I didn't buy Pa Kent's death either. I know what they were aiming for, but it just came off as stupid for me -- and completely contrary to the way that Jonathan has been portrayed in the comics, which really bothered me. I could understand his attempt to teach Clark caution about his powers and to be discreet, but throughout the film it felt to me like he was also dissuading him from ever using them, that keeping Clark's abilities secret was more important than saving lives or doing the right thing during emergencies, and that just felt wrong and off-kilter.
Hell, he only learned to fly himself in the same couple days the kryptonians arrived didn't he?
I think a fair amount of time was supposed to have passed between Superman finding the ship and the Kryptonians showing up. After all, even a Pew-litzer prize-winning reporter would have to take some time traveling around chasing down the clues that led to Smallville.
He hits it squarely on the head. He even makes a few points that I hadn't considered. I might have to reconsider my rating for the film. I still enjoyed it, but...
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.
He would have had to improvise some means of imprisonment. He still had in his possession somewhere the scout ship he found earlier on; I'm sure he could have found or cobbled together something from within to properly bind and restrain Zod or even put him into some form of suspended sleep. We don't know what was on the ship, but I'm sure the writers could have come up with something.
I've been thinking about this idea. Interesting, but I see the flaw in this (which I'm betting we'd be criticizing if it'd be in the movie.)
Just because the scout ship was made from Kryptonian material, doesn't mean a containment unit could've been constructed out of it. Didn't Superman crash through & then burn it with his heat vision? Even if its made into a cube container, Zod would've ALSO been able to tear through it.
Lets say, Kal-El did cobble together a containment cell for Zod. It'd be the same scenario Superman faced in Byrne's issue; if he ever escaped (regained powers in the comic), he'd be able to cause mass destruction again. This time even more personal. He could target both Ma & Lois right away.
M
Of course he could. But, at that stage, with Zod defeated, what would be the alternative? Kill Zod because he might get away and kill again? That would be murder.
He hits it squarely on the head. He even makes a few points that I hadn't considered. I might have to reconsider my rating for the film. I still enjoyed it, but...
I blame Jor-El more than Kal-El, but yeah.
As I think I said earlier in this thread, at this point I'm on Luthor's presumed side: Superman is a menace who causes unacceptable levels of death and destruction.
Just as Batman is a psycho-magnet, Superman is an apocalypse-magnet.
I thoroughly disliked this movie. I am not going to go deep into it since most of the reasons I disliked it have already been enumerated so I will just say this:
1) It was boring. Seriously, I found myself looking at my watch constantly wondering how much time was left in this film. It just never grabbed me in any meaningful way.
2) It just wasn't well made. There is nothing inherently wrong with Superman killing Zod or Christ imagery or any of the other complaints it you do it well and they just didn't. The burden is on the movie to make us feel (for instance) that Superman had no choice but to kill Zod and evidenced by the fact we are all discussing it, it didn't accomplish that. A lot of the dialouge was very groan worthy, the acting wasnt all that great and the story never seemed to make much sense. I never felt for any of the characters in any kind of meaningful way and all of the symbolism was painfully surface level and in your face.
3) I needed a different tone. This is a personal taste issue but if your going to make a movie about a flying guy who fights other flying guys, you need to have a little bit of lightness. A few jokes or just a bit of wonderment would have gone a long way. I just cant take seriously a totally earnest movie about Superman (or any superhero really).
I went to see it Saturday it with my dad, my son and one of his friends.
It was good a movie. It doesn't replace the Donner films as my favorite Superman films, but I thoroughly enjoyed it.
When did Perry start wearing an earring? A minor nitpick but it really stood out to me.
Even when Zod told Kal-El that the fight only ends with one of their deaths, I still had it stuck in my head that there was no way that Superman kills Zod. When I saw it happen, I really was in disbelief and it didn't settle well. I had to put a lot of thought into it and I've not quite gotten over it. I can see the reasons as to why the the writers would go that route, but I still question it.
On a side note, and it may be off topic a bit but I wanted to share this:
Jason, my twelve year old son has never been much a DC fan, especially Superman. He does enjoy the animation and video games, but when it comes to the films, comics and toys he could care less.
When we got out of the theater I asked him how he liked the movie and he said that it was great, he really liked it. I then asked him if it changed his mind about liking Superman and he answered, "No."
I asked Jason to explain. First and foremost, he still thinks Superman has too many powers, and feels that Superman is too overpowered. He went on to explain, that nobody is perfect and people make mistakes, that should include Superman.
We talked about Superman killing Zod and Jason said he was fine with it but that it didn't seem right. He stressed the super in superheroes and said, "Superheroes do not kill unless it is absolutely neccesary. That's what makes them super."
1) Superman has killed. In the comic. More than once. And if Mark Waid doesn't know that he's either selectively forgetting it, or he's a dunce and needs to turn in his comic-book card. More importantly, there were repercussions for it. Superman didn't just gloss over it when he killed Zod in the books. You guys need to take the Boy Scout argument over to the Shazam movie...if they ever make it. :P
2) Yep, thousands...tens of thousands...died in that battle over Metropolis. As opposed to the complete extermination of the human race. I'll take those odds. Sure, Supes could have "moved the fight" to somewhere else...but Zod would have moved it right back. He knew what he was doing.
3) Amy Adams is a cutie. How old was Margot Kidder during the Reeve movies? Because she looked like she was 50. :)
4) Let's not forget that a common internet argument pre-MoS was that you simply couldn't make a good Superman movie and have it be relevant anymore. It would not surprise me to discover the same people arguing that point are the same people hand-wringing themselves now over this movie because it *wasn't* the same-old same old and dared to bring something new to the table.
5) Was this movie everything I wanted it to be? No. But it was a hell of a lot more than I expected it to be. "Krypton had its chance!" Holy shit, man...if you're really a Superman fan that line had so much weight it would have left a hole in the ground where it hit.
6) I *really* don't get the joyless comments. Sure, it wasn't a yuk-fest, and Richard Pryor was nowhere to be found, but there were some great bits that brought smiles to the faces in the crowd (at least where I was watching it...maybe the rest of America has no sense of humor the way we Phoenicians do! :) ).
He hits it squarely on the head. He even makes a few points that I hadn't considered. I might have to reconsider my rating for the film. I still enjoyed it, but...
I blame Jor-El more than Kal-El, but yeah.
As I think I said earlier in this thread, at this point I'm on Luthor's presumed side: Superman is a menace who causes unacceptable levels of death and destruction.
Just as Batman is a psycho-magnet, Superman is an apocalypse-magnet.
Yeah, the ironic thing about this film is that it does pretty much make Luthor's case, doesn't it?
1) Superman has killed. In the comic. More than once. And if Mark Waid doesn't know that he's either selectively forgetting it, or he's a dunce and needs to turn in his comic-book card. More importantly, there were repercussions for it. Superman didn't just gloss over it when he killed Zod in the books. You guys need to take the Boy Scout argument over to the Shazam movie...if they ever make it. :P
I've made my points about Superman's other acts of killing elsewhere in this topic and what the significant difference about them was.
2) Yep, thousands...tens of thousands...died in that battle over Metropolis. As opposed to the complete extermination of the human race. I'll take those odds. Sure, Supes could have "moved the fight" to somewhere else...but Zod would have moved it right back. He knew what he was doing.
The problem wasn't with whether or not Superman could have successfully moved the fight elsewhere -- it was with that he didn't even try. It showed a lack of concern on his part for the bystanders.
4) Let's not forget that a common internet argument pre-MoS was that you simply couldn't make a good Superman movie and have it be relevant anymore. It would not surprise me to discover the same people arguing that point are the same people hand-wringing themselves now over this movie because it *wasn't* the same-old same old and dared to bring something new to the table.
What new and relevant thing is brought to this movie other than presenting a Superman who now has a license from the fans to kill?
5) Was this movie everything I wanted it to be? No. But it was a hell of a lot more than I expected it to be. "Krypton had its chance!" Holy shit, man...if you're really a Superman fan that line had so much weight it would have left a hole in the ground where it hit.
6) I *really* don't get the joyless comments. Sure, it wasn't a yuk-fest, and Richard Pryor was nowhere to be found, but there were some great bits that brought smiles to the faces in the crowd (at least where I was watching it...maybe the rest of America has no sense of humor the way we Phoenicians do! :) ).
It never needed to be a 'yuk-fest', but it did need, very badly, to take itself a little less seriously. There was such gravity throughout the entire film that it could have pulled a new moon into orbit around itself. Except for a few fleeting lines or scenes, there was no sense of joy or even a slight thread of lightness anywhere. We got one bright smile out of Superman when he first learned to fly -- that was it. I don't want a Super-clown -- but neither do I want a Super-tragedian.
I think he was just trying to be funny. Because man this thread is way too gone. Seriously. You didn't like the movie? MOVE ON! Why the need for some to go point-by-point against anyone who liked it? You've had your say - it's okay to let others have theirs too WITHOUT response - especially when it's no longer a discussion. If you're on all 7 pages, saying the same things, you're done. Zod help us all, move on.
For the record I thought the movie was a decent average flick, but nothing to argue about this much. Holy Moley.
I think he was just trying to be funny. Because man this thread is way too gone. Seriously. You didn't like the movie? MOVE ON! Why the need for some to go point-by-point against anyone who liked it? You've had your say - it's okay to let others have theirs too WITHOUT response - especially when it's no longer a discussion. If you're on all 7 pages, saying the same things, you're done. Zod help us all, move on.
For the record I thought the movie was a decent average flick, but nothing to argue about this much. Holy Moley.
Its a discussion board. We discuss. We respond. I'll move on when I'm good and ready.
Someone posting their review - and someone coming in to counter every point - is not a discussion. It's someone with a grudge. If your "response" has "see my answer elsewhere" or you start to take offense with a comment, you've moved beyond discussion to YOU LISTEN TO WHAT I'M SAYING!
What WE'RE having is a discussion. What this thread has turned into is something else. And what I'm doing is posting while at work so back to the grind! Have fun! Or not. Your call. :)
I'm trying to talk about things in the movie that are cool or make you think, not this back and forth stuff that nearly get's to name calling (or maybe has against people that aren't even here). Let's get a discussion about the crazy fun stuff that we're allowed to in this spoiler thread. The kind of discussion you'd have in the comic store. Or like the one I had with my two friends (all three of us liked/loved the movie) for a half hour or more outside the theater after the movie. I already tried the slightly negative thing about Superman telling Zod the secret about focusing. So here's another...
Was the big Krypton guy, soldier of Zod's, Non? Or someone else (from comics)? I've read one or two Zod stories in the books, and I thought Non was in them. The duo of him and Faora was a really cool pairing/tag team against Supes, I thought.
He hits it squarely on the head. He even makes a few points that I hadn't considered. I might have to reconsider my rating for the film. I still enjoyed it, but...
Didn't Morrison's All-Star Superman focus more on the SciFi angle? Didn't people rave about that?
Batman works best in detective/crime thriller stories, so why not add a little SciFi for Superman?
I'm hoping people listen to our review of this movie. I figured out why there's dislike (hint it's not because of the movie's content.)
Why the need for some to go point-by-point against anyone who liked it?
I wasn't going to respond... but that's actually a very good question. Let me attempt to answer that.
It seems like a number of posters make that points in a challenging manner, as though daring the rest of us to take issue with it. It's awfully hard to ignore that. It's like a poke in the eye or a slap in the face.
Matt and I have taken very different positions in this thread and have argued very vigorously to defend our points and opinions. I don't take offense (and hope that Matt doesn't either), and I think Matt has done very well with putting his points out there, even if I'm in disagreement with them. Hopefully, I've been doing the same in making my arguments without giving insult or denigrating him in any way. It's a fannish argument, made primarily because we each care about the character and the world he inhabits.
But a few of the comments that pop up (and I'm not going to point fingers) sometime edge a little past that to take the stance of "this is how it is and I dare you to say otherwise". That might not be intentional, but it is how it sometimes comes across... and it's hard to not come back at that and attempt to explain "no, that's not necessarily how it is".
At any rate, it is all a fan thing. We wouldn't be having this vigorous a discussion here if we didn't care and if we didn't enjoy arguing for the comics we love.
Was the big Krypton guy, soldier of Zod's, Non? Or someone else (from comics)? I've read one or two Zod stories in the books, and I thought Non was in them. The duo of him and Faora was a really cool pairing/tag team against Supes, I thought.
I'm trying to talk about things in the movie that are cool or make you think, not this back and forth stuff that nearly get's to name calling (or maybe has against people that aren't even here). Let's get a discussion about the crazy fun stuff that we're allowed to in this spoiler thread. The kind of discussion you'd have in the comic store. Or like the one I had with my two friends (all three of us liked/loved the movie) for a half hour or more outside the theater after the movie. I already tried the slightly negative thing about Superman telling Zod the secret about focusing. So here's another...
Was the big Krypton guy, soldier of Zod's, Non? Or someone else (from comics)? I've read one or two Zod stories in the books, and I thought Non was in them. The duo of him and Faora was a really cool pairing/tag team against Supes, I thought.
That, I believe, was Dev-Em -- (I caught the name in the credits) -- he was based on another Kryptonian villain who originally appeared in the silver-age Superboy comics. One, incidentally, who had managed to avoid being put into the Phantom Zone at all and escaped Krypton's destruction through other means.
If your "response" has "see my answer elsewhere" or you start to take offense with a comment, you've moved beyond discussion to YOU LISTEN TO WHAT I'M SAYING!
If your response is dismissive ("Move on") or insulting ("Pussy"), you've moved beyond discussion to I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING!
He hits it squarely on the head. He even makes a few points that I hadn't considered. I might have to reconsider my rating for the film. I still enjoyed it, but...
Didn't Morrison's All-Star Superman focus more on the SciFi angle? Didn't people rave about that?
I don't know, to be honest. I could never get through A-SS -- it's one of the few Morrison series that I couldn't enjoy or get through -- so I can't answer that.
I think the point Templeton was making was that it felt less to him like a Superman story and more like a plain old SF space opera. I don't particularly agree with him on that point, though I can see what he's getting at. I took that opening sequence to be more like a version of World Of Krypton, a part of the Superman story, and I enjoyed it as the opening act of the movie.
1) Superman has killed. In the comic. More than once. And if Mark Waid doesn't know that he's either selectively forgetting it, or he's a dunce and needs to turn in his comic-book card.
Or, you know, he hated it when it happened in the comics too. Since I know he’s not a dunce, and since I know he knows Superman’s history backward and forward, I’m thinking this third option is the most likely.
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.
He would have had to improvise some means of imprisonment. He still had in his possession somewhere the scout ship he found earlier on; I'm sure he could have found or cobbled together something from within to properly bind and restrain Zod or even put him into some form of suspended sleep. We don't know what was on the ship, but I'm sure the writers could have come up with something.
I've been thinking about this idea. Interesting, but I see the flaw in this (which I'm betting we'd be criticizing if it'd be in the movie.)
Just because the scout ship was made from Kryptonian material, doesn't mean a containment unit could've been constructed out of it. Didn't Superman crash through & then burn it with his heat vision? Even if its made into a cube container, Zod would've ALSO been able to tear through it.
Lets say, Kal-El did cobble together a containment cell for Zod. It'd be the same scenario Superman faced in Byrne's issue; if he ever escaped (regained powers in the comic), he'd be able to cause mass destruction again. This time even more personal. He could target both Ma & Lois right away.
M
Of course he could. But, at that stage, with Zod defeated, what would be the alternative? Kill Zod because he might get away and kill again? That would be murder.
Didn't we discuss why he killed them in #22? It could easily be the same reasoning. I really don't think the movie had Ka-El thinking that far ahead, though.
1) Superman has killed. In the comic. More than once. And if Mark Waid doesn't know that he's either selectively forgetting it, or he's a dunce and needs to turn in his comic-book card. More importantly, there were repercussions for it. Superman didn't just gloss over it when he killed Zod in the books. You guys need to take the Boy Scout argument over to the Shazam movie...if they ever make it. :P
2) Yep, thousands...tens of thousands...died in that battle over Metropolis. As opposed to the complete extermination of the human race. I'll take those odds. Sure, Supes could have "moved the fight" to somewhere else...but Zod would have moved it right back. He knew what he was doing.
3) Amy Adams is a cutie. How old was Margot Kidder during the Reeve movies? Because she looked like she was 50. :)
4) Let's not forget that a common internet argument pre-MoS was that you simply couldn't make a good Superman movie and have it be relevant anymore. It would not surprise me to discover the same people arguing that point are the same people hand-wringing themselves now over this movie because it *wasn't* the same-old same old and dared to bring something new to the table.
5) Was this movie everything I wanted it to be? No. But it was a hell of a lot more than I expected it to be. "Krypton had its chance!" Holy shit, man...if you're really a Superman fan that line had so much weight it would have left a hole in the ground where it hit.
6) I *really* don't get the joyless comments. Sure, it wasn't a yuk-fest, and Richard Pryor was nowhere to be found, but there were some great bits that brought smiles to the faces in the crowd (at least where I was watching it...maybe the rest of America has no sense of humor the way we Phoenicians do! :) ).
Damn, man. I could've used you like 10 pages ago! LOL
1) Superman has killed. In the comic. More than once. And if Mark Waid doesn't know that he's either selectively forgetting it, or he's a dunce and needs to turn in his comic-book card.
Or, you know, he hated it when it happened in the comics too. Since I know he’s not a dunce, and since I know he knows Superman’s history backward and forward, I’m thinking this third option is the most likely.
I realize this - and lord knows I have enough of Mark's books on my shelf that I can't say I don't admire the man's work. But a wealth of knowledge doesn't give you automatic immunity from missing the point. Based on his writing, he was clearly pining for another Superman...a Superman whose story has already been told. He's entitled not to like it, just as I'm entitled to say I don't agree. Won't stop me from buying his books or wanting to meet him at conventions, but I think he really missed the boat on this what this movie was trying to accomplish.
The "dunce" was said with love and admiration. Let's remember he was "Evil" a few publications back. :)
Why the need for some to go point-by-point against anyone who liked it?
I wasn't going to respond... but that's actually a very good question. Let me attempt to answer that.
It seems like a number of posters make that points in a challenging manner, as though daring the rest of us to take issue with it. It's awfully hard to ignore that. It's like a poke in the eye or a slap in the face.
Matt and I have taken very different positions in this thread and have argued very vigorously to defend our points and opinions. I don't take offense (and hope that Matt doesn't either), and I think Matt has done very well with putting his points out there, even if I'm in disagreement with them. Hopefully, I've been doing the same in making my arguments without giving insult or denigrating him in any way. It's a fannish argument, made primarily because we each care about the character and the world he inhabits.
But a few of the comments that pop up (and I'm not going to point fingers) sometime edge a little past that to take the stance of "this is how it is and I dare you to say otherwise". That might not be intentional, but it is how it sometimes comes across... and it's hard to not come back at that and attempt to explain "no, that's not necessarily how it is".
At any rate, it is all a fan thing. We wouldn't be having this vigorous a discussion here if we didn't care and if we didn't enjoy arguing for the comics we love.
I don't take any offense. We're having a discussion, so I expect a difference of opinions. You're mind isn't going change any more then mine will. It's quite interesting. There's something things we agree on (Superman shouldn't kill), I'm just looking at it in the context of this movie's theme, where you're holding it as a universal. I would be pissed if the sequel has a Mon-El type Superman!
I really only felt an attack by that writer dude. It came off like we're idiots if we didn't recognized the similarities to other movies (which I believe we do.)
Comments
As I think I said earlier in this thread, at this point I'm on Luthor's presumed side: Superman is a menace who causes unacceptable levels of death and destruction.
Just as Batman is a psycho-magnet, Superman is an apocalypse-magnet.
1) It was boring. Seriously, I found myself looking at my watch constantly wondering how much time was left in this film. It just never grabbed me in any meaningful way.
2) It just wasn't well made. There is nothing inherently wrong with Superman killing Zod or Christ imagery or any of the other complaints it you do it well and they just didn't. The burden is on the movie to make us feel (for instance) that Superman had no choice but to kill Zod and evidenced by the fact we are all discussing it, it didn't accomplish that. A lot of the dialouge was very groan worthy, the acting wasnt all that great and the story never seemed to make much sense. I never felt for any of the characters in any kind of meaningful way and all of the symbolism was painfully surface level and in your face.
3) I needed a different tone. This is a personal taste issue but if your going to make a movie about a flying guy who fights other flying guys, you need to have a little bit of lightness. A few jokes or just a bit of wonderment would have gone a long way. I just cant take seriously a totally earnest movie about Superman (or any superhero really).
It was good a movie. It doesn't replace the Donner films as my favorite Superman films, but I thoroughly enjoyed it.
When did Perry start wearing an earring? A minor nitpick but it really stood out to me.
Even when Zod told Kal-El that the fight only ends with one of their deaths, I still had it stuck in my head that there was no way that Superman kills Zod. When I saw it happen, I really was in disbelief and it didn't settle well. I had to put a lot of thought into it and I've not quite gotten over it. I can see the reasons as to why the the writers would go that route, but I still question it.
On a side note, and it may be off topic a bit but I wanted to share this:
Jason, my twelve year old son has never been much a DC fan, especially Superman. He does enjoy the animation and video games, but when it comes to the films, comics and toys he could care less.
When we got out of the theater I asked him how he liked the movie and he said that it was great, he really liked it. I then asked him if it changed his mind about liking Superman and he answered, "No."
I asked Jason to explain. First and foremost, he still thinks Superman has too many powers, and feels that Superman is too overpowered. He went on to explain, that nobody is perfect and people make mistakes, that should include Superman.
We talked about Superman killing Zod and Jason said he was fine with it but that it didn't seem right. He stressed the super in superheroes and said, "Superheroes do not kill unless it is absolutely neccesary. That's what makes them super."
1) Superman has killed. In the comic. More than once. And if Mark Waid doesn't know that he's either selectively forgetting it, or he's a dunce and needs to turn in his comic-book card. More importantly, there were repercussions for it. Superman didn't just gloss over it when he killed Zod in the books. You guys need to take the Boy Scout argument over to the Shazam movie...if they ever make it. :P
2) Yep, thousands...tens of thousands...died in that battle over Metropolis. As opposed to the complete extermination of the human race. I'll take those odds. Sure, Supes could have "moved the fight" to somewhere else...but Zod would have moved it right back. He knew what he was doing.
3) Amy Adams is a cutie. How old was Margot Kidder during the Reeve movies? Because she looked like she was 50. :)
4) Let's not forget that a common internet argument pre-MoS was that you simply couldn't make a good Superman movie and have it be relevant anymore. It would not surprise me to discover the same people arguing that point are the same people hand-wringing themselves now over this movie because it *wasn't* the same-old same old and dared to bring something new to the table.
5) Was this movie everything I wanted it to be? No. But it was a hell of a lot more than I expected it to be. "Krypton had its chance!" Holy shit, man...if you're really a Superman fan that line had so much weight it would have left a hole in the ground where it hit.
6) I *really* don't get the joyless comments. Sure, it wasn't a yuk-fest, and Richard Pryor was nowhere to be found, but there were some great bits that brought smiles to the faces in the crowd (at least where I was watching it...maybe the rest of America has no sense of humor the way we Phoenicians do! :) ).
PEACE OUT!!! :))
Since I agree with Waid and Templeton, are you calling me a pussy and an idiot as well?
For the record I thought the movie was a decent average flick, but nothing to argue about this much. Holy Moley.
Its a discussion board. We discuss. We respond. I'll move on when I'm good and ready.
What WE'RE having is a discussion. What this thread has turned into is something else. And what I'm doing is posting while at work so back to the grind! Have fun! Or not. Your call. :)
Was the big Krypton guy, soldier of Zod's, Non? Or someone else (from comics)? I've read one or two Zod stories in the books, and I thought Non was in them. The duo of him and Faora was a really cool pairing/tag team against Supes, I thought.
Batman works best in detective/crime thriller stories, so why not add a little SciFi for Superman?
I'm hoping people listen to our review of this movie. I figured out why there's dislike (hint it's not because of the movie's content.)
M
It seems like a number of posters make that points in a challenging manner, as though daring the rest of us to take issue with it. It's awfully hard to ignore that. It's like a poke in the eye or a slap in the face.
Matt and I have taken very different positions in this thread and have argued very vigorously to defend our points and opinions. I don't take offense (and hope that Matt doesn't either), and I think Matt has done very well with putting his points out there, even if I'm in disagreement with them. Hopefully, I've been doing the same in making my arguments without giving insult or denigrating him in any way. It's a fannish argument, made primarily because we each care about the character and the world he inhabits.
But a few of the comments that pop up (and I'm not going to point fingers) sometime edge a little past that to take the stance of "this is how it is and I dare you to say otherwise". That might not be intentional, but it is how it sometimes comes across... and it's hard to not come back at that and attempt to explain "no, that's not necessarily how it is".
At any rate, it is all a fan thing. We wouldn't be having this vigorous a discussion here if we didn't care and if we didn't enjoy arguing for the comics we love.
I think the point Templeton was making was that it felt less to him like a Superman story and more like a plain old SF space opera. I don't particularly agree with him on that point, though I can see what he's getting at. I took that opening sequence to be more like a version of World Of Krypton, a part of the Superman story, and I enjoyed it as the opening act of the movie.
M
Please note the emoticons. Mark's entitled to his opinions about it. It's discouraging to hear him miss the points I picked up on...but there it is.
M
The "dunce" was said with love and admiration. Let's remember he was "Evil" a few publications back. :)
I really only felt an attack by that writer dude. It came off like we're idiots if we didn't recognized the similarities to other movies (which I believe we do.)
M
:) <- The emoticon. Your friend in these troubled times.