Matt, I understand many comics fans were able to get a lot of enjoyment from MoS, but I was not one. My main problem with it is that Superman's arc honestly didn't make sense to me. He becomes a hero but I have no idea why he does. The film gives no explanation for it. We literally never see him have any positive interaction with another human being other than his parents until Lois Lane. (And that happens pretty quickly.) It's always negative. And then he's got his father telling him that he should be so afraid of humans discovering his secret that he may want to let a bus load of children die.
IMO when the Kryptonians show up, given what we've seen, he should be saying "Hey! Yeah! As long as you save my parents you can do whatever you want with this dump! I spent years terrified of these people and they treated me terribly!" For me, his origin was more "realistic" but it was also the origin of a villain.
I'm just sharing my opinion, btw, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind on this.
I have no problem with Snyder directing anything as long as he's not allowed to contribute anything to the script. :) He's certainly got some ability to craft "cool" visuals and that's nothing to sneeze at, especially nowadays.
Mphil, I greatly enjoyed your analysis of Snyder's disasters even though I am primarily only put off by his contributions as a screenwriter (oh, and his decision to completely CGI Steppenwolf - what was he thinking??). I wonder how much "screenwriting" he did for the original 300 since it, like Watchmen, was primarily based on comic book material.
Matt, I understand many comics fans were able to get a lot of enjoyment from MoS, but I was not one. My main problem with it is that Superman's arc honestly didn't make sense to me. He becomes a hero but I have no idea why he does. The film gives no explanation for it. We literally never see him have any positive interaction with another human being other than his parents until Lois Lane. (And that happens pretty quickly.) It's always negative. And then he's got his father telling him that he should be so afraid of humans discovering his secret that he may want to let a bus load of children die.
IMO when the Kryptonians show up, given what we've seen, he should be saying "Hey! Yeah! As long as you save my parents you can do whatever you want with this dump! I spent years terrified of these people and they treated me terribly!" For me, his origin was more "realistic" but it was also the origin of a villain.
I'm just sharing my opinion, btw, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind on this.
I have no problem with Snyder directing anything as long as he's not allowed to contribute anything to the script. :) He's certainly got some ability to craft "cool" visuals and that's nothing to sneeze at, especially nowadays.
There’s an extensive thread where we discussed this movie:
I won’t go over everything again here, but a quick response; MoS provided the side of being Kent that I argued was more fascinating. I’ve grown up listening to people talk about how they’d like to be Kent because of his abilities. I argued his powers and the burden of them is exactly why I wouldn’t want to be him. MoS provided an insight into that aspect of the character.
If you use the Jesus comparison, I believe society focuses more on his negative interactions then his positive interactions too.
I also firmly believe people misinterpret that bus discussion with Jonathan. He wasn’t telling Kent to hide because of how people will respond to him. He was telling Kent to be sure of himself to handle how people respond to him. Plus, as a parent, Jonathan wants to shelter his son. It’s no different then what I do with my kids from criticism.
Plus the “I don’t know...maybe” was Jonathan admitting he doesn’t have all the answers. Clark needs to make decisions knowing there are possible outcomes that might have negative repercussions. And he has to be strong enough to live with his decision. No difference from how I live or teach my kids.
Matt, thanks for the link to the previous discussion. I'm afraid that was before I discovered Geek Speak or this site or I certainly would have participated.
We are in agreement on this: the focus on the negative aspects of his powers IS more fascinating in the sense that it's a more "realistic" version of things and it hasn't been done in film before. My problem however isn't that focus. It's that the story IMO completely fails to tie any of that into the hero he would become - the hero who would choose the people of his adopted planet over the people of his own planet. And this is where his father's speech (which IS realistic and makes sense for a father who wants to shelter his son) only reinforces the idea that humans are potentially so horrible that even though you have these incredible powers and seem invulnerable, if they find you out, there's a chance that they will cage you and treat you like a lab rat. I agree that his father wants to protect him but he does it by instilling a healthy fear of humanity into his son. He takes this fear so far that he literally chooses to die over risking his son being found out. What a trauma for young Kent. Shouldn't the fact that his father is willing to die rather than risk humanity finding out about his powers forever imprint in Kent's brain that humans are something he should be really afraid of? Never mind spend his life helping?
I understand what you mean by the Jesus comparison since there are parallels, but MoS doesn't skirt over Superman's childhood the way the New Testament skirts over Jesus'. Jesus just knows he's the son of God and his mission from a very young age - the hows and whys are never explained. He's just magical and we accept that. I might have liked MoS if it had done that. But, instead, it's a story of a Jesus who's confused and scared as a child and all the humans around him pick on him and make his life utterly miserable. His only moments of solace are with his parents who constantly tell him that yes, he should be terrified of humanity because if they ever found out about his powers, they might dissect him.
And I blame Nolan completely for this storyline: in the same way he did with Batman Begins he tried to analyze Superman and say "If this person were real, how would this actually play out?" Which IS interesting, but then the whole realism angle is junked for the tale of this superman who wants to help people for some never explained or shown reason.
Nolan and Goyer got the "realism" part right, but they not only failed to explain his motivation (which is bad enough for me), but they instead showed us ample reasons why he should be doing the opposite of what Superman does.
I know a lot of people also disliked it because it wasn't the Superman we know. And I also think that's a valid criticism as well. If you're going to completely jettison what makes the character the character (his selfless motivation which is inextricably linked with the background the comics gave him), why call him Superman?
Again, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind here. Your points are all valid. The only thing we would agree to disagree on is whether or not Kent's character arc makes sense or not. I'm just trying to be clear on why I didn't like it. For you the film's good qualities outweighed the negative. I've liked plenty of movies that I would readily admit lack some important piece of logic or fail to make sense. Lord knows I've done it enough times when reading some actual comics stories.
Matt, thanks for the link to the previous discussion. I'm afraid that was before I discovered Geek Speak or this site or I certainly would have participated.
We are in agreement on this: the focus on the negative aspects of his powers IS more fascinating in the sense that it's a more "realistic" version of things and it hasn't been done in film before. My problem however isn't that focus. It's that the story IMO completely fails to tie any of that into the hero he would become - the hero who would choose the people of his adopted planet over the people of his own planet. And this is where his father's speech (which IS realistic and makes sense for a father who wants to shelter his son) only reinforces the idea that humans are potentially so horrible that even though you have these incredible powers and seem invulnerable, if they find you out, there's a chance that they will cage you and treat you like a lab rat. I agree that his father wants to protect him but he does it by instilling a healthy fear of humanity into his son. He takes this fear so far that he literally chooses to die over risking his son being found out. What a trauma for young Kent. Shouldn't the fact that his father is willing to die rather than risk humanity finding out about his powers forever imprint in Kent's brain that humans are something he should be really afraid of? Never mind spend his life helping?
I understand what you mean by the Jesus comparison since there are parallels, but MoS doesn't skirt over Superman's childhood the way the New Testament skirts over Jesus'. Jesus just knows he's the son of God and his mission from a very young age - the hows and whys are never explained. He's just magical and we accept that. I might have liked MoS if it had done that. But, instead, it's a story of a Jesus who's confused and scared as a child and all the humans around him pick on him and make his life utterly miserable. His only moments of solace are with his parents who constantly tell him that yes, he should be terrified of humanity because if they ever found out about his powers, they might dissect him.
And I blame Nolan completely for this storyline: in the same way he did with Batman Begins he tried to analyze Superman and say "If this person were real, how would this actually play out?" Which IS interesting, but then the whole realism angle is junked for the tale of this superman who wants to help people for some never explained or shown reason.
Nolan and Goyer got the "realism" part right, but they not only failed to explain his motivation (which is bad enough for me), but they instead showed us ample reasons why he should be doing the opposite of what Superman does.
I know a lot of people also disliked it because it wasn't the Superman we know. And I also think that's a valid criticism as well. If you're going to completely jettison what makes the character the character (his selfless motivation which is inextricably linked with the background the comics gave him), why call him Superman?
Again, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind here. Your points are all valid. The only thing we would agree to disagree on is whether or not Kent's character arc makes sense or not. I'm just trying to be clear on why I didn't like it. For you the film's good qualities outweighed the negative. I've liked plenty of movies that I would readily admit lack some important piece of logic or fail to make sense. Lord knows I've done it enough times when reading some actual comics stories.
I think you could argue kids growing up can feel ostracize by his/her “peers”, finding shelter only with his/her parents. This was an exaggerated circumstance, but I think the principle is still there.
I think Jor-El’s ghost helped motivated Kent’s decision to be who he becomes.
Technically, Kent never gave himself the name “Superman.”
Comments
IMO when the Kryptonians show up, given what we've seen, he should be saying "Hey! Yeah! As long as you save my parents you can do whatever you want with this dump! I spent years terrified of these people and they treated me terribly!" For me, his origin was more "realistic" but it was also the origin of a villain.
I'm just sharing my opinion, btw, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind on this.
I have no problem with Snyder directing anything as long as he's not allowed to contribute anything to the script. :) He's certainly got some ability to craft "cool" visuals and that's nothing to sneeze at, especially nowadays.
https://thecomicforums.vanillacommunity.com/discussion/2023/super-duper-man-of-steel-spoiler-discussion
I won’t go over everything again here, but a quick response; MoS provided the side of being Kent that I argued was more fascinating. I’ve grown up listening to people talk about how they’d like to be Kent because of his abilities. I argued his powers and the burden of them is exactly why I wouldn’t want to be him. MoS provided an insight into that aspect of the character.
If you use the Jesus comparison, I believe society focuses more on his negative interactions then his positive interactions too.
I also firmly believe people misinterpret that bus discussion with Jonathan. He wasn’t telling Kent to hide because of how people will respond to him. He was telling Kent to be sure of himself to handle how people respond to him. Plus, as a parent, Jonathan wants to shelter his son. It’s no different then what I do with my kids from criticism.
Plus the “I don’t know...maybe” was Jonathan admitting he doesn’t have all the answers. Clark needs to make decisions knowing there are possible outcomes that might have negative repercussions. And he has to be strong enough to live with his decision. No difference from how I live or teach my kids.
We are in agreement on this: the focus on the negative aspects of his powers IS more fascinating in the sense that it's a more "realistic" version of things and it hasn't been done in film before. My problem however isn't that focus. It's that the story IMO completely fails to tie any of that into the hero he would become - the hero who would choose the people of his adopted planet over the people of his own planet. And this is where his father's speech (which IS realistic and makes sense for a father who wants to shelter his son) only reinforces the idea that humans are potentially so horrible that even though you have these incredible powers and seem invulnerable, if they find you out, there's a chance that they will cage you and treat you like a lab rat. I agree that his father wants to protect him but he does it by instilling a healthy fear of humanity into his son. He takes this fear so far that he literally chooses to die over risking his son being found out. What a trauma for young Kent. Shouldn't the fact that his father is willing to die rather than risk humanity finding out about his powers forever imprint in Kent's brain that humans are something he should be really afraid of? Never mind spend his life helping?
I understand what you mean by the Jesus comparison since there are parallels, but MoS doesn't skirt over Superman's childhood the way the New Testament skirts over Jesus'. Jesus just knows he's the son of God and his mission from a very young age - the hows and whys are never explained. He's just magical and we accept that. I might have liked MoS if it had done that. But, instead, it's a story of a Jesus who's confused and scared as a child and all the humans around him pick on him and make his life utterly miserable. His only moments of solace are with his parents who constantly tell him that yes, he should be terrified of humanity because if they ever found out about his powers, they might dissect him.
And I blame Nolan completely for this storyline: in the same way he did with Batman Begins he tried to analyze Superman and say "If this person were real, how would this actually play out?" Which IS interesting, but then the whole realism angle is junked for the tale of this superman who wants to help people for some never explained or shown reason.
Nolan and Goyer got the "realism" part right, but they not only failed to explain his motivation (which is bad enough for me), but they instead showed us ample reasons why he should be doing the opposite of what Superman does.
I know a lot of people also disliked it because it wasn't the Superman we know. And I also think that's a valid criticism as well. If you're going to completely jettison what makes the character the character (his selfless motivation which is inextricably linked with the background the comics gave him), why call him Superman?
Again, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind here. Your points are all valid. The only thing we would agree to disagree on is whether or not Kent's character arc makes sense or not. I'm just trying to be clear on why I didn't like it. For you the film's good qualities outweighed the negative. I've liked plenty of movies that I would readily admit lack some important piece of logic or fail to make sense. Lord knows I've done it enough times when reading some actual comics stories.
I think Jor-El’s ghost helped motivated Kent’s decision to be who he becomes.
Technically, Kent never gave himself the name “Superman.”