Man of Steel (SPOILERS)
- Thread starter pjam
- Start date
Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:
Dr.Mirakle32
Super Freak
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2005
- Messages
- 2,861
- Reaction score
- 28
Like any good comic book-movie fan who hated it, I'm seeing it for a third time tomorrow!
To be far, I don't love this movie. I don't think it's a genuinely good or satisfying movie on any level and as a Superman fan, I hate how ultimately bleak its message is. But I thought it had some a'ight aspects, and was well cast. Enough for me to go again with a friend who hasn't seen it before (and because it's funner to talk **** with people who've actually seen it.)
To be far, I don't love this movie. I don't think it's a genuinely good or satisfying movie on any level and as a Superman fan, I hate how ultimately bleak its message is. But I thought it had some a'ight aspects, and was well cast. Enough for me to go again with a friend who hasn't seen it before (and because it's funner to talk **** with people who've actually seen it.)
What do you think its message is?
Dr.Mirakle32
Super Freak
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2005
- Messages
- 2,861
- Reaction score
- 28
You can only defeat space terrorists by punching them until your problems go away.
And it's okay to tell the government to eat a **** when you want their trust.
And it's okay to tell the government to eat a **** when you want their trust.
Hell, I'd do both of those things if I could. 
GasparZizou
Super Freak
Still, it implies some sort of correlation between a young age and an unrefined taste, when S1 came out, my dad was in his 20's, he obviously loved it, like most males in his 20's
Jimmy could still show up as Jenny's brother or something. That was actually a Goyer thing (Jenny Olsen) so who knows where it'll go from here.
Niltusk
Super Freak
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2011
- Messages
- 12,599
- Reaction score
- 50
You really think that the "blatantly obvious" explanation for a tanker truck impaled by poles is to assume that one man did it with his bare hands?
Sachiel
Super Freak
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2005
- Messages
- 11,661
- Reaction score
- 825
These days everyone is a photographer.
jye4ever
Broke and happy
Why was Lois not Tweeting the events.
So the fact that this movie featured punching makes it uniquely bleak among superhero films?
And the Avengers punched and killed their way to victory before defying the US government as well. Is that a bleak movie?
Last edited:
Posted in the Hot Toys thread:
Recently read an article about Jenny. Her full name is Jenny Jurwich as it turns out.
jye4ever
Broke and happy
But is she still Jenny from the block?
Don't be fooled by the ID card that I got
I'm still, I'm still Jenny from the block
Don't be fooled by the ID card that I got
I'm still, I'm still Jenny from the block
I don't think they handled the trust subplot all that well. They did show clearly that Superman was willing to act benevolently toward humans, but the way the humans responded after he brought down that surveillance drone made it seem as if all was good since it was such a light, easy-going scene. But really, at that point Superman should just be beginning to earn trust, and future films would need to better explore it. I thought a more appropriate response from the humans still should have been extreme caution and skepticism, considering they just have to take his word for it, and one series of actions helping to defeat Zod's force. But I guess they were trying to end the movie on a light note across the board.
I don't think this Superman was too flawed for the character. He's learning his way as a superhero, but already he seemed to have a pretty clear moral compass. Of course, he's not going to be the idealistic silver aged Superman/Moore's Supreme. Film studios don't have enough faith in the audience to go with something that "revolutionary" in the modern age of film. So considering that, showing more flaws than, say, Reeve Superman is inevitable. They touched on this in the Superman and Justice League animated series' as well. It's part of the paradigm. An absolutely self-assured Superman would simply not work in any remotely "realistic" world that WB is trying to put together for their Justice League. You have to treat the whole universe as being different and more simplistic for that to work IMO. Otherwise Superman would just come off as naive.
By the way, was a good explanation given for why Jor-El merged that genetic coding into his son, apart from creating a plot device for Zod to want to seek him out for reasons other than revenge? I thought Jor-El thought the "old Krypton" needed to die? And it seems like he didn't explain to Kal-El that he did it or why he did it. So. . .what was he trying to do? He went to a lot of effort and took a lot of risks to do it. Seems like allowing Zod to have it would have been a better option if he really wanted to allow Krypton to continue on in some capacity. He may have wanted to be a dictator, but dictatorships come and go. The core of their society was not replaceable. . .but again, I thought Jor-El thought it needed to die, so. . . I just didn't understand what was going on there.
I don't think this Superman was too flawed for the character. He's learning his way as a superhero, but already he seemed to have a pretty clear moral compass. Of course, he's not going to be the idealistic silver aged Superman/Moore's Supreme. Film studios don't have enough faith in the audience to go with something that "revolutionary" in the modern age of film. So considering that, showing more flaws than, say, Reeve Superman is inevitable. They touched on this in the Superman and Justice League animated series' as well. It's part of the paradigm. An absolutely self-assured Superman would simply not work in any remotely "realistic" world that WB is trying to put together for their Justice League. You have to treat the whole universe as being different and more simplistic for that to work IMO. Otherwise Superman would just come off as naive.
By the way, was a good explanation given for why Jor-El merged that genetic coding into his son, apart from creating a plot device for Zod to want to seek him out for reasons other than revenge? I thought Jor-El thought the "old Krypton" needed to die? And it seems like he didn't explain to Kal-El that he did it or why he did it. So. . .what was he trying to do? He went to a lot of effort and took a lot of risks to do it. Seems like allowing Zod to have it would have been a better option if he really wanted to allow Krypton to continue on in some capacity. He may have wanted to be a dictator, but dictatorships come and go. The core of their society was not replaceable. . .but again, I thought Jor-El thought it needed to die, so. . . I just didn't understand what was going on there.
jye4ever
Broke and happy
The government thanked the Avengers by sending a nuke to the city they were still fighting in.
I know the final scene was light but I took the officer's irritation and the fact that the military was using drones at all as indicative of them being skeptical of Superman's loyalties. Thor's first film involved him coming to earth and drawing alien forces that destroyed a town and his last exchange with Coulson was pretty light too.
Of course we later found out through The Avengers that the US Government was then feverishing trying to develop weapons of mass destruction that could counter Thor-level threats so maybe we'll see some of that in MoS 2.
jye4ever
Broke and happy
I was also confused.
One second the natural birth is important, trying to get away from genetic engineering and manipulation and the next second Jor-el is engineering and manipulating his son's body, wut.
Natural birth right out the window.
I was also confused.
One second the natural birth is important, trying to get away from genetic engineering and manipulation and the next second Jor-el is engineering and manipulating his son's body, wut.
Natural birth right out the window.
Its the Chosen One and midichlorians all over again!
Similar threads
