Ok, enoughs enough! Will all of the So called DC historians stop claiming that Superman would NEVER kill and that the film has gone against the core of his comic book persona. Superman (second series) issue 22 see's Kal El use Green K to execute Zod, Zaora & Quex Ul as he understood that that there was nothing else that he could do. He could only subdue them for a short period of time and when they got free, they would murder billions. It weighed heavily on his psyche for years to come but don't try to say that Superman doesn't kill. It's incredibly rare for him to do so but for the greater good and if there is no recourse then he will do it.
My problem with him's more that he's taken two heroes now, stripped away every bit of pathos that makes them who they are, and replaced it with a "gritty realism" that basically reduces them to a dude in a costume instead of the icons they are. The Batman trilogy is written and executed alright but look at Batman himself. Nolan's Batman is totally impotent without Lucious Fox and all of the other crutches he uses in the films. If you take the suit and the vehicles away from Nolan's Batman he's just a dude who's sad his gf died. One of the key things about Batman is that Bruce Wayne is a mask for Batman to wear, not the other way around. They did the same thing to Superman. He's just a normal dude now, who has superpowers. Both Nolan's Batman and Superman act more like a costumed James Bond than superheroes. You don't have to know anything about Superman at all to appreciate that film is incredibly poorly written.
I'm getting tired of all the DC fanboys on here, of course we are on a DC website but look, can't we enjoy Man of Steel for what it is? A great movie, a Superman movie that was better then the others, and overall an interesting movie. If you want to get all technical about comics and such, Superman has been brought back to life NUMEROUS times, Batman has a belt with anything he needs for any situation, and the heroes in said comics are too... Powerful, and INHUMANE. These movies make them look more human. They make decisions based on current circumstances and both The Dark Knight trilogy and the Man of Steel movie executed these ideas perfectly.
While I'm at it though, I really loved the movie and plan on seeing it again at the cinema at least once more. It's going to be hard to bring superhero's into a more believable world and I think that much of the audiances problem is that the film is too successful in this approach. many people complain about Kal's lack of compassion and empathy in many of the big fight scenes. Give the guy a break! he's fighting multiple Kryptonians. If he goes out of his way to save every endangered civilian then 10 more will die for every one he saves. To me, his compassion and nobility expressed itself through the simple act of choosing the stand against the odds with his adopted world... a world that has done little to deserve it. I don't think that the darker grittier feel has detracted from the core that is Superman, this is still, in every way, the hero that I grew up reading and have read for over 30 years!
While I've been pointing out things that bugged me, most of them are due to horrible writing, no discrepancies from the comics. Those affect how much I like the film but not how much I'm able to appreciate it artistically. So many people lose objectivity when they like something and get mad at anyone who doesn't. I'm not picking it apart because I don't like it, I'm picking it apart because the screenplay was B movie material and without the massive budget, grandiose special effects, and a few solid actors, the movie would have pretty much nothing going for it. I agree, except for the part where he's essentially making out with Lois in a massive graveyard, right after their friends died, and while people are still buried alive.
Thats why I want to see Nolan away from the Justice League/Potential Batman films in the future...The Dark Knight trilogy is one of my favorites, but its really its own story in its own universe The Batman of the Justice League needs to be able to stand up and fight with gods whereas Nolans Batman is just a vigilante (a really, really rich vigilante with smart friends)...The Batman I want to see needs to be self sufficient, a master detective, martial arts master, incredibly intelligent and really a more true depiction of the comics because thats the only way hes going to work in a Justice League movie with the Superman that we just saw decimate an entire city in a fight with Zod...Would Nolans Batman have been help in anyway in the fight with Zod? No...Hed just yell in his ridiculous voice, "I aint wearing hockey pads!" and immediately get his face blown off.
Aye, no one would ever believe Nolan's Batman capable of leading the Justice League or even looking Superman in the eye.
That's a particularly banal statement in the paradox of an online forum wherein you have no idea who you're talking to is outside of this limited zone of interaction. You're obviously allowed to like the film but are you suggesting it's some well written work of art?
Spoilers: About the killing of the Zod, I think it's pretty ironic that the one person that does not have a problem with Superman killing Zod is Zod himself. Earlier in the film, Zod questioned the "courage" of Jor-El and the Council and stated that he'd rather die by their hands then be imprisoned in the Phantom Zone. I think it nicely foreshadowed that nothing will stop Zod short of his annihilation. Superman had to make a choice and they did well to show the emotional effects of that decision. I feel it would of been a complete cop-out if he had found a way for the typical "hero happy ending" for the writers and to the audience.
Not really. I loved it. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but like I said, easily the best comic book movie ever in my opinion.
Spoilers... sort of ... not really I really enjoyed the movie but I was just wondering if the bird-like creature that Jor-El rides was a nightwing (the creature that Nightwing was named after), because that would be pretty cool if they actually incorporated an animal from Krypton. I will definitely be going to watch the movie again. Sorry for interrupting the argument.
Hey there's a good way to do it and then there's the bad way to do it Superman Returns did it the bad way by reharshing a old plot Did we really need to see him go up against Lex again?
And that's exactly the kind of response a complete dick would retort with. Congratulations! If you disliked the movie so much, why on earth did you go see it? Any fool who watched a trailer or two before going (and not to mention looking at some posters) could come to the conclusion that the film would be a little darker then your happy-go-lucky Superman, which fyi, is done enough in cartoons and animated movies.
Yea, too critical. I like Nolans style and would rather see what he could do with whole Justice League then this studio push they're doing now.
[/quote] I'm going to use this situation in aspects of the movie. This was a given stance, of many involvements. If a man you knew kept killing and you given every chance, then the situation is moved further. The movie is not like any of the continuation, this is a short amount of time. This is a Kansas boy, he wouldn't publicly kill even if he needed to, only when given further evidence. Only then he would have to put Zod down. This movie is missing key points that define this Superman's judgement. This movie focused most of the time of his true father, and not his Earth father. Even at the last moments, Kal said, "You are NOT my family" This was a family that RAISED him. Even AFTER he turned into "Superman" there was hardly any true feelings for his Earth mother. Only later in time he chooses to do anything when his mother is in danger and needs help. Same with Lois. I didn't feel she was Lois like from the TV series. That series defines what DC saw in Lois, and this movie did not, it could have been any journalist with any given name that found out. Lois is a woman you don't want, but you do need. She doesn't need a man, but desires Superman, because she needs him when she needs him the most. This was just a reporter that could have been a well average college student, there was nothing to make her stand out and giver her the rep she is known for when Superman has so many choices. Real Superman would have NOT used building after building to beat up somebody. I think they did that for 3D viewers only, it was stupid after while. In Superman II, Zod raises a bus, Undie Superman says "Zod! There are people in there!" ..But what do you see in this film? ..This in real life would be worse than 9/11, This is NOT a Superman we know of..and kissing Lois though all of it so suddenly, felt too rushed.. Superman even states that Trust is something to be earned. This version of Superman did not earn my trust in me. I would say your money is worth your value, and I am willing to pay for "still hoping for better.."
I for one loved it. I found it interesting, surprising, different and a change of direction. I won't go into specifics because that's how things start. I enjoyed how they handled some of the more deft nuances regarding Superman lore and all in all loved it. Bishop
I like to point out the father Focus. Who gets more Screen Time? Kevin Costner, or Russell Crowe? Who sacrificed greater as the better father? Even before Kev's death, Kal/Jon fought that Kal wasn't part of the Kent family, you can see this resentment from his Earth's mother. How can this Superman love Humanity this much in just short time we're given movie/view time to understand why he would rather give up humans over Zod's new formed Krypton. Jor guides Kal through every part of the movie, even through Lois, Joe el just one upped Jon! Superman is a balance of Earth and Krypton morals, and this movie focused on Jor el. Russel Crowe is known for stupid fighting behavior, I do NOT wish this of our future Superman.
Do you seriously not see the irony in calling someone a dick when they're not insulting anyone, just because you disagree with them? I'm sorry if you thought that the use of, essentially, "Oh yeah! Well I'd like to see you do better!" in lieu of literally any form of critical thinking was deserving of any deeper response than that which I provided. Just because you dislike a film, doesn't mean it's not a good movie. I ******* hate Match Point and it's, artistically, a pretty decent film. I don't particularly care for The Dark Knight trilogy, but I respect that they're good, as far as movies go. Also, just because you like a film doesn't mean it's anywhere near a masterpiece. I enjoyed the **** out of G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra because I think it's fun, but most people can appreciate that they butchered canon and that it's pretty weak artistically and in the acting department. What if I told you that people can like or dislike something without turning into pissy fanboys who attack people who don't share their opinion? This is a forum. It's for sharing ideas. People are pointing out legitimate glaring weaknesses or outright failures, or they're pointing out parts they like. I've done both. I've pointed out parts that I thought were strong and parts that are weak. There's just a lot more in the weak column. Doesn't mean you can't still like the movie. If you someone points out a weakness you disagree with, it doesn't prove them wrong by calling them names or saying "lol too dark for you," especially when the criticism has nothing to do with that at all. That's not a very well thought out argument. How the hell are people supposed to know that the writing amounts to an unpolished turd from a few minutes of trailers? The trailers make the film look deep, insightful, intelligent, exciting, stylish, and thought provoking. Action packed is implied and we get that, at least, but not the rest. Also, I have no problem with a darker tone, or the fact that he killed Zod. I've already said this. I used the term "gritty realism" facetiously because Hollywood thinks the only way to attain this is through total spiritual abortion. There's a difference between realistic and stupid. When something is supposed to be more realistic, I'd expect it to be more believable, not less. I've used this example before, and there's really no refuting it. In the course of a few minutes, practically all in the same bloody scene, Supes' and Lois' teammates die horribly (on a mission that Supes essentially SENT them on), Supes crashes a massive spaceship into Metropolis, Supes believes he's destroyed the only hope for Kypton's salvation, and all of downtown Metropolis is a pile of rubble. Tens of thousands of civilians are dead, along with, we are lead to believe, hope for Kryptonian civilization, not to mention our heroes' friends and colleagues. There are people still buried alive in the devastation. What does our "hero" do? He makes out with a chick he met a few days ago and flirts like a high schooler. This is already deplorable but, as I've already pointed out, he has super hearing which he can't turn off, only focus on specific things so it doesn't drive him crazy. He's fully aware that there are people in need of aid. Even IF he didn't have super hearing or x-ray vision, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to tell you that there are people trapped in the rubble of a catastrophe of that magnitude. There are many other examples like that in the film. A lot of people don't notice them because the ridiculous pacing doesn't leave you time to think about how flabbergastingly unbelievable and unrealistic characters decisions, actions, and responses are. There hasn't been a "happy-go-lucky" Superman since the mid 20th century. That would be Captain Marvel. Are you, perhaps, confused? Hell, even Captain Marvel has received the "gritty reboot" treatment in the DCnU, so you might want to elaborate on your point. Anyways, even in the DCaU, Superman is an incredibly mature and responsible individual who bears the weight of the world on his shoulders while trying, and humanly failing, to be irreproachable. Even Superboy, who struggles with adolescent rage, is more mature and responsible than the Superman in Man of Steel, and that's saying something. Man of Steel's Superman acted too cool for school, with no considerations, pretty much ever, for collateral damage or the long term impact of his actions. He's practically James Bond with heat vision. From the example above alone, it's demonstrated that Man of Steel's Superman is either indifferent to or oblivious to human suffering. You can make a character "dark" and "gritty" without selling their soul or destroying the core substance that makes them who they are. Just because you slap tights on someone and give them powers doesn't mean they're Superman.
Faora: "You will not win. For every human you save, we will kill a million more." Also we see the aftermath of Metropolis and are just assuming the worst. Just like in the comics if there's no body, then there's no death. Maybe they were evacuated on time or hid in the subway and basements like Captain America instructed in the Avengers. But it was Lois that found him when he didn't want to be found, so she "stands out."
