What did you think of Man of Steel?

[TSCR]

Anybody here watch/play Injustice: Gods Among Us. It had a pretty decent depiction of evil superman.

Yeah I did and I liked it.

I just wish the way beat evil Superman would have been more creative......I mean come on, evil Superman has more experienced so I don't see how he can lose.

Do we really need the story of Superman retold to us for the seven thousandth time or do we want some badass effects and action?

I could recite the Superman story like scripture. I'm glad it wasn't the focus in the movie. If it focused on the less known parts of Superman's history, I could understand, but, even my mom and dad knew this part of the story, despite the minor changes, and they know nothing about anything.

There has only been one Superman origin film and it came out in 1978. We could get a better training scene now with the technology now. Besides we can have effects actions along with the origin story. It can still be interesting if they tell it in a way that hasn't been told before i.e. the modern approach they tried to take with Man of Steel.

I hate Superman. Figured I might as well put that out there. Superman is the worst superhero. You can all laugh at Squirrel Girl, or Cypher, or Aquaman. But deep down you know Superman is fucking stupid.

Why? Have you read the comics? Some of them actually have less kiddy ideas. One of them is whether earth should really trust Superman since he's so OP.

Donnor and Reeves was an awesome film and it did that without being overly dark. You don't need to make the film dark in order to make it interesting. In fact Superman isn't supposed to be that dark either.

[Turalyon]

I wonder what you all thought about Superman Returns in comparison Man of Steel.

I'm not a big fan of the character development either (largely because it's muddy and inconsistent) but let's see if I can go into bat for it...

Take Superman for example. At the start he's helping people and keeping his identity secret. He was going from place to place to discover his origins. After discovering his origins.....................he's helping people and keeping his identity secret. The only difference is now he's not going from here to there but is settling in one place but that's because he's discovered his origins. But still nothing happens after he discovers his origins. He pretty much gets a blue suit and that's it. How does he learn anything?

The lesson he learns is to be recognised in some form or another and to be more than just an invisible person that rescues people. Like Batman, Superman is supposed to be a symbol of hope and one can't do that if he's invisible. As a visible symbol he can do more to affect people's lives than just (and whilst) merely saving them. The "suit" allows him to take responsibility and to move on from the daddy issues brought about by his foster father's death even despite the cost of being potentially vilified.

So my question is what on earth did John's philosophy mean? Nothing changed with Zod's invasion other than it being on a larger scale. Even before Zod invaded it was shown countless times that Superman's powers were needed to save people from the direst situations. Besides there was no reason for him to even know about Zod's invasion so really John's philosophy seems to have been poorly written.

Jonathan's philosophy is nothing more than a father's concern for the well-being (in all aspects) for his son. He's trying to teach him and ready him for the cynicism in the world and as such is somewhat protective of him. He fears that people misunderstanding him would be a greater threat to him (which in retrospect makes sense when you have Lex Luthor being representative of all these particular troubles) even despite the heroism of saving others. Call it a misguided, selfish or whatever, but it's an understandable viewpoint for most fathers - he's just doing what he thinks is best for his son. At the least, it does call into question how (morally) good a father figure can be.

The other problem I have is John's death which is even more ridiculously written. The problem with it is that it makes Superman look inhumane. A human wouldn't just stand there and watch his foster father die even if he told him to do so. A human would run out and try to save him no matter what. Nobody can possibly hold Superman back. It makes no sense that Clark just stood there and watched John get swept away by the tornado.

Chalk this up to being poorly contextualised. The scene is somewhat explainable if we see all those flashbacks in tandem with Jonathan calling him out on his antics time and again and that he actually tells him outright that people will have to die sometimes. Jonathan had instilled in Clark a higher ideal to preserve himself at the cost of anything else which informs his decision to not save him. It's supposed to be tragic and informs Clark's subsequent lifestyle - he was nomadic and secretive to honour his sacrifice but still trying to save people to assuage guilt from not saving his father - however, there is a distinct lack of conflict between Clark wanting to save his foster father and the drilled in ideal of self-preservation on display that the scene just falls flat. There's also some dissonance in that it is potentially darkly and ironically humorous because Jonathan is ultimately responsible for his own death.

Above all this, the movie is incredibly inconsistent. Sometimes it does something amazing only to do something illogical. Like th idea of adjusting to the atmosphere was cool but the idea of Superman somehow learnin how to magically use his powers was bad. In the original Superman had access to the fortress of solitude where he learnt to use his powers. However in Man of Steel, he somehow knew how to use heat vision before he even accessed the ship. That's illogical because kryptonians only get all those extra powers when they live under the Earth's Sun. How did Clark learn to use all his abilities all by himself?

How is this a problem? Clark was a baby when he reached Earth - he had many years of exposure to the Earth's sun growing up so there would've been some experimentation with his powers. In Smallville, Clark discovered his heat vision by accident and just learnt to control it with a degree of difficulty and hijinks mind you. Can't see why he couldn't do the same here.


As for the plotholes:

1) Zod (a military general) getting owned by weaker opponents, i.e. Jor-el (a scientist) and Clark (a farmboy).

This is a tough one. One has to assume that Clark's life-long experience in Earth's sun has given him insight on how to best use his powers the most whereas Zod just had to adapt on the fly with his newfound capabilities. Maybe Zod underestimated the weakness of his enemies or that he's just out of practice since he's been a military general for too long. :P

2) Not enough logic provided for why Superman didn't try to take the fight outside the city.

Was Supes even given the choice of fighting outside the city? I thought Zod and cronies purposefully engaged Supes in Metropolis. I'm not sure he could've done anything else to avoid it.

3) The Krypton arc is basically a giant plot hole. Why couldn't they live on other planets again? Zod & Clark adapted just fine to Earth.

The other colonies apparently fell shortly after Krypton blew up. It seems the colonies were just not capable of being self-sufficient without Krypton to supply them. Earth apparently is more self-sufficient and there's an abundance of slave labour for them to use (ie: us humans). Also, it just so happened that the future of the race was embedded in Superman - so not only did they go to Earth to terraform it they had to go there and extract that codex thing from Superman to repopulate it.

I think the bigger plothole is why they would still want to terraform the Earth into another Krypton - wouldn't they potentially be creating weaknesses (ie: kryptonite) for someone to exploit? Then again, given that there doesn't seem to be any Kryptonite in the film, maybe they don't know anything about it yet I guess.

[TSCR]

The lesson he learns is to be recognised in some form or another and to be more than just an invisible person that rescues people. Like Batman, Superman is supposed to be a symbol of hope and one can't do that if he's invisible. As a visible symbol he can do more to affect people's lives than just (and whilst) merely saving them. The "suit" allows him to take responsibility and to move on from the daddy issues brought about by his foster father's death even despite the cost of being potentially vilified.

But that doesn't make sense either because the only reason he puts on the suit is because Jor-El tells him to and the only reason he was secretive earlier was because John told him to. So the movie was basically saying you should listen to your real father over your foster father? Not to mention that Clark never questions the conflicting opinions he gets from each father.

Jonathan's philosophy is nothing more than a father's concern for the well-being (in all aspects) for his son. He's trying to teach him and ready him for the cynicism in the world and as such is somewhat protective of him. He fears that people misunderstanding him would be a greater threat to him (which in retrospect makes sense when you have Lex Luthor being representative of all these particular troubles) even despite the heroism of saving others. Call it a misguided, selfish or whatever, but it's an understandable viewpoint for most fathers - he's just doing what he thinks is best for his son. At the least, it does call into question how (morally) good a father figure can be.

That's only the first part of John's philosophy. John's philosophy was that you need to hide and secretive but one day people will accept you. What does that mean? What is this 'one day' that he's referring to? Can he forsee Zod's invasion? This is what I'm talking about. The entire movie was about Superman helping people and they appreciated him for it. Nothing ever changed. The only reason Clark was secretve was because John told him to be so if anything the movie made John look like an idiot who didn't know what he was talking about.

Chalk this up to being poorly contextualised. The scene is somewhat explainable if we see all those flashbacks in tandem with Jonathan calling him out on his antics time and again and that he actually tells him outright that people will have to die sometimes. Jonathan had instilled in Clark a higher ideal to preserve himself at the cost of anything else which informs his decision to not save him. It's supposed to be tragic and informs Clark's subsequent lifestyle - he was nomadic and secretive to honour his sacrifice but still trying to save people to assuage guilt from not saving his father - however, there is a distinct lack of conflict between Clark wanting to save his foster father and the drilled in ideal of self-preservation on display that the scene just falls flat. There's also some dissonance in that it is potentially darkly and ironically humorous because Jonathan is ultimately responsible for his own death.

Yeah but even if the flashbacks were in order, that scene is still poorly written because it just makes Clark look inhumane. Clark loves John more than he loves himself. He doesn't care what happens to him if it means he can save John. Above all this love is irrational. It's ridiculous that he can just stand there and watch John get swept away after he had saved people before him.

How is this a problem? Clark was a baby when he reached Earth - he had many years of exposure to the Earth's sun growing up so there would've been some experimentation with his powers. In Smallville, Clark discovered his heat vision by accident and just learnt to control it with a degree of difficulty and hijinks mind you. Can't see why he couldn't do the same here.

Because he just learnt it wala. It's like Batman learning to fight because he wanted to fight. Snyder should have shown this because it could be one of those few moments where the use of these flashy effects could be justified.

[TheEconomist]

There has only been one Superman origin film and it came out in 1978.

I was talking about cartoons, comics, TV shows, word of mouth and generation pop culture knowledge. I've heard the origin story a thousand times and I'm not a particularly big Superman fan and, like I said, even my parents knew the story.

Besides we can have effects actions along with the origin story.

I feel that is what we got.

[Turalyon]

But that doesn't make sense either because the only reason he puts on the suit is because Jor-El tells him to and the only reason he was secretive earlier was because John told him to. So the movie was basically saying you should listen to your real father over your foster father? Not to mention that Clark never questions the conflicting opinions he gets from each father.

Well, given that he listened to his foster father only to lose lose him because of it and then proceeded to become all nomadic and emo, I guess Clark needed some guidance from another father figure to get him back on the rails. I didn't say anything about it being a good or satisfying reason but there you have it, Clark needs a father figure to tell him what to do which is understandable given that he's spent most of his life not know who/what/where he is or came from.

That's only the first part of John's philosophy. John's philosophy was that you need to hide and secretive but one day people will accept you. What does that mean? What is this 'one day' that he's referring to? Can he forsee Zod's invasion?

It's got nothing to do with foreseeing anything. It's just a white lie that all parents say to comfort their children when faced with telling them the hard truth that life's probably going to suck and most likely will keep on sucking for the most part. It's like saying "it'll be alright in the end" to someone when you clearly have no evidence or real foresight to back up that claim.

Yeah but even if the flashbacks were in order, that scene is still poorly written because it just makes Clark look inhumane. Clark loves John more than he loves himself. He doesn't care what happens to him if it means he can save John. Above all this love is irrational. It's ridiculous that he can just stand there and watch John get swept away after he had saved people before him.

I never said it was done particularly well but the reasoning I mentioned is the most likely explanation for his non-action. Maybe, his love for his father was manifested in his choice to respect his father's wish and his teachings (to look out for himself until he was ready reveal himself and to understand what sacrifice are) by not rescuing him. As you said, love is irrational and pretty twisted sometimes.

Because he just learnt it wala. It's like Batman learning to fight because he wanted to fight. Snyder should have shown this because it could be one of those few moments where the use of these flashy effects could be justified.

Conservation of detail. As Gradius mentioned, at least there was a bit about him struggling to control and understand the manifestation of his powers which is supposed to be representative of all those issues. One can extrapolate from that.

As to "Batman learning to fight because he wanted to fight", well, that is is exactly what you get in Batman Begins. Sure the implication is that he must have had some training beforehand before delving into the criminal element and winding up in the prison where Ducard finds him but we don't see any of it.

[TSCR]

It's got nothing to do with foreseeing anything. It's just a white lie that all parents say to comfort their children when faced with telling them the hard truth that life's probably going to suck and most likely will keep on sucking for the most part. It's like saying "it'll be alright in the end" to someone when you clearly have no evidence or real foresight to back up that claim.

I honestly doubt that John was lying because it would make the movie look more nonsensical.

Remember at the end of the movie when Clark and Martha were at the cemetry by John's gravestone? This is what was said:

Clark:
The day finally came where I was accepted.

Martha:
Yes Clark, if only John was here to see it.

According to your interpretation what is actually going on here is:

Clark:
The day finally came where I was accepted.

Martha (thinking in her head):
Oh no! He still remembers that white lie John told him. Well another lie wouldn't hurt.

Martha:
Yes Clark, if only John was here to see it.

So I guess the moral of the story is to always lie to your children?

As to "Batman learning to fight because he wanted to fight", well, that is is exactly what you get in Batman Begins. Sure the implication is that he must have had some training beforehand before delving into the criminal element and winding up in the prison where Ducard finds him but we don't see any of it.

What do you mean? Bruce couldn't fight properly until after Ducard trained him. Before then his fighting was clunky and incoherent; no different from how anyone not trained in would fight.

[Turalyon]

I honestly doubt that John was lying because it would make the movie look more nonsensical.

White lies are trivial, diplomatic, harmless and unimportant. You're making it out as if Jonathan is some kind of oracle which is just as nonsensical.

Like I said it's like someone saying "it'll be alright in the end". Just because something does turn out to be OK doesn't mean that what that someone said was meant to be initially taken as the foretelling of destiny. There's a name for this fallacy but it currently escapes me at the moment...

You also have to consider that his words are contradictory because he wants to give his son some hope and to leaven an otherwise depressing life lesson, otherwise all you get is this:

Jonathan: The worlds going to hate you if you reveal yourself because they'll generally be untrustworthy, misunderstanding and scared of you.... welp, it's dinner time, I'll see you inside.

So I guess the moral of the story is to always lie to your children?

You ask this as if it doesn't happen in real-life, but nom the moral is, "don't make a mountain out of molehill"... from a tiny piece of dialogue.

What do you mean? Bruce couldn't fight properly until after Ducard trained him. Before then his fighting was clunky and incoherent; no different from how anyone not trained in would fight.

Define properly? Bruce was able to take on a group of thugs single-handedly, win and be incarcerated for the safety of said thugs. There are not many people in real-life that possess such a skill.

[TSCR]

White lies are trivial, diplomatic, harmless and unimportant. You're making it out as if Jonathan is some kind of oracle which is just as nonsensical.

Like I said it's like someone saying "it'll be alright in the end". Just because something does turn out to be OK doesn't mean that what that someone said was meant to be initially taken as the foretelling of destiny. There's a name for this fallacy but it currently escapes me at the moment...

You also have to consider that his words are contradictory because he wants to give his son some hope and to leaven an otherwise depressing life lesson, otherwise all you get is this:

Jonathan: The worlds going to hate you if you reveal yourself because they'll generally be untrustworthy, misunderstanding and scared of you.... welp, it's dinner time, I'll see you inside.

The Superhero trope is that the father figure always has this philosophy that influences how the son fights. You get that in Spiderman with great power means great responsibility and in Batman Begins with how people fall so they can learn to pick themselves up again.

In MoS John is portrayed to have a philosophy as well so it has to be important and has to make sense. However it doesn't. That's why I doubt John was giving a white lie. His white lie was repeated a fair few times in the film so if we're not supposed to take it seriously then I don't know why the film did. The only problem is that John's philosophy was incoherent so although it was made out to be important, its significance felt forced.

Besides in Superhero films these father philosophies always turn out to be right. Look at Spiderman and Batman begins. Honestly I think it would have been better to give John a philosophy like 'Clark you should never kill anyone'. Snyder just doesn't seem to know much about writing a coherent story (yes I know Goyer and Nolan were in charge of the story but I heard it was Snyder's idea to actually have Superman kill so I'm going to blame all the film's story flaws on him ).

I wonder what Nolan thought of MoS. It had a strong premise but was poorly executed as a story. Really makes me wonder just how much he actually contributed to the writing.

Define properly? Bruce was able to take on a group of thugs single-handedly, win and be incarcerated for the safety of said thugs. There are not many people in real-life that possess such a skill.

His fight lacked fluidity. The other thugs managed to push and drag him back. He lost his balance and sustained too many injuries. As Batman he wouldn't have recieved any blows and wouldn't be pulled/pushed back by them. Sure he took them on and was doing a decent job but his inexperience still showed.

[DemolitionSquid]

Why? Have you read the comics? Some of them actually have less kiddy ideas. One of them is whether earth should really trust Superman since he's so OP.

Donnor and Reeves was an awesome film and it did that without being overly dark. You don't need to make the film dark in order to make it interesting. In fact Superman isn't supposed to be that dark either.

It has nothing to do with being too childish or not dark enough. I mean, quite literally, Superman is a complete fucking moron. Kal El is a giant fucking tool and consistently proves he has no idea how to use his power to its maximum potential, no matter how long he's been using them in any iteration. Its fucking embarrassing. No one seems to know how to properly write for a supposed god among men.

[Turalyon]

In MoS John is portrayed to have a philosophy as well so it has to be important and has to make sense. However it doesn't. That's why I doubt John was giving a white lie.

His white lie was repeated a fair few times in the film so if we're not supposed to take it seriously then I don't know why the film did. The only problem is that John's philosophy was incoherent so although it was made out to be important, its significance felt forced.

Eh, it still seems like you're over-complicating more than it really needs to be to me. The "one day" part is nothing more than Jonathan trying to give him some hope - the biggest white lie of them all.

His fight lacked fluidity. The other thugs managed to push and drag him back. He lost his balance and sustained too many injuries. As Batman he wouldn't have recieved any blows and wouldn't be pulled/pushed back by them. Sure he took them on and was doing a decent job but his inexperience still showed.

You still haven't cleared up how this makes it anything different from "learning to fight because he wanted to fight" - Bruce was still able to do a superhuman feat of besting a group of thugs singlehandedly before he even had "training". Who cares if it wasn't clean or that he took injuries, he did something that is next to impossible for most people (besting a group of thugs singlehandedly) and all because "he wanted to fight".