Man of Steel (SPOILERS)

[Darth Zangetsu]

I wonder what the Zod from MOS would have done if Kal did not have the codex and it was destroyed with Krypton? What would there be to rebuild? Would he have gone to another world, or just try and conquer earth because he could?

This is about as relevant a question as: What would S2 Zod have done had Jor-El not voted to send him to the Phantom Zone?

 

[GasparZizou]

i agree with this. Filling in the holes within your own mind is one of the key things to movies that people dont even realize is happening. You cannot show every second of every little thing especially a movie like this that has so much going on.

MoS touched on a lot of comics. Last Stand on New Krypton, Godfall, The World of Krypton, Birthright, For All Seasons and new DC52 stuff just to name a few. They definitely did their homework. The scene when Superman is flying over the earth gives me goosebumps every time because i feel (and i have no idea if this was intended or not) but it reminded me of late Michael Turner's amazing and beautiful art of Superman. Its my favorite art of Superman and i have a signed print of it

Exactly, although what I meant whas that MoS had little holes to fill (sounds dirty), it had a solid sci-fi foundation.

 

[jye4ever]

I think that the humor in S1/S2 rubs many people the wrong way.

I love it.

 

[CelticPredator]

Joss Whedon had a quote that was pretty good. "Let’s put all of our cards on the table and then keep putting cards on the table"

 

[Skywalker(OG)Kush]

A movie should never rely on filling stories with your mind. The story should work on a surface level.

Except when explaining how Loki's staff works in the avengers. Then its OK to fill in the stories/blanks with your mind

 

[CelticPredator]

I think that the humor in S1/S2 rubs many people the wrong way.

I love it.

That's because we live in an age where dark is more relatable.

 

[jye4ever]

Joss Whedon had a quote that was pretty good. "Let’s put all of our cards on the table and then keep putting cards on the table"

But the first card needs to make a profit first.

 

[CelticPredator]

Except when explaining how Loki's staff works in the avengers. Then its OK to fill in the stories/blanks with your mind

But it was shown. It's not even something that you had to really think about.


Joss Whedon did a very specific camera movement for that scene. The camera focuses on the spear, and then it turns upside down, showing both the Avengers, and the spear. The shot wasn't just a cool shot. It was pretty much telling you that the spear is turning these characters upside down.

It's one of the most blatant examples of using the visuals to tell your story.

 

[morphosis]

A movie should never rely on filling stories with your mind. The story should work on a surface level.

really? because it happens in almost every single movie made. Or movies would last days, weeks, months, years...LoL

thats why we have TV shows. So they can tell a story for a longer period of time and get us more details.

 

[CelticPredator]

The little things you can fill in. Like "Oh, I bet Superman took a big super dump before he went out in his costume." But you shouldn't have to fill in the gaps with the basic story. That's lazy.

 

[Skywalker(OG)Kush]

But it was shown. It's not even something that you had to really think about.


Joss Whedon did a very specific camera movement for that scene. The camera focuses on the spear, and then it turns upside down, showing both the Avengers, and the spear. The shot wasn't just a cool shot. It was pretty much telling you that the spear is turning these characters upside down.

It's one of the most blatant examples of using the visuals to tell your story.

Wrong. He establishes it works via physical touch except for that scene where it mysteriously works in proximity

 

[jye4ever]

This is about as relevant a question as: What would S2 Zod have done had Jor-El not voted to send him to the Phantom Zone?

Easy, he would've done the same, he was psycho x 1000.

 

[Darth Zangetsu]

But it was shown. It's not even something that you had to really think about.


Joss Whedon did a very specific camera movement for that scene. The camera focuses on the spear, and then it turns upside down, showing both the Avengers, and the spear. The shot wasn't just a cool shot. It was pretty much telling you that the spear is turning these characters upside down.

It's one of the most blatant examples of using the visuals to tell your story.

It's not explained why Loki's spear didn't work on Stark. Or how Massive Brain Trauma was the cure for Alien/God brainwashing. Or why Tony Stark as a character completely regressed from IM2. Or why Banner can't control his anger until he can?

Avengers was a good film. But Whedon is far from a flawless writer or director.

 

[CelticPredator]

No. You're wrong. Because the writer of the director dictated what it can and can't do.

The Spear is under Loki's control. It's his ****ing thing. If the damn spear is your problem with the movie, then holy **** man.

It's just a plot device. It exists to do what it has to do in service of the story. It has to hypnotise people, it has to influence the team to get on each other's throats, it has to be used to operate the machine.

 

[CelticPredator]

It's not explained why Loki's spear didn't work on Stark. Or how Massive Brain Trauma was the cure for Alien/God brainwashing. Or why Tony Stark as a character completely regressed from IM2. Or why Banner can't control his anger until he can?

Avengers was a good film. But Whedon is far from a flawless writer or director.

It didn't have too. His Arc Reactor was blocking the magic ****. Did you not hear the clank? As to why? Who cares. It's a comedic moment. Played for laughs. Not meant to be taken seriously.

Tony didn't regress from Iron Man 2. But then again, I don't remember Iron Man 2.

Banner controlled his anger the entire movie. Except when he was pushed. When you push The Hulk, **** goes wrong.

I never called Whedon flawless, but he understands character, set up, and pay off. And those things make for a better film, then without them.

 

[Skywalker(OG)Kush]

No. You're wrong. Because the writer of the director dictated what it can and can't do.

The Spear is under Loki's control. It's his ****ing thing. If the damn spear is your problem with the movie, then holy **** man.

It's just a plot device. It exists to do what it has to do in service of the story. It has to hypnotise people, it has to influence the team to get on each other's throats, it has to be used to operate the machine.

Exactly, its a plot device that I don't like. I never said I hated the avengers I said its hard for me to watch over and over because I hate those scenes. And u proceeded to tell me nothing was wrong with them. Great because u use or mind to explain the stupid contradicition, I don't reconcile it as easy as u do

 

[CelticPredator]

I didn't even have to think. It was presented as clear as day.

 

[Skywalker(OG)Kush]

I didn't even have to think. It was presented as clear as day.

That is the problem, you didn't think u just accepted what u saw even if it didn't add up.

 

[DiFabio]

I hate to say this, but every time I heard "Kneel before Zod", not even once I was able to take it seriously, not even as a child.

But, "I WILLLLLLL FIND HIM" and "I was born to protect my people, and now, I have no people" is great, superior stuff?

I guess you can't talk about Superman as a movie without taking into consideration it's comic book attachments.

I've got absolutely no attachments to Superman as a comic character. None once so ever. For me, the character of Superman, that whole image of him has expanded outside the medium of a comic book long ago.

I've read a few of the books, like the Death of Superman, his first couple of lolzy golden age appearances where he was busting wife beaters and hitting women, etc. but I've probably colored in more Superman coloring books than I have read comics. The most I know about the comics are the hilarious "superdickery" covers online.

My love of the character comes from the 50s tv show, the Fleischer cartoons, and the Donner films. That's what I know, that's what I grew up on. I know the character through that outlet.

I don't know what is "comic accurate" or what happens in the comics. I don't follow them. Only those few stories where everyone says, "hey, you need to read this, this is important to the character".

It you think the story is not "simple" anymore, although it's not one bit complicated, it's because the comics themselves are just as complex, the Krypton you see in MoS is something very similar to what you see in the Birthright comics, and the new 52 action comics are also kinda complex if not more than MoS.

Yeah, I've seen Birthright and 52 get thrown around as inspirations for this.


I know people got worked up over Superman not having undies and Batman banging Catwoman in a full page spread with the 52. I can't say I feel I'm missing out by not reading the comics. The comics have probably done everything and anything with 75 years under it's belt.

They're always looking for new, crazy ways to go because all the older, classic ideas have been extinguished. That's why we've seen so many re imagining in the past decade. It's like Spider-Man, I care about that teenage character that is grappling with human issues, not the outlandish CLONE stories where the publishers have no idea where to go with the character and make these out there stories.


For me, all I need to know about Jor-El and Laura is that they were Kal-El's father and mother that sent him off the planet for his own well-being. Not genetics, not birth issues, not codex, not Krypton. It's to give their son a life, that's hopefully, as a force for good.

I don't know about you but when I see a movie, if I don't get certain details to a specific situation, my mind fills the holes by itself like, how is Supes flying? Mhm maybe anti-gravity properties in his body, or silly **** like that and MoS gave me exactly what I wanted in that regard

I didn't care about how Superman flies or shoots lasers out of his eyes. Those linguistics mean nothing to me. Those are all associated with the character that I've taken for granted. That's who he is.

I just feel like everybody praising the Donner movies do it more with a "nostalgia armor" than for what the movie actually is, in my opinion.

There's two sides to everything.


People are so quick to bust out the "nostalgia" cards but what about modernism?

I could easily say that anyone that praises and likes Man of Steel is blinded by it's newness. It's new effects, it's place in time as the most recent interpretation of Superman. Basically, the exact opposite of nostalgia.

That wouldn't be fair though because it's not true (well not true for everyone).

I don't love the first two Superman films because of my memories or some "nostalgia attachments" to them. I love them because I enjoy them for what they are. Just like people enjoy the more recent Man of Steel.

 

[Darth Zangetsu]

It didn't have too. His Arc Reactor was blocking the magic ****. Did you not hear the clank? As to why? Who cares. It's a comedic moment. Played for laughs. Not meant to be taken seriously.

Tony didn't regress from Iron Man 2. But then again, I don't remember Iron Man 2.
Banner controlled his anger the entire movie. Except when he was pushed. When you push The Hulk, **** goes wrong.

I never called Whedon flawless, but he understands character, set up, and pay off. And those things make for a better film, then without them.

I can never express how much I envy you for that.