PDA

View Full Version : Superman: Man of Steel SPOILER THREAD



Tycho
06-17-2013, 02:23 AM
I saw the call for this thread so I thought I'd post it even though I don't plan to see the movie for about 36 more hours from the time I'm writing this.

Beast
06-17-2013, 10:38 AM
It's an okay movie. It is not however a good Superman movie.

If they would have been called 'Sentry' and been made by Marvel.... then it would fit.

bigbarada
06-17-2013, 12:00 PM
I liked it a lot actually. It's easily within my top 5 of best superhero movies ever made. It might even be as high as #2 or #3. I think they got Superman right on just about every level and I actually found him to be a relatable character for the first time ever. Plus, they managed to wash the stink of Superman Returns away completely and that in itself is a monumental feat.

On to the spoilers because I've been dying to talk about these:

1. Why did General Zod's people demand to take Lois Lane along with Superman? Supes was surrendering to them willingly so what did they need Lois for? I understand that filmmakers want to keep female characters involved in the story these days; but they never really explained what the Kryptonians expected to get from Lois and their decision ended up completely working against them in the long run.

2. I wasn't really happy with the way Clark's dad died. He just stood still for several seconds doing nothing while a giant tornado was bearing down on him. I think Clark could have easily come up with a creative way to save him without revealing his identity. If it was supposed to be a situation where there were no options other than Pa Kent's death, then they should have done more to establish that. As it is, it was something that would really only happen when a movie is trying to force an emotional reaction from the audience. There is no way those events would play out that way in real life. Especially when Pa Kent dies trying to rescue the family dog.

3. This is the big one. Superman kills General Zod by snapping his neck. I actually don't have a problem with this one at all, because I've never really understood the hang up with superheroes who kill villains. With everything Zod had done to Earth, I think he deserved to die and I'm glad that Superman was the one to do it.

Tycho
06-17-2013, 02:43 PM
Well I for one like heroes to kill a lot of people. ( GREEN) ARROW on the CW is one example.

This was the best Superman movie ever in my opinion however it lacked the of keeping continuity with estalished cannon.

They could have done this and kept the action but kept continuity.

I prefer the cast from Smallville above all others.

Though iit like him best Batman would have been lost in dealing with the Kryptonians.

Voice to text can spell Kryptonians!

I'm at the mall outside of the movie theater soaking in some Sun.

Krypton should have turned to ice from something they did. The flying dragon was cool.

Joe-El Was awesome and Russell Crowe owns him.

Actually Kevin Spacey owns Lex Luthor Except for Michael Rosenbaums portrayal on Smallville.

bigbarada
06-17-2013, 03:34 PM
Well, since it's a reboot, then there isn't any established canon. ;)

El Chuxter
06-17-2013, 05:33 PM
I haven't seen it, but I think BigB asked for this thread because of my comments in another, so I'll chime in. :)

I thought the casting was a little wonky. Russell Crowe, Amy Adams, and Kevin Costner especially seem like weird choices for the characters they play. But I love Michael Shannon and wanted to see it just for him.

The first trailer, I thought was a bit weak. Not bad, just weak. I found it a bit odd that so many people who'd complained about "emo Superman" in Returns seemed to like it, since it was just Supes brooding a lot.

I think it was the second one where something really, really bothered me: Jonathan Kent placing Clark's secret over the lives of others. It's so out of character with every previous version I'm familiar with. Since Jonathan and Martha are Clark's moral center, this bugged me tremendously.

Still hoping for the best, I looked up some spoiler-ish reviews to see if maybe the line had been taken out of context and saw that, not only was it not, Jonathan goes even further by refusing Clark save his life. Jonathan should know that this would severely **** up Clark for life; he simply would not go out like that. He'd be the first to tell Clark to save someone else before him, but here he's putting the secret identity above human lives and Clark's future emotional stability.

And then in the same review, I saw the bit about him breaking Zod's neck, and the movie ceased to be a Superman movie for me, and I no longer wanted to see it. I'm not some prude who is against violence (I've got Richard Harrow as an avatar, right after he killed about twenty mobsters and still has their blood on his face), and don't mind heroes who kill. But some heroes do not intentionally take lives, and Superman has always been one. He has allowed some people to die, he has failed in rescuing people, he's inadvertently caused death through his actions, and he's beaten a nonsentient being to death and died in the process. He's even sentenced alternate-universe villains to death and left them in a situation where they were almost certain to die. But he's never been the one to directly take a sentient life.

It's especially odd since they made a point of this in Batman Begins, where his refusal to kill is a major plot point. But to make this concession with the hero who is supposed to represent the perfect ideal to which all humanity should strive (even if it's impossible to achieve it) is too radical a departure. It's like making a movie where Batman dresses in drag and prostitutes himself to get information from crack addicts, or Spider-Man is a time-traveling elderly woman, or Bumblebee is a hardened warrior who can't talk but pees oil on people (oh, wait, that last one happened and isn't just a bad dream).

I don't care if anyone else wants to see it and likes it, I just don't have any interest. To me, it's a movie based on Rob Liefeld's Supreme, a character who has less than zero appeal to me.

One last observation: it's funny and annoying at the same time that so many people who thought when Superman Returns came out that it was flawed but not awful (and I'm not referring to anyone here, just what seems to be the general internet consensus) now think it's the worst movie ever and that Bryan Singer should never be able to touch superheroes again. These people need to watch real crap, like Caligula or Mac & Me or Manos: The Hands of Fate (without the help of the crew of the Satellite of Love) so they can appreciate true garbage. It's not the worst movie. It's not the worst superhero movie. It's not even the worst Supeman movie (because it's pretty tough to sink lower than Superman IV). And that crazy Singer guy may not have made a perfect Superman movie (I still like it, but not as much as I used to, because it really does kinda drag in several spots), but he did make the first two X-Men movies, which are damned close to perfect, and whose success is largely responsible for all the other big budget superhero movies since.

bigbarada
06-17-2013, 06:09 PM
I'm one of the people who thought Superman Returns was horrible from the first moment I saw that they had cast Brandon Routh. I skipped seeing it in the theater and rented it when it came out on DVD. As I was watching it, it just felt like every single decision made in the movie was wrong. I literally hated everything about it.

I'm actually a little bit more forgiving of it now, even though I don't consider it a good movie at all; but that's really just because I'm relieved that they will not be continuing on in that specific Superman universe.

The funny/ironic part about all this, though, is that I found it very much out of character for Superman to be spying on Lois Lane with his x-ray vision and listening in on others' conversations in Returns. It made Superman seem like a voyeuristic peeping-tom. However, I don't have a problem with Superman snapping a villain's neck at all, in MOS. Probably because Zod deserved what he got, but Lois Lane had done nothing wrong that justified Superman spying on her.

Either way, I'm glad that Singer's version of Superman can be swept under the rug and forgotten about.

Speaking of X-Men, though, I thought that X-Men 1 and 2 were okay at best. X-Men 3 was actually worse than Superman Returns. First Class was good; but I really want them to reboot the entire X-Men film franchise and make something that at least somewhat resembles the characters from the comic books. As it is now, the movie characters resemble their comic book counterparts in name only. Not even their powers are the same for most of them. Unfortunately, as long as Hugh Jackman is willing to play Wolverine, that will never happen.

El Chuxter
06-17-2013, 06:16 PM
X-Men 3 was the one Singer had no involvement in, because the studio didn't want to delay it until he finished Superman Returns. And it is one of the ripest turds ever released to theaters.

Agreed on the x-ray vision being creepy. I just see a world of difference between Superman being a creep and a killer. I don't doubt Zod does deserve to die in MOS, but making Superman actively kill him sacrifices what makes him Superman, at least to me.

Beast
06-17-2013, 06:31 PM
It's not just Zod that's an issue. Superman goes flailing and punching villains through populated buildings in both Smallville and Metropolis. So not only is he a killer of Zod,... even though they could have found a more "Supermanish" solution. He's also responsible for countless deaths. Clearly when Pa Kent suggested that "Maybe he should let people die", he encouraged the psycho version of Superman we have in this film.

figrin bran
06-17-2013, 10:42 PM
No one seems the least bit concerned over how many Kryptonians Jor-el and Lois took out. Just saying.



I haven't seen it, but I think BigB asked for this thread because of my comments in another, so I'll chime in. :)

I thought the casting was a little wonky. Russell Crowe, Amy Adams, and Kevin Costner especially seem like weird choices for the characters they play. But I love Michael Shannon and wanted to see it just for him.

The first trailer, I thought was a bit weak. Not bad, just weak. I found it a bit odd that so many people who'd complained about "emo Superman" in Returns seemed to like it, since it was just Supes brooding a lot.

I think it was the second one where something really, really bothered me: Jonathan Kent placing Clark's secret over the lives of others. It's so out of character with every previous version I'm familiar with. Since Jonathan and Martha are Clark's moral center, this bugged me tremendously.

Still hoping for the best, I looked up some spoiler-ish reviews to see if maybe the line had been taken out of context and saw that, not only was it not, Jonathan goes even further by refusing Clark save his life. Jonathan should know that this would severely **** up Clark for life; he simply would not go out like that. He'd be the first to tell Clark to save someone else before him, but here he's putting the secret identity above human lives and Clark's future emotional stability.

And then in the same review, I saw the bit about him breaking Zod's neck, and the movie ceased to be a Superman movie for me, and I no longer wanted to see it. I'm not some prude who is against violence (I've got Richard Harrow as an avatar, right after he killed about twenty mobsters and still has their blood on his face), and don't mind heroes who kill. But some heroes do not intentionally take lives, and Superman has always been one. He has allowed some people to die, he has failed in rescuing people, he's inadvertently caused death through his actions, and he's beaten a nonsentient being to death and died in the process. He's even sentenced alternate-universe villains to death and left them in a situation where they were almost certain to die. But he's never been the one to directly take a sentient life.

It's especially odd since they made a point of this in Batman Begins, where his refusal to kill is a major plot point. But to make this concession with the hero who is supposed to represent the perfect ideal to which all humanity should strive (even if it's impossible to achieve it) is too radical a departure. It's like making a movie where Batman dresses in drag and prostitutes himself to get information from crack addicts, or Spider-Man is a time-traveling elderly woman, or Bumblebee is a hardened warrior who can't talk but pees oil on people (oh, wait, that last one happened and isn't just a bad dream).

I don't care if anyone else wants to see it and likes it, I just don't have any interest. To me, it's a movie based on Rob Liefeld's Supreme, a character who has less than zero appeal to me.

One last observation: it's funny and annoying at the same time that so many people who thought when Superman Returns came out that it was flawed but not awful (and I'm not referring to anyone here, just what seems to be the general internet consensus) now think it's the worst movie ever and that Bryan Singer should never be able to touch superheroes again. These people need to watch real crap, like Caligula or Mac & Me or Manos: The Hands of Fate (without the help of the crew of the Satellite of Love) so they can appreciate true garbage. It's not the worst movie. It's not the worst superhero movie. It's not even the worst Supeman movie (because it's pretty tough to sink lower than Superman IV). And that crazy Singer guy may not have made a perfect Superman movie (I still like it, but not as much as I used to, because it really does kinda drag in several spots), but he did make the first two X-Men movies, which are damned close to perfect, and whose success is largely responsible for all the other big budget superhero movies since.

I'm going to disagree and say that Jonathan and Martha being Clark's moral center is a bit dismissive of Clark's own role in that. For sure, they instilled a lot of great values in him but upbringing alone isn't the whole story. It's not as if we are all tabula rasas upon which all our parent's values get transferred into.

In the film, Jonathan lectures Clark about needing to decide what kind of man he wants to be and I feel that provides an impetus for the rest of the film. By connecting the dots from all the flashbacks, we're supposed to see that the tornado scene set him on a path of constantly navigating between going all out to save others but having to hide in the shadows and never getting any credit for his bravery and sacrifice.

As far as representing the perfect ideal of humanity, the world that MoS is set in is not a perfect world. It's not golden age or silver age at all. Even rescuing kids in a sinking bus, rescuing oil rig workers comes at a price for Clark but he does it with an innate belief in the greater good he is doing. He should not have to spend his 20's, 30's wandering from menial job to menial job just to keep his ear to the ground and find where people need saving. But that's the world they chose to construct for this film.


It's not just Zod that's an issue. Superman goes flailing and punching villains through populated buildings in both Smallville and Metropolis. So not only is he a killer of Zod,... even though they could have found a more "Supermanish" solution. He's also responsible for countless deaths. Clearly when Pa Kent suggested that "Maybe he should let people die", he encouraged the psycho version of Superman we have in this film.

But that could be said about almost every superhero film...Why didn't Iron Man lead the Chitauri slug snake creature away from the city instead of "bringing the party" to the rest of the team. I would just chalk that up to film making decisions. A fight in the city looks a lot better than one in wide open space.

And I have to disagree about your "psycho version of Supes" statement. He pleaded with, begged Zod to stop the heat vision blasts. Trying to look for the good in Zod as his parents would have wanted him to. Since he had never encountered Kryptonians before, there's no real way he could've known he might actually harm Zod. I saw that more as an act of desperation. Of wanting so much to not see those innocent people perish, he was willing to do something which pained him very much.

Just as I said earlier, that's the world depicted in this film. Even victories come with a measure of defeat.

I think a lot of the discussion thus far can be boiled down to whether you are more intrigued by Superman the ideal or Superman the person. Since the film emphasizes the journey of Clark towards ideals, embracing itself with detours and dilemmas, this may not be a Superman for everyone but still compelling, IMO.

bigbarada
06-17-2013, 11:09 PM
And I have to disagree about your "psycho version of Supes" statement. He pleaded with, begged Zod to stop the heat vision blasts. Trying to look for the good in Zod as his parents would have wanted him to. Since he had never encountered Kryptonians before, there's no real way he could've known he might actually harm Zod. I saw that more as an act of desperation. Of wanting so much to not see those innocent people perish, he was willing to do something which pained him very much.

Just as I said earlier, that's the world depicted in this film. Even victories come with a measure of defeat.

I think a lot of the discussion thus far can be boiled down to whether you are more intrigued by Superman the ideal or Superman the person. Since the film emphasizes the journey of Clark towards ideals, embracing itself with detours and dilemmas, this may not be a Superman for everyone but still compelling, IMO.

I agree. I would never consider a soldier who is forced to take a life on the battlefield or a police officer who is forced to shoot an armed criminal as "psychos" and I strongly disagree that that label applies to this latest version of Superman. Snapping Zod's neck was the moral thing to do in that specific situation. If Superman had somehow allowed Zod to live after all the death he had caused, then I think the movie would have lost all of it's credibility with me.

Beast
06-17-2013, 11:19 PM
But that could be said about almost every superhero film...Why didn't Iron Man lead the Chitauri slug snake creature away from the city instead of "bringing the party" to the rest of the team. I would just chalk that up to film making decisions. A fight in the city looks a lot better than one in wide open space.
But you know what The Avengers did right. They showed them saving and rescuing civilians.

Something that Superman, had he been written correctly, also should have been doing.

Not murdering them himself by bringing buildings down around their ears like a flailing child.

And I have to disagree about your "psycho version of Supes" statement. He pleaded with, begged Zod to stop the heat vision blasts. Trying to look for the good in Zod as his parents would have wanted him to. Since he had never encountered Kryptonians before, there's no real way he could've known he might actually harm Zod. I saw that more as an act of desperation. Of wanting so much to not see those innocent people perish, he was willing to do something which pained him very much.
Those innocent people who could have run away. Or who Supes could have saved another way?

The version of Superman in this film has no moral code. He's a destructive menace who's a petty jerk.

bigbarada
06-17-2013, 11:35 PM
The version of Superman in this film has no moral code. He's a destructive menace who's a petty jerk.

I absolutely disagree. It's like we didn't even watch the same movie.

I'll have to watch the movie again, because maybe I was so happy that Superman didn't spend the entire movie pining over Lois Lane and spying on her, that I missed some stuff. But I got the impression that he had a very strong moral code.

The thing with knocking the buildings down did bother me a bit, but think that had more to do with Zod keeping the fight in the city and not allowing Superman to control the fight. Again, I'll have to rewatch to see if that was the case. However, at worst, it's no different than all the destruction the Avengers caused in NYC.

Remember, Superman had spent his entire life surrounded with normal human beings, so he was used to being the strongest person around. Zod not only gained Superman's powers by the end of the movie, but he also had a lifetime of combat training to draw from. So, of course he was going to make Superman look like an amateur, because Superman WAS an amateur.

figrin bran
06-18-2013, 02:14 AM
I'm not quite seeing the pettiness and lack of moral code either.

Time and time again we saw Clark putting himself on the line even though no one asked him to and no one put him up to it. To me, pettiness would have been him realizing what he's capable of but not using it in any way to better those around him, not saving anyone in distress. As well, it just isn't possible for him to be everywhere at once so as much as some of us would like to believe in the ideal that he can save everyone, it's not feasible. We see in the flashbacks that Martha suggests focusing solely on her voice to drown out all the thousands of other voices that haunt him and that lesson gets hammered home as we see him focus on the task at hand (trying to neutralize Faora and Namek in Smallville) rather than mull all possible courses of action.

On a lighter note, did anyone catch the Easter eggs? Lexcorp tanker, Wayne Enterprises satellite, Sullivan's Tractors.

Tycho
06-18-2013, 08:21 AM
It's not just Zod that's an issue. Superman goes flailing and punching villains through populated buildings in both Smallville and Metropolis. So not only is he a killer of Zod,... even though they could have found a more "Supermanish" solution. He's also responsible for countless deaths. Clearly when Pa Kent suggested that "Maybe he should let people die", he encouraged the psycho version of Superman we have in this film.
Beast this made me laugh out loud thank you! :)

I think Hugh Jackman as Wolverine is my favorite portrayal of a superhero.

Michael Keaton's Bruce Wayne was great. Christian Bale's pretty good.

No one's done Superman better than the cast of Smallville.