Captain Canuck
The poster formerly known as captaincanuck65
I was really disappointed with Thor too. Then I lowered my expectations and watched it again and enjoyed it for what it was.
Man of Steel Discussion (Spoilers)
- Thread starter TheManWithoutFear
- Start date
ProjectX2
Don't expect me to take you with me when I go to s
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2004
- Messages
- 25,007
Thor is approximately nine thousand times better than Man of Steel.
DARKKNIGHT
Well-Known Member
I was disappointed. It was ok, but I don't think there's anything particularly memorable about it and I thought it was pretty bland. I realize that a lot of people like it though.
The more I think about Man of Steel, the more disappointed I am with it. That said, I still think it's better than Thor based on it's cast and production design. I just found Thor very 'blah'.
DIrishB
The Timeline Guy
???
Thor may have lacked the IM movies' personality (due to RDJ), but I thought it was different in all good ways. The Asgard scenes were gloriously imagined in terms of design and looks, and while the story may have been a tad formulaic, the origin story of Thor is just that in terms of the comics. I think the film did a far more than serviceable job of translating that, while adding humor, charisma, and some decent performances from Hopkins and Hiddleston. It was certainly better than Iron Man 2 and Incredible Hulk, and I personally preferred it to Iron Man 3 (which I enjoyed).
As for Man of Steel, again, it wasn't a great film, but honestly EVERY complaint about it has a valid counterpoint, which doesn't make for a one-sided outlook on the film.
Bass
Nexus of the World
MAN OF STEEL is a good story badly told. The flashbacks were as big a mistake as focusing too much on the disaster ****. Like WATCHMEN.
There are other problems in the story, but they're fixable and not too egregious. What makes them unpalatable is the lack of empathy because the story is poorly told.
There are other problems in the story, but they're fixable and not too egregious. What makes them unpalatable is the lack of empathy because the story is poorly told.
Last edited:
DIrishB
The Timeline Guy
So you're saying Zach Snyder is to blame.
Captain Canuck
The poster formerly known as captaincanuck65
[video=youtube;CjSNLmb0Ndw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjSNLmb0Ndw[/video]
Last edited:
DIrishB
The Timeline Guy
Cavill responds to the criticism surrounding the final battle against Zod at the end of the film:
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/JoshWildingNewsAndReviews/news/?a=83733
I agree with him. That's definitely how I saw it. I also realize Superman is "better" than that in the comics, but I see it as a way of showing his progression and evolution as a hero. He'll learn from his mistakes and get better with time. This was his origin film, after all. It would've come off as unrealistic for him to be the perfect Superman as soon as he puts on the costume.
I'm hoping the upcoming Batman/Superman film will show a bit of that evolution, and depict a Batman more in line with Miller's version from The Dark Knight Returns: angrier, more brash, more antagonistic. This will create a nice counterpoint to the Superman character ready established in MoS, test Clark's patience, and show why he really is Superman. It'll also hopefully allow for an awesome fight scene between Superman and Batman wearing some form of power gloves made from Kryptonian tech (I assume Luthir and Wayne both will somehow get their hands on remnants of the Kryptonian ships from MoS) so he can actually hurt Supes.
By the time Justice League rolls around, Superman can have grown into a more mature, responsible, forward thinking leader like is known from the comics.
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/JoshWildingNewsAndReviews/news/?a=83733
I agree with him. That's definitely how I saw it. I also realize Superman is "better" than that in the comics, but I see it as a way of showing his progression and evolution as a hero. He'll learn from his mistakes and get better with time. This was his origin film, after all. It would've come off as unrealistic for him to be the perfect Superman as soon as he puts on the costume.
I'm hoping the upcoming Batman/Superman film will show a bit of that evolution, and depict a Batman more in line with Miller's version from The Dark Knight Returns: angrier, more brash, more antagonistic. This will create a nice counterpoint to the Superman character ready established in MoS, test Clark's patience, and show why he really is Superman. It'll also hopefully allow for an awesome fight scene between Superman and Batman wearing some form of power gloves made from Kryptonian tech (I assume Luthir and Wayne both will somehow get their hands on remnants of the Kryptonian ships from MoS) so he can actually hurt Supes.
By the time Justice League rolls around, Superman can have grown into a more mature, responsible, forward thinking leader like is known from the comics.
DARKKNIGHT
Well-Known Member
Any news on a MOS sequel? I assume they will be doing one, but I guess it looks like it'll be sometime after the Batman/Superman film.
DIrishB
The Timeline Guy
Nope. Looks like that won't be until after Justice League, so at least 2018 or beyond. The Batman/Superman movie will be a semi-sequel to MoS since Goyer said they'll address Superman's killing of Zod in that film.
DARKKNIGHT
Well-Known Member
Hopefully they introduce Luthor in the Batman/Superman movie.
DIrishB
The Timeline Guy
I think he'd be the obvious choice, perhaps with one of Batman's rogue gallery. I'd expect the film to explore the Kryptonian tech left over from the events of MoS, and both Wayne and Luthor's respective companies trying to get ahold of it (which could make for a cool bit of corporate espionage). Luthor for nefarious, selfish purposes, Wayne for more altruistic and Superman-ass-kicking purposes...though I suppose Luthor's and Wayne's aims would align in that manner early on. Eventually they'll team up once Bats figures out Supes isn't a bad dude after all. Or something like that. Of course this is just me throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks, so the real thing will probably be completely different...but then again, is Goyer/Snyder's process really all that different?
DARKKNIGHT
Well-Known Member
That sounds like the likely approach they'd take. I wish they'd just get Dini and Timm to act as supervisors, of a sort, for the DC live action films. Some of the stuff from their DC cartoons could act as a pretty solid blue print for live action adaptations.
DIrishB
The Timeline Guy
That would be great.
Ugh. I told myself I wouldn't get sucked back into this.
I don't agree with him because essential to Superman's character is that he is better than us and finds a way. That's who he is. You or I might feel like we need to kill the guy as the lesser of two evils, but Superman is about hope and belief that the better outcome is still possible.
In All Star Superman he comes back to Earth to find two rogue Kryptonians basically trying to enslave humanity and ruin the Earth. He doesn't kill them. It's never even suggested, and reading it you don't even think about it being a possibility because that's not what Superman does. He doesn't take the easy way out.
Just because we as regular people can't see any other choice doesn't mean that's how it is. Superman finds the other choice.
I don't agree with him because essential to Superman's character is that he is better than us and finds a way. That's who he is. You or I might feel like we need to kill the guy as the lesser of two evils, but Superman is about hope and belief that the better outcome is still possible.
In All Star Superman he comes back to Earth to find two rogue Kryptonians basically trying to enslave humanity and ruin the Earth. He doesn't kill them. It's never even suggested, and reading it you don't even think about it being a possibility because that's not what Superman does. He doesn't take the easy way out.
Just because we as regular people can't see any other choice doesn't mean that's how it is. Superman finds the other choice.
Bass
Nexus of the World
Except when he doesn't. Alan Moore made it work. Saying, "it doesn't work in this story" is one thing. But this nonsense of "it can never be allowed to happen" when it has happened and worked before is why people shake their heads at the fan community. MAN OF STEEL got many things wrong, many things right. The problem with Zod was not Superman killing Zod but the circumstances and manner in which that choice was executed. It could've worked spectacularly if they'd bothered to set up that Superman doesn't kill. What drives me mad is that is precisely what they did with Batman and turned it into a key plot point for the first two films. But Superman, its an after thought. I can imagine a version of this film that makes that turn work. Shame they didn't. The problem with MAN OF STEEL is Goyer's pretentious desire to make it "realistic" and Snyder's superficiality. Unfortunately, what works in the film comes from those same people: Goyer infused lots of great motivation in Superman becoming Superman and Snyder gave us the most kinetic superhero fight ever filmed. They almost made it work.
DIrishB
The Timeline Guy
Well, Bass said it for me.
But the thing is, what was the better option? If you can come up with one which prevents Zod from killing millions of humans I'll concede the point, but none of the films detractors has done so yet. They complain and whine without coming up with a viable alternative.
Cavill's response made perfect sense: did he want to kill Zod? Of course not. He could have done it many times over since their first meeting if he was some blood thirsty killer. He did it because he felt he had to. And again, I understand Superman is "better than that" and "finds another way" (except when he doesn't), but as I've said numerous times, I don't think it's realistic at all to expect Clark to become the enlightened Boy Scout from the comic verse as soon as he puts on the suit for the first time. This was an origin story. Hence, there's a lot left to tell about this version of Superman's evolution and transformation into that character in future films. I view him killing Zod (beyond the symbolic choosing Earth over Krypton thing) as something that will haunt him and motivate him to find those other ways in the future. It gives that trait more gravity and meaning in my opinion, since he's seen the other side of the coin, and not just because he's a cookie cutter, 1-dimensional do-gooder.
Hope and belief in a better outcome is all well and good, but when Zod is literally saying he's going to kill everyone on the planet, and Superman knows he's both capable and fully intending to do just that, I find it short sighted and insane to think he's going to find a better alternative than to kill him. Zod is as strong, fast, and capable as Superman, which means he can't be imprisoned, he's insane even before the loss of the Kryptonian codex, and once that's destroyed he's totally gone sanity wise. What else could Superman do? He'd tried the banishment to the Phantom Zone, which worked for all the other Kryptonians, but once that ball dropped he wasn't left with any other choice but to kill Zod, or not kill him and allow him to destroy the planet Clark grew up on and kill billions of people. Again, if there was a third option, I'm all ears.
Last edited:
DARKKNIGHT
Well-Known Member
My main issue with Superman killing Zod is just the way it was set up. The circumstances of it just didn't seem well staged, and there was no mention of it after the act. It seems that they're touching upon it in the next movie, so hopefully that will make it clear that Superman is haunted by it and vows not to kill.
I do think that saying that Superman can never kill because he's better than that and always finds a better way is a bit simple. If they ever make a movie of a full on alien invasion that the JL has to face, is Superman not allowed to kill any of the alien foot soldiers? If so, he's not going to be very effective at preventing an invasion. Regardless, Man of Steel is Superman's first outing. I think it's a bit much to expect him to be fully formed.
All in all, while I think that the importance that DC characters seem to place on not killing is important - and it would be interesting to see heroes with slightly different view points on this in a JL movie - the view that these heroes never, ever kill under any circumstance is antiquated and doesn't even line up with what I know of the comics.
I do think that saying that Superman can never kill because he's better than that and always finds a better way is a bit simple. If they ever make a movie of a full on alien invasion that the JL has to face, is Superman not allowed to kill any of the alien foot soldiers? If so, he's not going to be very effective at preventing an invasion. Regardless, Man of Steel is Superman's first outing. I think it's a bit much to expect him to be fully formed.
All in all, while I think that the importance that DC characters seem to place on not killing is important - and it would be interesting to see heroes with slightly different view points on this in a JL movie - the view that these heroes never, ever kill under any circumstance is antiquated and doesn't even line up with what I know of the comics.
DIrishB
The Timeline Guy
I agree completely. And the Zod death scene was set up poorly (in terms of Zod forcing the choice on Superman), you're absolutely right and I've mentioned previously in this post that if Clark was so reluctant to kill him, he could easily have jumped up and flown into the sky, dragging Zod along to prevent him from killing those people with his heat vision.
However that was a temporary solution at best. As said, Zod has made it clear he didn't care about humanity, first threatening planetary genocide if Superman wasn't turned over, then revealing his plans to terraform Earth, which also would have killed humanity off. Finally, after the codex is destroyed and the other Kryptonians banished back to the Phantom Zone, Zod has nothing left but vengeance as a motivator. He explicitly states as such to Superman, tells him he's going to destroy the world, etc. Superman fought with him for awhile, probably trying to think of another way, but there simply wasn't one. Instead of allowing Zod to kill billions of humans, instead of continuing a fight with him that was causing massive property damage and likely resulted in multiple deaths and injuries, Superman chose the lesser of two evils and killed him.
Granted, the scene and lead up to it could have been handled much better, but it is what it is.
Superman has killed in the comics before...I'm not sure why it happening here is such a deal breaker beyond possibly its poor handling. But the argument that "Superman doesn't kill" is simplistic and invalid. It rarely happens, but it does and has happened. This is an instance of that, in a different media and universe than the comics, sure, but the argument is still weak.
Bass
Nexus of the World
Yep. I agree. It could've worked. Just didn't work. No set up. Like the kiss. The set up was "you've seen other Superman shows before, right?" Doesn't work. It needs a set up in the world its created.
If I were more cynical, I might suspect that Snyder used MAN OF STEEL to try to adapt MIRACLEMAN since the climax felt very, very much like that.
If I were more cynical, I might suspect that Snyder used MAN OF STEEL to try to adapt MIRACLEMAN since the climax felt very, very much like that.
