Man of Steel (SPOILERS)

[CelticPredator]

Right. But the fact the "dumb ol gayz lolz donner flick" have a lot more depth, and meaning to them, really shows how Man of Steel missed the mark to do anything, except for showing explosions and violence.

Good for the movie, I guess.

 

[Zen Mutiny]

Right. But the fact the "dumb ol gayz lolz donner flick" have a lot more depth, and meaning to them, really shows how Man of Steel missed the mark to do anything, except for showing explosions and violence.

Good for the movie, I guess.

Actually, I felt it did a great job humanizing Superman. He may have all these powers, but he's still fallible, just like one of us.

One of the reasons the character of Superman has struggled in recent times is because he's lacked those qualities.

Even if this Superman starts out as a selfish, self-absorbed prick who doesn't care about the human race (which is probably no more true for him than for the rest of humanity), it doesn't make it a bad story. It doesn't make this take on the character any less valid. Naturally, he's still growing, and standing next to Batman, he will be a boy scout, but today's audience will not buy the shining, white knight of a character that Superman was in the 70's and 80's. People look at that now, and say, "I can't relate to this guy because he doesn't have any issues. This is too good to be true. No one is that perfect. How can I even trust him?" You scar the character, you make him more trustworthy - and above all else, Superman should be trustworthy.

 

[jye4ever]

MOS is the equivalent of Batman beating up Joker in the interrogation scene of TDK.

All that cgi muscle yet its got nothing to threaten STM with.

 

[GasparZizou]

"Fun stuff"... no wonder why you think MoS is depressing, I barely remembered that "fun" stuff when I was a kid, and when I saw it again, I facepalmed.

Again he could not save Lois if it wasn't for that, so no, and the villains in his movies didn't pose the threat Zod's pinky did in MoS.

MoS didn't miss the mark any more than SPTM did, if anything, The Donner movies portray a more unidimensional and obtuse version of the character.

Also, the Donner movies being better/deeper... that's not a fact, at all, and it will never be a fact.

 

[EVILFACE]

If people wanted the MOS to be S:TM, then watch S:TM instead.

 

[The Iron Koob]

If people wanted the MOS to be S:TM, then watch S:TM instead.

This is the logic that many complainers fail to grasp. The fact that some people think the theme should've been in MOS is just sad

 

[The Iron Koob]

Actually, I felt it did a great job humanizing Superman. He may have all these powers, but he's still fallible, just like one of us.

One of the reasons the character of Superman has struggled in recent times is because he's lacked those qualities.

Even if this Superman starts out as a selfish, self-absorbed prick who doesn't care about the human race (which is probably no more true for him than for the rest of humanity), it doesn't make it a bad story. It doesn't make this take on the character any less valid. Naturally, he's still growing, and standing next to Batman, he will be a boy scout, but today's audience will not buy the shining, white knight of a character that Superman was in the 70's and 80's. People look at that now, and say, "I can't relate to this guy because he doesn't have any issues. This is too good to be true. No one is that perfect. How can I even trust him?" You scar the character, you make him more trustworthy - and above all else, Superman should be trustworthy.

All I know is I never understood why people found Superman interesting, and after MOS I know.

 

[Niltusk]

All I know is I never understood why people found Superman interesting, and after MOS I know.

I don't think they have to be mutually exclusive. I love both versions for what they were.

Now, the 5 people in the world that liked Returns...yeah those ****ers I don't understand at all.

 

[CelticPredator]

If people wanted the MOS to be S:TM, then watch S:TM instead.

I wanted Man of Steel to be a good movie.

 

[GasparZizou]

And it was.

 

[snoop101]

This is the logic that many complainers fail to grasp. The fact that some people think the theme should've been in MOS is just sad

They have to ***** and whine about something.

 

[snoop101]

The original film set up the idea he can save anyone from anything, except death. That was the point. He can snatch you up when you're falling, he'll help you if your plane is going down, he will save you if you're being mugged....ect..

But if you die, something so natural....Superman, the most powerful being on the planet, cannot do a damn thing. Especially when you're conflicted between two different scenarios. Your love, or hundreds of people. Spinning back the world is just fun stuff, to keep the film from not being a dour piece of crap. But the idea, and theme's of mortality shown from a being who is basically immortal still stands strong.

The original didn't set up that idea at all. I guess you missed the part where Lois suffocates and Superman reverses time to save her. He has no limits in STM. Spinning back the world was just "fun stuff."

 

[Uncanny Web-Slinger]

And it was.

 

[CelticPredator]

If by good, you mean the worst of the summer, I agree.

Thanks Zack Snyder for starting the argument up again....

 

[DiFabio]

It is actually set up in the original and is followed up with Superman II. Celtic is dead on.

Remember Jor-El's wisdom and telling Clark that "it is forbidden" during his teachings? Superman is at odds with his Earth father Pa Kent (whom he couldn't save) and Jor-El, his Kryptonian father from whom he gets his powers from. They most definitely set up the idea that Superman can save anyone from anything, except death (film 1) and if he does interfere, there will be consequences (film 2).

It did set it up with Pa Kent. That's why we hear the narratation with Pa Kent/Clark Kent's scene vs. Jor-El's wisdom when Superman flies up and starts freaking out. Superman is at a cross roads. "All those powers and I couldn't even save him" vs. "You have the ability to save them, but interfering with history is forbidden".

What happens when Superman disregards his father's advice, reverses time and gets rid of the nuclear war head to selfishly let Lois live? He frees Zod from the Phantom Zone in the process, who in turn wrecks havoc on the world.



I mean, what did you guys want? You wanted Lois to die and that's it? What audience would want something that bleak? Superman deserves to have that outcome, he disobeys his father's warning, and pays for it. He goes through an arc. What's the problem?

 

[snoop101]

If by good, you mean the worst of the summer, I agree.

Thanks Zack Snyder for starting the argument up again....

Did you re-write anymore more of the script?

 

[CelticPredator]

Nah. I realized the film isn't worth it. But it was a fun exorcize.

 

[snoop101]

That's too bad. You should spend all your time writing, you're really good.

 

[DiFabio]

You should spend all your time writing, you're really good.

That's one of the nicest things I've ever seen on these message boards. Snoop is a pretty good guy, thank him CP.

 

[CelticPredator]

I'm hoping that's not a passaive aggressive comment. Hard to tell....

If its not, thanks man. I appreciate it. Writing is a pain in my ***. I loathe it. But sometimes it's fun.