason. I think it worked and we all should be happy as it gives hope for a successful Justice League franchise.
After the sheer level of destruction in the MoS Im curious what the hell can they do in Justice League!? rip the earth in half? lol I will say though that one thing MoS did was make me more anxious excited and optimistic for Flash movie.
I completely agree. The scene holds a lot more weight then that.
M
Not much more. "Clark, nobody can see you use your powers. You should have let the kids on the bus die. You can save me and the dog but in my messed up head that'd be wrong."
I'd watch Catwoman a second time before seeing this again.
No. Its easy to think Pa Kent didn't want Clark to help people or use his powers, but that's inaccurate. It was able deciding how & when to use his powers.
Pa never said "you shouldn't have save those kids." It was "I don't know, maybe." It was a way of teaching Clark how to use his powers wisely; kinda like with great responsibility. In fact, Pa died helping people (not just the dog.)
When Pa died, it was because Clark wasn't ready to be "seen" and the world wasn't ready for Clark to be "seen." Pa was trying to protect Clark from the world...like fathers do.
Hey, don't get me wrong, its easy to see what this movie isn't instead of what it is. I've done the same thing with other movies. If the movie leaves a bad taste in your mouth, finding its faults is child's play.
M
"wasnt ready to be seen and the world wasnt ready to see him"? what does that even mean really? clark seemed ready to me. ready to save his fathers life. when was the world going to be "ready"? 1st, the cute family dog left behind and becomes jeopardized coupled with the clasic foot gets trapped and ankle sprained cliches tooped with risking your life for the dog cliche? really? and on a personal beat I take issue with anyone risking their life for the family pet and I somehow doubt Pa kent would be such a person (I know, im a monster). 2nd there were dozens of ways clark couldve pulled off rescuing his dad and safeguarded his secret. He was doing such things 2-3 times a week on smallville at the same age. Clark couldve run out to his dad and walked him back to safety w/o anyone really knowing/seeing his super strength/flight was keeping them grounded or any number of other scenarios where his abilities couldve / wouldve been concealed by the tornado or made to look so. at very least he couldve just held onto his dad and protected him while they both got swept away only to miraculaously be found safe later which could be explained realistically. Or even not, just like all the other such occurences in clarks life that caused people to wonder and then go on with their life. how about wise pa has clark get the dog seeing as how hes invincible and will be ok no matter what? Or perhaps I would just say to hell with it, my fathers life is more important than a secret and we'll go into hinding but at least alive and together? There are just an aweful lot of maybes in this case that no reasonable loving person would choose certain death over. Maybe people will see. maybe maybe people will be freaked out. maybe people will call the cops. maybe people will pester us. maybe people will question their religions. maybe the government will try to take clark away? Maybe if clark had still been 12 during that scene I wouldve bought it.
First (which seems like a big hurtle in this scene for you), I'D run back for our dog. Hell, I'd run back into a burning building to get him. He's not a family pet, but a member of the family. If you don't have that kind of connection with pet, then you'll never understand why these things happen.
Did I ever tell you, in my early 20s, I spent time working in Loss Prevention. It helped kick start my career as college was winding down. I enjoyed the job, but wasn't ready for it. I needed to stumble & fail at this job to be successful at my current job.
Bringing it back, Clark wasn't ready to make his reveal. At this point, we've only seen him in Smallville. He needed that world traveling journey to discover himself. He wasn't ready because Clark didn't know who he was. There was a different Clark once he returned home. This moment kickstarted that journey.
Sure, Pa could've sent his invincible son to help the other people, while he got Ma to the safety of the underpass (though David D has proven otherwise.) Not sure if you're a father, but I would've done exactly what Pa did. I'd look out for the safety of my child, no matter how 'special' he/she might be. Why not have Clark help the others instead of Pa doing it himself? Why not, then, see if Clark could've reverse the tornado? Why not have Clark do everything on the farm so Pa & Ma could relax?
Plus, didn't it help show Jor-El was right about the human race? Look at the Boston Marathon Bombing. Ordinary people were running into where the explosions occurred to help. Despite being vulnerable, Pa risked HIS life to help others (not JUST 'save the dog'). Wouldn't that help show Clark what he could do with his powers? Wouldn't it show Clark to fight/rescue even if he had to make the ultimate sacrifice?
Are we really going to play the maybe game here? We could start looking at other movies in general to Monday morning quarterback. Maybe Thomas Wayne could've just let the robber take the pearls. Maybe Peter Parker could've stopped that robber.
There's a certain story that was being told, so it happened as it did. Just like with any story/movie, it happened for the protagonist's journey. If you hated the whole journey, then its easy to second guess each step of it.
One other thing from my pov. Personally I never even noticed the music. maybe once i think while on Krypton in the begining. After that I couldnt even tell you for sure if there even was any music in the movie.
Was/is there any reason the krypton matrix thingie was a little broken black skull? just curious. seemed odd. also, why did Jor El implant it into clark rather than just send it with him? and what was ultimately expected or hoped to be done with it? anything? Im assuming sequel fodder?
Also bummed they made no attempt to explain why only the baby clark could be evacuated from krypton. its a question usually overlooked or ignored but something ive always wanted decent answer to. In theis movie for various reasons its even harder to justify or explain since they have countless ships of various designs (many jor els no less) and theyve already been travelling to earth and beyond for thousands of years?
Can someone tell me if they remember, what was the dialog exchange between superman and lois at the end in the crater? I missed it in the theater.
I wished the fights had been more creative but I dug em. I was annoyed by the big goofy looking cgi kryptonian. He was a distraction instead of a cool addition for me.
Outside of this movie, I was under the impression no one believed Jor-El about the planet's destruction. He was only able to jettison a small shuttle from the planet.
As for this movie, I think back to the flaws of Jurassic Park; specifically see dinosaurs as they were back then. IF we could harvest DNA & actually recreate dinosaurs, they might look the same, but won't act the same. The first batch of created dinosaur have no elder "teaching" them survival & behavior.
Okay, bringing it back to this; if there are no Kryptonians to influence Kal-El, then he'd have nothing deterring his "pure innocence" of another civilization.
I'D run back for our dog. He's not a family pet, but a member of the family. If you don't have that kind of connection with pet, then you'll never understand why these things happen.
I understand. I have and have had pets. pets that have been essentially my best friend at times. but this is ultimately off topic and not gonna go anywhere (least nowhere good lol). Bottom line Pa kent dying due to the dog was just lame regardless of the larger underlying "message".
Clark wasn't ready to make his reveal. At this point, we've only seen him in Smallville. He needed that world traveling journey to discover himself. He wasn't ready because Clark didn't know who he was. There was a different Clark once he returned home. This moment kickstarted that journey.
again IMO it was highly posible he couldve avoided "revealing" himself. We saw everything we needed to in Smallville. He saved at very least a bus full of kids at that point. Clark new who he was and WAS ready... ready to help and save those who and when needed. He was also ready to save his father but it was father who insisted he didnt. Yes, he certainly was a different Clark when he eventually returned home... he apparently no longer cared about people in jeopardy or the value of human life LOL.
Sure, Pa could've sent his invincible son to help the other people, while he got Ma to the safety of the underpass (though David D has proven otherwise.) Not sure if you're a father, but I would've done exactly what Pa did. I'd look out for the safety of my child, no matter how 'special' he/she might be. Why not have Clark help the others instead of Pa doing it himself? Why not, then, see if Clark could've reverse the tornado? Why not have Clark do everything on the farm so Pa & Ma could relax?
Yes Im a father and yes absolutely I would do anything to protect my children. Yeah... why not actually?
Pa risked HIS life to help others (not JUST 'save the dog'). Wouldn't that help show Clark what he could do with his powers? Wouldn't it show Clark to fight/rescue even if he had to make the ultimate sacrifice?
Not sure I saw how Pa risked his life for anything/anyone besides the dog. He wasnt in any greater danger than anyone else and didnt really do anything but point and encourage everyone to go to the underpass. And Clark again already knew what he could do with his powers and had done so at least once on screen.
Are we really going to play the maybe game here? We could start looking at other movies in general to Monday morning quarterback. Maybe Thomas Wayne could've just let the robber take the pearls. Maybe Peter Parker could've stopped that robber.
Im speaking purely from the characters perspective. The gain FAR outweighs the risk here imo. they had no idea what would happen were Clark to fully "out" himself. Whats the absolute worst case scenario? and what are any number of the more likely ones? The only absolute is pas death, which should be unacceptable .
There's a certain story that was being told, so it happened as it did. Just like with any story/movie, it happened for the protagonist's journey. If you hated the whole journey, then its easy to second guess each step of it.
Yeah and thats my problem. the way this chose to do it. I totally get what the scene intended. I say for me it didnt work at all. It was poorly conceived and poorly written (but not alltogether poorly executed). The scene couldve and shouldve been much better. For the record i want to emphasize i "liked" the movie. Liked it more than I expected (though not as much as I had hoped). Ill buy it and I will watch it repeatedly Im sure. Also to be clear there is no anger or anything intened in my comments or replies. I have no problems with anyone here nor anybody elses opinions on the movie love or hate it.
I completely agree. The scene holds a lot more weight then that.
M
Not much more. "Clark, nobody can see you use your powers. You should have let the kids on the bus die. You can save me and the dog but in my messed up head that'd be wrong."
I'd watch Catwoman a second time before seeing this again.
No. Its easy to think Pa Kent didn't want Clark to help people or use his powers, but that's inaccurate. It was able deciding how & when to use his powers.
Pa never said "you shouldn't have save those kids." It was "I don't know, maybe." It was a way of teaching Clark how to use his powers wisely; kinda like with great responsibility. In fact, Pa died helping people (not just the dog.)
When Pa died, it was because Clark wasn't ready to be "seen" and the world wasn't ready for Clark to be "seen." Pa was trying to protect Clark from the world...like fathers do.
Hey, don't get me wrong, its easy to see what this movie isn't instead of what it is. I've done the same thing with other movies. If the movie leaves a bad taste in your mouth, finding its faults is child's play.
M
I'm with @Mr_Cosmic. I didn't buy Pa Kent's death scene either; that whole business just felt wrong to me right from the beginning.
Bad guy who has been causing wanton destruction is being held in a choke hold by the good guy. Good guy says stop -- bad guy says never -- and lets loose his heat vision in the general direction of some innocent folks.
Good guy begs him to stop again -- but he doesn't. Good guy then slaps his super-hands over super-evil bad guy's eyes. Bad guy still won't stop with the heat ray -- much struggle and pain -- immovable object meets unstoppable force. Bad guy fries his brain with his own heat vision, forced back into his own damn stubborn evil noggin.
Bad guy causes his OWN defeat, because he won't stop being the bad-ass evil guy. Maybe he's dead -- maybe he's just fried his brain, so maybe he can come back for a sequel once he's regenerated his gray matter. Hero still shows remorse -- "Why wouldn't he stop...? Why...?" Heroguy's hands are injured, adding to the boatload of Christ allusions in the film (they'll heal, of course).
So the bad guy does himself in and the hero stays a hero -- yet still gets to do a little modern day angst thang.
How's that?"
I see I wasn't the only one who thought Superman should have clamped a hand over Zod's eyes.
And I thought this was the most interesting response to his post, from fellow artist Sam Kujava:
"Terry, I think a lot of us who worked in comics were brainstorming ways to improve so many scenes in the movie that were just wrong, and we had a lifetime's experience reading Silver Age comic books which, in lieu of horrible violence, instead stimulated our imaginations and made us THINK our way out of desperate situations."
"Terry, I think a lot of us who worked in comics were brainstorming ways to improve so many scenes in the movie that were just wrong, and we had a lifetime's experience reading Silver Age comic books which, in lieu of horrible violence, instead stimulated our imaginations and made us THINK our way out of desperate situations."
I'D run back for our dog. He's not a family pet, but a member of the family. If you don't have that kind of connection with pet, then you'll never understand why these things happen.
I understand. I have and have had pets. pets that have been essentially my best friend at times. but this is ultimately off topic and not gonna go anywhere (least nowhere good lol). Bottom line Pa kent dying due to the dog was just lame regardless of the larger underlying "message".
Clark wasn't ready to make his reveal. At this point, we've only seen him in Smallville. He needed that world traveling journey to discover himself. He wasn't ready because Clark didn't know who he was. There was a different Clark once he returned home. This moment kickstarted that journey.
again IMO it was highly posible he couldve avoided "revealing" himself. We saw everything we needed to in Smallville. He saved at very least a bus full of kids at that point. Clark new who he was and WAS ready... ready to help and save those who and when needed. He was also ready to save his father but it was father who insisted he didnt. Yes, he certainly was a different Clark when he eventually returned home... he apparently no longer cared about people in jeopardy or the value of human life LOL.
Sure, Pa could've sent his invincible son to help the other people, while he got Ma to the safety of the underpass (though David D has proven otherwise.) Not sure if you're a father, but I would've done exactly what Pa did. I'd look out for the safety of my child, no matter how 'special' he/she might be. Why not have Clark help the others instead of Pa doing it himself? Why not, then, see if Clark could've reverse the tornado? Why not have Clark do everything on the farm so Pa & Ma could relax?
Yes Im a father and yes absolutely I would do anything to protect my children. Yeah... why not actually?
Pa risked HIS life to help others (not JUST 'save the dog'). Wouldn't that help show Clark what he could do with his powers? Wouldn't it show Clark to fight/rescue even if he had to make the ultimate sacrifice?
Not sure I saw how Pa risked his life for anything/anyone besides the dog. He wasnt in any greater danger than anyone else and didnt really do anything but point and encourage everyone to go to the underpass. And Clark again already knew what he could do with his powers and had done so at least once on screen.
Are we really going to play the maybe game here? We could start looking at other movies in general to Monday morning quarterback. Maybe Thomas Wayne could've just let the robber take the pearls. Maybe Peter Parker could've stopped that robber.
Im speaking purely from the characters perspective. The gain FAR outweighs the risk here imo. they had no idea what would happen were Clark to fully "out" himself. Whats the absolute worst case scenario? and what are any number of the more likely ones? The only absolute is pas death, which should be unacceptable .
There's a certain story that was being told, so it happened as it did. Just like with any story/movie, it happened for the protagonist's journey. If you hated the whole journey, then its easy to second guess each step of it.
Yeah and thats my problem. the way this chose to do it. I totally get what the scene intended. I say for me it didnt work at all. It was poorly conceived and poorly written (but not alltogether poorly executed). The scene couldve and shouldve been much better. For the record i want to emphasize i "liked" the movie. Liked it more than I expected (though not as much as I had hoped). Ill buy it and I will watch it repeatedly Im sure. Also to be clear there is no anger or anything intened in my comments or replies. I have no problems with anyone here nor anybody elses opinions on the movie love or hate it.
I do agree that Clark knew his powers, but I've always looked at them as a burden rather then a gift. I looked at Pa Kent's entire interaction as having Clark weigh his actions.
Smallville Jonathan seemed to tell Clark about being careful with his powers. MOS Jonathan seemed to more pose questions to Clark about his powers. It was a way to have him think about how he used them.
That's why I think Clark was power knowing ready, but not mature ready.
Also, I haven't taken anything personal by anyone except 1 person who made it sound like those who liked the movie were idiots. I, also, don't have any ill will toward people who didn't like it or were mildly amused by it. My enjoyment doesn't hinge on other people's enjoyment. I'm just enjoying the conversation.
I think this whole Pa Kent and the dog thing comes down to a point I made earlier which is that the scene simply wasn't well done. The filmmakers did a poor job of setting up a scene in which Pa Kent dies and reinforces his message to Clark. Had it been better written/acted etc, these conversations would be lessened.
And just to get into the debate for a moment, I think this movie was all about bad Dad's screwing their kid up. Pa Kent spent the whole moving spewing a cynical world view and showing a fundamental lack of faith in humanity that got to a point where he considered letting children die and even setting himself for some ridiculous false choice sacrifice. I seriously found Costner's Pa to be as distasteful as Zod.
Not to mention Jor El imprinting the DNA of a race of people in his son. Which is pretty hubristic and ended up causing a group of people to attack his son and destroy a city.
I think this whole Pa Kent and the dog thing comes down to a point I made earlier which is that the scene simply wasn't well done. The filmmakers did a poor job of setting up a scene in which Pa Kent dies and reinforces his message to Clark. Had it been better written/acted etc, these conversations would be lessened.
And just to get into the debate for a moment, I think this movie was all about bad Dad's screwing their kid up. Pa Kent spent the whole moving spewing a cynical world view and showing a fundamental lack of faith in humanity that got to a point where he considered letting children die and even setting himself for some ridiculous false choice sacrifice. I seriously found Costner's Pa to be as distasteful as Zod.
Not to mention Jor El imprinting the DNA of a race of people in his son. Which is pretty hubristic and ended up causing a group of people to attack his son and destroy a city.
I agree that Jor-El painted a giant bullseye on Earth, but I got a completely different impression from the Kents than you did.
I found Kevin Costner and Diane Lane to be them most convincing and honest performers in the movie. Their love for Clark was clear in every scene. Though I concur Pa's death scene wasn't as well-written as it could be, I thought Costner did a brilliant job with what he was given, and the tornado's overtaking him was the best shot in the movie. (Looked like it might have been filmed practically, rather than CG, as well.)
Comments
But actually, I was using “right” and “wrong” in terms of how the decision to include the scene may or may not affect the financial and long-term success of the Superman franchise. If too many people are turned off by the scene (or the film as a whole) and don’t come back for the sequel, then it was the wrong decision. If the scene changes the way people see Superman and revitalizes the franchise, then it was the right decision. I put “right” and “wrong” in quotes because it will be almost impossible to say how much that one scene will be solely responsible for the overall public opinion of the film and Superman in general.
M
There was so much more to that whole scene...
M
I'd watch Catwoman a second time before seeing this again.
M
Pa never said "you shouldn't have save those kids." It was "I don't know, maybe." It was a way of teaching Clark how to use his powers wisely; kinda like with great responsibility. In fact, Pa died helping people (not just the dog.)
When Pa died, it was because Clark wasn't ready to be "seen" and the world wasn't ready for Clark to be "seen." Pa was trying to protect Clark from the world...like fathers do.
Hey, don't get me wrong, its easy to see what this movie isn't instead of what it is. I've done the same thing with other movies. If the movie leaves a bad taste in your mouth, finding its faults is child's play.
M
(To be clear, though, It was just something I smirked at. I am not saying it is some big flaw of the movie.)
There are just an aweful lot of maybes in this case that no reasonable loving person would choose certain death over.
Maybe people will see. maybe maybe people will be freaked out. maybe people will call the cops. maybe people will pester us. maybe people will question their religions. maybe the government will try to take clark away? Maybe if clark had still been 12 during that scene I wouldve bought it.
Thought Cavill did a great job. Crowe was a great Jor El and I was happy to see him around even as a "shadow". I do not like Shannon at all but as Zod that worked in his favor. Costner's take on Pa Kent was..... I pass on that for now. I thought he was a great choice but I did not like the attitude and his death scene was heavy handed and manipulative. I have bigger issue with Clark letting his Dad die than snapping Zod's neck. Pa Kent's view on Clark's role in the world was not one I would have let him die for.
Lois was very good, best one yet even if it was a bit off. Any complaints with her age or look is ridiculous IMO. The action scenes were fantastic. The fight in Smallville was wonderfully done, every thing I could have wanted. As a disaster movie fan, I am sick of the scenes like the climax, disaster porn is a great term, I do not like the wanton destruction. I was getting sick of it a long time ago, I hate it now.
Man of Steel was a very strong re-boot. Glad to see it get green lit for sequels and hope to see Cavill launch a Justice League franchise. Sad that more of this community did not like it. I think it was the movie we wanted to see.
Was/is there any reason the krypton matrix thingie was a little broken black skull? just curious. seemed odd.
also, why did Jor El implant it into clark rather than just send it with him? and what was ultimately expected or hoped to be done with it? anything? Im assuming sequel fodder?
Also bummed they made no attempt to explain why only the baby clark could be evacuated from krypton. its a question usually overlooked or ignored but something ive always wanted decent answer to. In theis movie for various reasons its even harder to justify or explain since they have countless ships of various designs (many jor els no less) and theyve already been travelling to earth and beyond for thousands of years?
Can someone tell me if they remember, what was the dialog exchange between superman and lois at the end in the crater? I missed it in the theater.
I wished the fights had been more creative but I dug em.
I was annoyed by the big goofy looking cgi kryptonian. He was a distraction instead of a cool addition for me.
I will say though that one thing MoS did was make me more anxious excited and optimistic for Flash movie.
Did I ever tell you, in my early 20s, I spent time working in Loss Prevention. It helped kick start my career as college was winding down. I enjoyed the job, but wasn't ready for it. I needed to stumble & fail at this job to be successful at my current job.
Bringing it back, Clark wasn't ready to make his reveal. At this point, we've only seen him in Smallville. He needed that world traveling journey to discover himself. He wasn't ready because Clark didn't know who he was. There was a different Clark once he returned home. This moment kickstarted that journey.
Sure, Pa could've sent his invincible son to help the other people, while he got Ma to the safety of the underpass (though David D has proven otherwise.) Not sure if you're a father, but I would've done exactly what Pa did. I'd look out for the safety of my child, no matter how 'special' he/she might be. Why not have Clark help the others instead of Pa doing it himself? Why not, then, see if Clark could've reverse the tornado? Why not have Clark do everything on the farm so Pa & Ma could relax?
Plus, didn't it help show Jor-El was right about the human race? Look at the Boston Marathon Bombing. Ordinary people were running into where the explosions occurred to help. Despite being vulnerable, Pa risked HIS life to help others (not JUST 'save the dog'). Wouldn't that help show Clark what he could do with his powers? Wouldn't it show Clark to fight/rescue even if he had to make the ultimate sacrifice?
Are we really going to play the maybe game here? We could start looking at other movies in general to Monday morning quarterback. Maybe Thomas Wayne could've just let the robber take the pearls. Maybe Peter Parker could've stopped that robber.
There's a certain story that was being told, so it happened as it did. Just like with any story/movie, it happened for the protagonist's journey. If you hated the whole journey, then its easy to second guess each step of it.
M
M
As for this movie, I think back to the flaws of Jurassic Park; specifically see dinosaurs as they were back then. IF we could harvest DNA & actually recreate dinosaurs, they might look the same, but won't act the same. The first batch of created dinosaur have no elder "teaching" them survival & behavior.
Okay, bringing it back to this; if there are no Kryptonians to influence Kal-El, then he'd have nothing deterring his "pure innocence" of another civilization.
M
Yeah... why not actually? Not sure I saw how Pa risked his life for anything/anyone besides the dog. He wasnt in any greater danger than anyone else and didnt really do anything but point and encourage everyone to go to the underpass. And Clark again already knew what he could do with his powers and had done so at least once on screen. Im speaking purely from the characters perspective. The gain FAR outweighs the risk here imo. they had no idea what would happen were Clark to fully "out" himself. Whats the absolute worst case scenario? and what are any number of the more likely ones? The only absolute is pas death, which should be unacceptable . Yeah and thats my problem. the way this chose to do it. I totally get what the scene intended. I say for me it didnt work at all. It was poorly conceived and poorly written (but not alltogether poorly executed). The scene couldve and shouldve been much better.
For the record i want to emphasize i "liked" the movie. Liked it more than I expected (though not as much as I had hoped). Ill buy it and I will watch it repeatedly Im sure.
Also to be clear there is no anger or anything intened in my comments or replies. I have no problems with anyone here nor anybody elses opinions on the movie love or hate it.
"How's this for a fix?
Bad guy who has been causing wanton destruction is being held in a choke hold by the good guy. Good guy says stop -- bad guy says never -- and lets loose his heat vision in the general direction of some innocent folks.
Good guy begs him to stop again -- but he doesn't. Good guy then slaps his super-hands over super-evil bad guy's eyes. Bad guy still won't stop with the heat ray -- much struggle and pain -- immovable object meets unstoppable force. Bad guy fries his brain with his own heat vision, forced back into his own damn stubborn evil noggin.
Bad guy causes his OWN defeat, because he won't stop being the bad-ass evil guy. Maybe he's dead -- maybe he's just fried his brain, so maybe he can come back for a sequel once he's regenerated his gray matter. Hero still shows remorse -- "Why wouldn't he stop...? Why...?" Heroguy's hands are injured, adding to the boatload of Christ allusions in the film (they'll heal, of course).
So the bad guy does himself in and the hero stays a hero -- yet still gets to do a little modern day angst thang.
How's that?"
I see I wasn't the only one who thought Superman should have clamped a hand over Zod's eyes.
And I thought this was the most interesting response to his post, from fellow artist Sam Kujava:
"Terry, I think a lot of us who worked in comics were brainstorming ways to improve so many scenes in the movie that were just wrong, and we had a lifetime's experience reading Silver Age comic books which, in lieu of horrible violence, instead stimulated our imaginations and made us THINK our way out of desperate situations."
Yeah... why not actually? Not sure I saw how Pa risked his life for anything/anyone besides the dog. He wasnt in any greater danger than anyone else and didnt really do anything but point and encourage everyone to go to the underpass. And Clark again already knew what he could do with his powers and had done so at least once on screen. Im speaking purely from the characters perspective. The gain FAR outweighs the risk here imo. they had no idea what would happen were Clark to fully "out" himself. Whats the absolute worst case scenario? and what are any number of the more likely ones? The only absolute is pas death, which should be unacceptable . Yeah and thats my problem. the way this chose to do it. I totally get what the scene intended. I say for me it didnt work at all. It was poorly conceived and poorly written (but not alltogether poorly executed). The scene couldve and shouldve been much better.
For the record i want to emphasize i "liked" the movie. Liked it more than I expected (though not as much as I had hoped). Ill buy it and I will watch it repeatedly Im sure.
Also to be clear there is no anger or anything intened in my comments or replies. I have no problems with anyone here nor anybody elses opinions on the movie love or hate it.
I do agree that Clark knew his powers, but I've always looked at them as a burden rather then a gift. I looked at Pa Kent's entire interaction as having Clark weigh his actions.
Smallville Jonathan seemed to tell Clark about being careful with his powers. MOS Jonathan seemed to more pose questions to Clark about his powers. It was a way to have him think about how he used them.
That's why I think Clark was power knowing ready, but not mature ready.
Also, I haven't taken anything personal by anyone except 1 person who made it sound like those who liked the movie were idiots. I, also, don't have any ill will toward people who didn't like it or were mildly amused by it. My enjoyment doesn't hinge on other people's enjoyment. I'm just enjoying the conversation.
M
And just to get into the debate for a moment, I think this movie was all about bad Dad's screwing their kid up. Pa Kent spent the whole moving spewing a cynical world view and showing a fundamental lack of faith in humanity that got to a point where he considered letting children die and even setting himself for some ridiculous false choice sacrifice. I seriously found Costner's Pa to be as distasteful as Zod.
Not to mention Jor El imprinting the DNA of a race of people in his son. Which is pretty hubristic and ended up causing a group of people to attack his son and destroy a city.
I found Kevin Costner and Diane Lane to be them most convincing and honest performers in the movie. Their love for Clark was clear in every scene. Though I concur Pa's death scene wasn't as well-written as it could be, I thought Costner did a brilliant job with what he was given, and the tornado's overtaking him was the best shot in the movie. (Looked like it might have been filmed practically, rather than CG, as well.)