Superman: The Man of Steel

[The Dark Knight]

I want to like this movie and I'm going to give it a chance. Although it does seem like an advertisement for 'Deadliest Catch'. 

[thecolorsblend]

I haven't felt this confident about a Superman movie... well, probably ever.

[The Dark Knight]

I haven't felt this confident about a Superman movie... well, probably ever.

It definitely inspires more hope than Superman Returns, in that they're rebooting from the Donner series and are adamant we're going to see physicality. The trailers were fine IMO. We could've got a shot of the logo and a voice-over, but we actually got some footage here. I preferred the Jonathan Kent narration myself. Very inspirational dialogue, and went well with the LOTR music.

[riddler]

It's also been 30 years since we've had a film of Superman which comic fans feel is a true representation of the character, and even that is debatable as there is an argument claiming the Donner films are not standing the test of time (people hating the time travel element and lack of suspense).

I've got issues with Donner that go way beyond just time travel stuff, although there's that too. Time travel raises all kinds of strange ethical questions that shouldn't be asked and, lest we forget, isn't really a power Superman had in the comics of the era (not the way Donner used it anyway). But whatever, Donner pretty much completely reinvented Krypton, Superman's relationship with the Kents, etc. The movie's iconic and important, no doubts there, but I think it's a bit overrated as far as a Superman origin story.

And speaking of origins, I'd argue it's crucial to show it for any character simply so the audience can relate to where he's coming from. We fans may think the origin story has been done to death but wide audiences haven't really seen an origin since, best case scenario, Lois & Clark in 1993. But you could also argue not since 1978.

I guess I'm okay with the origin because there's a 35 year gap between the first superman and man of steel as opposed to 10 between the spider-man origins and the potential of another for the batman series. I actually started reading some superman comics recently (as this topic is making me wonder) and I'll admit I enjoy his humble smallville beginnings novels than his regular ones. Though some of his current stories are really 'out there' such as krypton battles and battles in space which will likely not happen on film.

I'm a huge time travel buff, back to the future is my favourite movie and I get excited about time travel films. But I HATE the way it was done in the superman films. Simply like you said it raises ethical questions because reversing a death opens up a huge grey area because now he's taking it upon himself to choose who should live and who should die. It also removes suspense because we know he can do it so the stakes now get lower as anything that happens can be reversed. It was a huge cop out and basically reverses any emotion the audience was supposed to feel. I don't mind it in the comics because usually it's either to go fight a battle in the future or as a necessity because a villain altered the past and so the hero is restoring order. The blackest night storyline in which Abin Sur is saved preventing Hal Jordan to become the green lantern and Thomas Wayne is saved and Bruce dies is outstanding.


As for Jonathan Kent, I wonder if it's due to Kevin Costner; the guy has been box office poison for 15 years. That being said I have no issue with his casting, the guy has shown acting ability so there's not much doubt he can handle the role. 

[thecolorsblend]

It definitely inspires more hope than Superman Returns, in that they're rebooting from the Donner series and are adamant we're going to see physicality. The trailers were fine IMO. We could've got a shot of the logo and a voice-over, but we actually got some footage here. I preferred the Jonathan Kent narration myself. Very inspirational dialogue, and went well with the LOTR music.

Yep. I like the Crowe narration because it emphasized Clark's destiny vs. the choice Jonathan was basically saying Clark faces.

As for the physical stuff... oy. Go back and read those Superman comics from the 70's. Superman didn't think twice about beating the snot out of somebody if it meant saving the day. It was nothing to him to knock some bank robber into the middle of next Tuesday and then make him say "thank you" when he arrived. But Donner (and, later, Singer) gave us this retarded "protector" bu||shyt that was pretty foreign to the character. We understand that seeing a superhero kick the snot out of somebody is half the fun when we watch, I dunno, a Batman movie or what have you. But somehow the minute it's a Superman film, we have to pit him against real estate crooks and computer programmers.

Grarrgh...

I actually started reading some superman comics recently (as this topic is making me wonder)

The New 52? If so... I'm so sorry.

and I'll admit I enjoy his humble smallville beginnings novels than his regular ones.

I don't know if I'm parsing your words here. You mean to tell me that you've picked up some of those Smallville prose paperback novels? And that you find those more engaging than the comics?

I'm just asking a question. There's no "wrong" answer here.

I'm a huge time travel buff, back to the future is my favourite movie

See, you say "I love Back to the Future" but what I think is "this man is possessed of impeccable taste and breeding when it comes to cinema". And I'm not just saying that because BTTF is the greatest trilogy ever (although it is).

But I HATE the way it was done in the superman films. Simply like you said it raises ethical questions because reversing a death opens up a huge grey area because now he's taking it upon himself to choose who should live and who should die.

Yep. And the real hell of it? It's the death of Lois that set him off the deep end. Does anybody think she was the only person who died following the detonation of two nuclear missiles, a "major earthquake", an exploding electrical grid, a bridge falling to pieces (along with the ensuing car wrecks), exploding gas stations, floods, etc? In the scenario shown in the film, you'd have to assume thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, died in spite of Superman's best efforts. However, by themselves, they didn't motivate him to break the time barrier.

But Lois Lane's death DID? One person among those thousands? Generally speaking, what makes her death so much more important than some 8-yr old girl scout getting crushed to death under the Hollywood sign?

It also removes suspense because we know he can do it so the stakes now get lower as anything that happens can be reversed.

And it was poorly developed. Superman travelled back in time to spare Lois Lane's death. However, we know the earthquake still happened. So what exactly did Superman do? What happened when Superman went into the past? Obviously the missile still went off because the earthquake still happened. We have no idea what the hell happened.

The one thing I can praise the time travel thing for is that showed Superman rebelling against Jor-El for the first time. It nicely foreshadows the next time he'll defy his parents in Superman II (again, a decision motivated by Lois). But I don't think that little bit of character development is worth the price we paid for it considering how little sense it makes.

As for Jonathan Kent, I wonder if it's due to Kevin Costner; the guy has been box office poison for 15 years. That being said I have no issue with his casting, the guy has shown acting ability so there's not much doubt he can handle the role.

To the extent I've paid much attention to Costner's films, it seems that about the time he divorced that one chick, his career never really recovered. I'm hard pressed to find a bona fide "hit" after that point.

That said, Thirteen Days is a phenomenal movie. If the only "criticism" you can muster about a movie is that you wish it was an hour longer... well, that's more of a praise than anything.

[The Dark Knight]

As for the physical stuff... oy. Go back and read those Superman comics from the 70's. Superman didn't think twice about beating the snot out of somebody if it meant saving the day. It was nothing to him to knock some bank robber into the middle of next Tuesday and then make him say "thank you" when he arrived. But Donner (and, later, Singer) gave us this retarded "protector" bu||shyt that was pretty foreign to the character. We understand that seeing a superhero kick the snot out of somebody is half the fun when we watch, I dunno, a Batman movie or what have you. But somehow the minute it's a Superman film, we have to pit him against real estate crooks and computer programmers.

Grarrgh...

Exactly. I admit I was a tad annoyed we weren't getting a totally new villain, but Zod and friends do present a proper challenge at least, compared to SR. I'm sure we'll get rough and tumble. Themes are interesting to dissect but I do love me some action!

I'm not as well informed about Superman as you are, colors, but if they flesh out Zod I think he can really good. If they have Zod properly approaching Superman as a potential ally, for example. Zod views Earth as an alien would to conquer, whereas Superman views Earth from the human perspective, even though he's not human. Then we can have Zod shouting Superman has sold out, he's a disgrace to Kyrpton and Earth must be taken over.

Opening up the theme of Superman being the best of humanity and fighting for what is right. Which would be important for the public to see a clear difference between the two, given this is Superman's introduction to the world and people wouldn't be sure what to make of him.

By the way, it's really good to see you back on the forums.

[riddler]

As for the physical stuff... oy. Go back and read those Superman comics from the 70's. Superman didn't think twice about beating the snot out of somebody if it meant saving the day. It was nothing to him to knock some bank robber into the middle of next Tuesday and then make him say "thank you" when he arrived. But Donner (and, later, Singer) gave us this retarded "protector" bu||shyt that was pretty foreign to the character. We understand that seeing a superhero kick the snot out of somebody is half the fun when we watch, I dunno, a Batman movie or what have you. But somehow the minute it's a Superman film, we have to pit him against real estate crooks and computer programmers.

Grarrgh...

Definitely. It's one thing to have heroes not kill their villains, I can understand that but my god was superman ever scaled back now that he's not allowed to fight. Nothing against Lex Luthor but is he really THAT great of a villain that he's been used in 4 of the 5 films so far? And the only one without him was basically a doppleganger but with less catastrophic intentions. I actually thought the nuclear man from the 4th film was a great idea just poorly executed partially due to the budget. 

I actually started reading some superman comics recently (as this topic is making me wonder)

The New 52? If so... I'm so sorry.

No graphic novels from 2000-2009. I've been reading a bit of the new 52, I like the green arrow and aquaman stories but hate the green lantern. Not sure about batman yet

and I'll admit I enjoy his humble smallville beginnings novels than his regular ones.

I don't know if I'm parsing your words here. You mean to tell me that you've picked up some of those Smallville prose paperback novels? And that you find those more engaging than the comics?

I'm just asking a question. There's no "wrong" answer here.

Fair question. I quess I am enjoying his humble beginnings. I just find they are stories that give him humanity (even though he's not) whereas some of the stories I could care less about it's aliens fighting aliens in space

I'm a huge time travel buff, back to the future is my favourite movie

See, you say "I love Back to the Future" but what I think is "this man is possessed of impeccable taste and breeding when it comes to cinema". And I'm not just saying that because BTTF is the greatest trilogy ever (although it is).

Thanks I guess lol. I just only think time travel should be used if it's a main plot point in the film; one that you could deduce by seeing a trailer for the film. The way it was done in the superman films was a huge cop out. It's worse than adding a scene and then then saying "just kidding it was a dream". I'd have actually rathered if they changed Lois death to a dream. They make superman seem selfish because any person that dies, he now let die but he saves Lois Lane out of love. Why not save Jonathan Kent if he has that power? I'm not religious (I'm agnostic) but Donner basically had superman take it upon himself to play god. 

But I HATE the way it was done in the superman films. Simply like you said it raises ethical questions because reversing a death opens up a huge grey area because now he's taking it upon himself to choose who should live and who should die.

Yep. And the real hell of it? It's the death of Lois that set him off the deep end. Does anybody think she was the only person who died following the detonation of two nuclear missiles, a "major earthquake", an exploding electrical grid, a bridge falling to pieces (along with the ensuing car wrecks), exploding gas stations, floods, etc? In the scenario shown in the film, you'd have to assume thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, died in spite of Superman's best efforts. However, by themselves, they didn't motivate him to break the time barrier.

But Lois Lane's death DID? One person among those thousands? Generally speaking, what makes her death so much more important than some 8-yr old girl scout getting crushed to death under the Hollywood sign?

It also removes suspense because we know he can do it so the stakes now get lower as anything that happens can be reversed.

And it was poorly developed. Superman travelled back in time to spare Lois Lane's death. However, we know the earthquake still happened. So what exactly did Superman do? What happened when Superman went into the past? Obviously the missile still went off because the earthquake still happened. We have no idea what the hell happened.

The one thing I can praise the time travel thing for is that showed Superman rebelling against Jor-El for the first time. It nicely foreshadows the next time he'll defy his parents in Superman II (again, a decision motivated by Lois). But I don't think that little bit of character development is worth the price we paid for it considering how little sense it makes.

Correct me if I'm wrong but it also doesn't follow the rules of the space time continuum; he travels around the earth at an enormous speed to be able to bend time backwards... fine but then shouldn't there be 2 versions of him there?

As for Jonathan Kent, I wonder if it's due to Kevin Costner; the guy has been box office poison for 15 years. That being said I have no issue with his casting, the guy has shown acting ability so there's not much doubt he can handle the role.

To the extent I've paid much attention to Costner's films, it seems that about the time he divorced that one chick, his career never really recovered. I'm hard pressed to find a bona fide "hit" after that point.

That said, Thirteen Days is a phenomenal movie. If the only "criticism" you can muster about a movie is that you wish it was an hour longer... well, that's more of a praise than anything.

I've seen a few, not sure exactly where Costner went wrong, maybe it started with water world in 1995 but Thirteen days was the only non-flop since then. Anyhow Jonathan Kent will be like Rachel Dawes in the batman films; Katie Holmes was terrible in that role but it wasn't big enough of a role to ruin the film. But in the next film Maggie Gylenhall does add some extra spice with stronger acting. So even Coster at his worst wont ruin the film but if he brings in his field of dreams/dances with wolves magic he can become a pleasant surprise. It's a safe role for him.

[The Joker]

If it seems familiar, there's a perfectly good reason for that.

[riddler]

decent suit but it does look like a spider-man rip off

[The Dark Knight]

This is my favourite live action Superman suit.