Superman Movie

[MrBedrock]

Where Marvel differs from DC is they have many more interesting characters that can be translated into good fun movies, while DC really so far has only had two great classic characters to pin their hopes on.

DC has more than two. Any of the following would be a perfect core character for a big budget theatrical project...

Jimmy Olsen

Metamorpho

Capt. Storm, PT boat skipper

Mister Mxyzptlk

Fox and Crow

The Hat from Leading Comics

 

[Timely]

I was thinking DC's Liberty Belle and Wildcat.

[MrBedrock]

I was thinking DC's Liberty Belle and Wildcat.

Well, that would be just ridiculous.

[Theagenes]

the city-wide battle between Superman and Zod in Man of Steel, and the fact that neither seemed concerned about the fate of the people caught up in their wake.

 

There's been a lot of talk about that. From my perspective, if aliens showed up and threatened mass destruction if a mysterious "alien among us" didn't surrender to them, I just might take the next day off of work. In my mind, those tumbling buildings were empty.

 

Mine too Jeff, though it seems there is no way to be sure. Then there are scenes where Perry and co are running through the streets, with buildings seemingly collapsing on other pedestrians just out of shot. So one's general sense is of human beings' individual fates being insignificant on the scale of these vast god like powers. We know also that Kal is concerned about people because he says "Get indoors, it isn't safe", during the first battle in Smallville. But he also causes a service station's destruction when he engages with other combatants. Of course, how can he avoid it?

 

So I think there are ambiguities, not carefully wrought messages. Whereas in Miracleman, the character of Kid Miracleman is so corrupted by his power that he has no inhibitions on its usage, and for the first time in comics we clearly see the destructive potential actualised, and it is clear that ir is Moore's intention to show us -

 

- that true evil is the absence of conscience.

 

This was my biggest problem with it as well and while I still enjoyed the movie overall, this flaw was not insignificant.

 

I am absolutely okay with them showing widespread destruction and loss of life. But I'm not okay with the fact that there are no repercussions or consequences or even acknowledgement of it. And yet at the end we (and Supes) are asked to immediately switch gears and care enough about one family that it causes behaviour that changes his character completely. It's internally inconsistent and that's the problem.

 

That final scene would have been more poignant and meanful if we had seen a few occasions of him earlier trying to do everything he could to protect lives during the battle, even at cost to himself. Or if you want to go the other route and say that everybody had been evacuated and th ebuildings were empty, then show him scanning them with his X-Ray vision a making sure they are empty. Something to show that he bothered to think about other people.

 

 

[Cat-Man_America]

the city-wide battle between Superman and Zod in Man of Steel, and the fact that neither seemed concerned about the fate of the people caught up in their wake.

 

There's been a lot of talk about that. From my perspective, if aliens showed up and threatened mass destruction if a mysterious "alien among us" didn't surrender to them, I just might take the next day off of work. In my mind, those tumbling buildings were empty.

 

[font:Times New Roman]But they weren't. It was 9/11 on a massive scale with all the gruesome stuff taking place off screen to obtain a PG-13 rating. The Avengers pushed the envelope, but made sure that people in jeopardy were part of the action; it felt real even without the bloodletting. MoS left the human element entirely off the radar. Given the level of destruction and presumed body count in MoS it would be hard to imagine any metropolitan city's survival. (see link below).

 

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jordanzakarin/man-of-steel-destruction-death-analysis

 

Questions worthy of reflection. My :[/font]

 

 

[font:Times New Roman]Why destroy Metropolis (NYC) rather than some other iconic world city?

 

What is the cinematic appeal of repeatedly destroying America's greatest city of commerce? (this time to utter ruin and incalculable loss of life)

 

What is the reason for all of the Kryptonian criminals except Zod speaking with germanic accents? (I didn't pick up on this, but it bothered my wife and I can see her point)

 

Why are all of the human female characters more or less two-dimensional stereotypes? (Again, my wife picked up on this more than I did, but if she perceived a gender bias, then that perception will exist for others)

 

(Other than the cynical marketing strategy of pre-screening this film to ministers to boost opening week BO, what other purpose was there for all the religious allegory?) The casting out of the evil Zod and his followers for defying the rulers, young bearded Clark as fisherman savior, father Jor-El's holy ghost guidance, Clark's confession and crisis of faith in front of the stained glass Jesus, the Phantom Zone as surrogate for purgatory, Satanic goateed Zod's tempting and torturing Clark to betray humanity, etc., etc.? (Note: I'm not opposed to loosely constructed judao-christian ideas being utilized in superhero films, but while I admire subtlety, I'm much less fond of heavy-handed manipulation)

 

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/14/superman-coming-to-a-church-near-you/

 

Here's another link supporting some of my earlier observations from an actual fan of the movie (never let it be said that I don't believe in giving equal time to dissenting viewpoints):

 

http://thesnarkwhohuntsback.wordpress.com/2013/06/17/the-passion-of-clark-kent/#more-2546

 

[/font]

 

 

 

[MrBedrock]

There is no Metropolis. It is a comic-book city. It represents, symbolizes, is a metaphor for etc., etc. etc.

 

But it isn't real. That's one reason why it is so easy to destroy. It's the easiest city to rebuild.

 

[Cat-Man_America]

There is no Metropolis. It is a comic-book city. It represents, symbolizes, is a metaphor for etc., etc. etc.

 

But it isn't real. That's one reason why it is so easy to destroy. It's the easiest city to rebuild.

 

[font:Times New Roman]No, tell me it ain't so!

 

I don't believe it! In my heart I know that Metropolis is real and Bedrock City is really Houston! I don't have to see dinosaurs to know the truth.[/font]

 

[font:Times New Roman]Wait a minute, ...you may be right! I've actually been to Metropolis, it IS a comic-book city.[/font]

[Flex Mentallo]

the city-wide battle between Superman and Zod in Man of Steel, and the fact that neither seemed concerned about the fate of the people caught up in their wake.

 

There's been a lot of talk about that. From my perspective, if aliens showed up and threatened mass destruction if a mysterious "alien among us" didn't surrender to them, I just might take the next day off of work. In my mind, those tumbling buildings were empty.

 

Mine too Jeff, though it seems there is no way to be sure. Then there are scenes where Perry and co are running through the streets, with buildings seemingly collapsing on other pedestrians just out of shot. So one's general sense is of human beings' individual fates being insignificant on the scale of these vast god like powers. We know also that Kal is concerned about people because he says "Get indoors, it isn't safe", during the first battle in Smallville. But he also causes a service station's destruction when he engages with other combatants. Of course, how can he avoid it?

 

So I think there are ambiguities, not carefully wrought messages. Whereas in Miracleman, the character of Kid Miracleman is so corrupted by his power that he has no inhibitions on its usage, and for the first time in comics we clearly see the destructive potential actualised, and it is clear that ir is Moore's intention to show us -

 

- that true evil is the absence of conscience.

 

This was my biggest problem with it as well and while I still enjoyed the movie overall, this flaw was not insignificant.

 

I am absolutely okay with them showing widespread destruction and loss of life. But I'm not okay with the fact that there are no repercussions or consequences or even acknowledgement of it. And yet at the end we (and Supes) are asked to immediately switch gears and care enough about one family that it causes behaviour that changes his character completely. It's internally inconsistent and that's the problem.

 

That final scene would have been more poignant and meanful if we had seen a few occasions of him earlier trying to do everything he could to protect lives during the battle, even at cost to himself. Or if you want to go the other route and say that everybody had been evacuated and th ebuildings were empty, then show him scanning them with his X-Ray vision a making sure they are empty. Something to show that he bothered to think about other people.

 

 

I think you nailed it. Values count, actions ennoble or demean, the epic was ever thus. Fiction isn't fiction, it is reality writ large, or we do not connect, we are not inspired, we merely experience.

 

The capacity to relate to the human condition is what gives escapism the heft to carry what is needed for catharsis.

 

At many points I though that Man of Steel achieved this, not least in Kal's furrowed brow, waiting for permission to be released, acknowledging moral authority over physical power. More Zoroaster than Christ.

 

 

 

In TV news montage about THE AVENGERS, we see various reports of what happened. Some people agree that the Avengers did good, protecting the city. Others believe it was their fault.

 

OLD MAN (STAN LEE)

Superheroes? In New York? Give me a break!

 

SENATOR BOYNTON

 

These so called heroes have to be held responsible for the destruction done to the city. This was their fight. Where are they now?

 

WAITRESS

 

What? That this was somehow their fault? Captain America saved my life.Wherever he is, wherever any of them are, I just wanna say thank you

 

 

You can argue that CGI is just CGI, that stories are just stories, and stories aren't real. You can say that to be entertained is enough, that we do not need to be moved or inspired, and that's perfectly fine with me.

 

Personally I was entertained, and to varying degrees, moved and inspired. This was a very good movie that could have been great, and somewhere in the battle scenes it sets aside its brain, and its heart.

 

But then maybe I just want too much from an entertainment.

 

However Superman is Zoroaster, not because he is powerful, but because he is compassionate, incorruptible. That is why he wins, even against those as powerful as he. Because he is good. He remains heroic even without his powers, as sometimes happened.

 

It was expressed as early as 2000 BC by the ancient Zoroaster faith in a hymn from the Farvardin Yasht:

 

"We worship this earth, we worship those heavens: we worship those good things which stand between the earth and the heavens and that are worthy of sacrifice and prayer, and are to be worshipped by the faithful man. We worship the souls of the wild beasts and the tame. We worship the souls of the holy men and women, born at any time, whose consciences struggle, or will struggle, or have struggled, for the good."

[Flex Mentallo]

Where Marvel differs from DC is they have many more interesting characters that can be translated into good fun movies, while DC really so far has only had two great classic characters to pin their hopes on.

DC has more than two. Any of the following would be a perfect core character for a big budget theatrical project...

Jimmy Olsen

Metamorpho

Capt. Storm, PT boat skipper

Mister Mxyzptlk

Fox and Crow

The Hat from Leading Comics

 

Rudolph

Sugar and Spike

Rima

Dolphin

Leave it to Binky

 

Metal Men would be pretty good though.

 

Platinum.

 

I always envied Doc Magnus.

[ComicConnoisseur]

Where Marvel differs from DC is they have many more interesting characters that can be translated into good fun movies, while DC really so far has only had two great classic characters to pin their hopes on.

DC has more than two. Any of the following would be a perfect core character for a big budget theatrical project...

Jimmy Olsen

Metamorpho

Capt. Storm, PT boat skipper

Mister Mxyzptlk

Fox and Crow

The Hat from Leading Comics

He could be the next main man.

If they don`t put him into outer space!

 

[MrBedrock]

He could be the next main man.

 

I'd be first in line (thumbs u

[Cat-Man_America]

He could be the next main man.

 

I'd be first in line (thumbs u

 

[font:Times New Roman]Let me guess, ...cast Dwayne Johnson in the title role! [/font]

[nearmint]

the city-wide battle between Superman and Zod in Man of Steel, and the fact that neither seemed concerned about the fate of the people caught up in their wake.

 

There's been a lot of talk about that. From my perspective, if aliens showed up and threatened mass destruction if a mysterious "alien among us" didn't surrender to them, I just might take the next day off of work. In my mind, those tumbling buildings were empty.

 

[font:Times New Roman]But they weren't. It was 9/11 on a massive scale with all the gruesome stuff taking place off screen to obtain a PG-13 rating.

 

How do you know that?

[Straw-Man]

none of us "know" if the buildings were empty, we only know what we saw on the screen. but was the national informal "day off" only urban? i recall people working at those stores in smallville when all hell was breaking loose after zod's ultimatum. the red-headed kid he saved looked him in the eye while at work.

 

his hands were kinda full while the buildings fell--i don't fault him for not being able to save everybody. i don't understand the need to contrive a way to make them empty. the movie was great to me, no matter the body count.

[nearmint]

none of us "know" if the buildings were empty, we only know what we saw on the screen. but was the national informal "day off" only urban? i recall people working at those stores in smallville when all hell was breaking loose after zod's ultimatum. the red-headed kid he saved looked him in the eye while at work.

 

his hands were kinda full while the buildings fell--i don't fault him for not being able to save everybody. i don't understand the need to contrive a way to make them empty. the movie was great to me, no matter the body count.

 

I see what you mean, but I consider describing what happened as "9/11 at a greater scale" as just as much a contrivance.

[Straw-Man]

oh, i didn't mean to endorse that pov---just that i don't think the imact/quality of the movie rides on this issue one iota.

 

the reason i kinda like it better with large loss of life [fictional, of course] is because it ratchets up the stakes. i love both die hard 1 & 2, but in 1, other than takagi and ellis being shot by hans, mcclane saves everybody, and all is good. lots of threat, little delivery. but then in 2, the colonel changes the readings on that altitude instrument, and crashes that jumbo jet killing everybody, after we had kinda met some passengers and staff; my jaw in the theater did just like those of fred thompson, dennis franz and mcclane----dropped wide-open. ante went up, and the movie was the better for it.

[nearmint]

oh, i didn't mean to endorse that pov---just that i don't think the imact/quality of the movie rides on this issue one iota.

 

the reason i kinda like it better with large loss of life [fictional, of course] is because it ratchets up the stakes. i love both die hard 1 & 2, but in 1, other than takagi and ellis being shot by hans, mcclane saves everybody, and all is good. lots of threat, little delivery. but then in 2, the colonel changes the readings on that altitude instrument, and crashes that jumbo jet killing everybody, after we had kinda met some passengers and staff; my jaw in the theater did just like those of fred thompson, dennis franz and mcclane----dropped wide-open. ante went up, and the movie was the better for it.

 

Very true. (thumbs u

[Aman619]

all they had to do was show Suoerman taking a minute to save one or a handful of people and in a movie, that image would have prevented ALL discussion of his lack of caring for victims.

 

Weve seen it all the time. Curious they didnt feel like cutting 30 seconds of redundant super-punching to cut away to a quick scene of saving somebody.

 

I didnt really mind, but its curious they chose not to include it.

 

 

they may have been intent on Superman more as an ALIEN for this film, and progress him to fully American as time goes on.

 

[Straw-Man]

if it's a few minutes edit we're looking for, i vote for getting the scene with the minister out of the flick. the little guy took the news that the alien who the other aliens want, or else, is in his chruch like it was boudreaux telling the priest he pretends to pull a few weeds when his neighbor clothilde is washing the car in her bikini, just to get some extra peeks.

[VintageComics]

they may have been intent on Superman more as an ALIEN for this film, and progress him to fully American as time goes on.

 

That could have been one of the points they were trying to make.