The big question, will Metropolis be rebuilt by the time of the sequel? Superman could theoretically help rebuild it, but...does he have superspeed in this universe? I mean superspeed besides flying? In the comics, he was equal to Flash in that regard. In this new universe, it's up in the air as to what they'll give him for powers.
Although Kryptonians are definitely fast in this universe--watch Faora take down those soldiers--they don't seem to have that so-fast-he's-invisible speed. I think that's a good thing; it's too easy for Superman to get out of a tight jam using it. Although, I think Smallville handled super invisible speed well, using Matrix-like "bullet time." [wyt=Smallville: Clark Superspeeds]zwQwWmOk3X0[/wyt] Slowing Supes down also leaves the opportunity for a value-add by the Flash. I've never understood what the Justice League needs with the Flash when they have Superman, who can duplicate Flash's speed. By having the Flash be not only faster but A LOT faster than Superman, it gives his character a reasonable contribution to the pot. I also like it that it kicks up some dust when Superman flies. It's more like the original leaping and less like the levitating he's done in other incarnations. I also like that, like Smallville, Superman has to "gather" some energy from the Earth before he takes to the skies. [wyt=Smallville: Kal-El's First Flight]AG4DCpA28Ko[/wyt]
Wow, what an excellent movie. I don't really see the need to even acknowledge that there are previous Superman movies after seeing Man of Steel. Henry Cavill makes Reeve look like a wimpy nerd. Pretty much everything in that movie impressed me and it was wildly entertaining. That's how Superman should be in my books. Want more.
As in most things, "Smallville" was fairly inconsistent in its handling of Clark's super-speed. Sometimes he was basically invisible. Toward the last few seasons, Metropolis citizens were able to perceive a red-blue blur when Clark used his super-speed to save people, and so Clark got called "The Red-Blue Blur" and later just "The Blur." I think there's a value add from everyone in the JL, even though hypothetically Superman does what Wonder Woman and Hawkman do, for example, strictly better. Again, there were definitely different approaches. In an early episode, I remember Clark dreaming and floating. In the series finale, Clark was being thrown in the air by quasi-Darkseid IIRC when he was like, "Oh, I can fly" after an imagined pep talk from either Jor-El or Pa Kent and then flew.
Part of the various subtexts I figure. There was a strong element of the Kryptonians being a very programmed race, with Zod's revulsion at a natural birth and inability to escape the social programming he's received from birth. The viewer can take away a few messages according to their own beliefs there, is Krypton the the pinnacle of the concept of "from each according to his ability"? Is Krypton where service to the state is all? You also had a bit of "tech isn't everything" with Jor-El's pet from Pandora being his choice of vehicle over the mechanical flyers. Jor El also mentions how they abandoned the colonies - perhaps looking inwards, with the likes of population control and more central governance. It does open the doors for other takes on DC too, maybe Kandor was a colony if/when Brainiac turns up, and there are the offshoot races like the Daxamites... MoS open a lot of doors for future storylines within the new DC cineverse.
But will it allow them to have Apache Chief in the JLA movie? And will he be played by Lou Diamond Phillips or Johnny Depp?
Well, Man of Steel didn't score nearly as well as Iron Man 3, but it's on track to break $600 million, which will make it the second highest grossing film (adjusted for inflation) in the Superman series, knocking Superman II out of second place. BoxOfficeMojo: Superman movie franchise
Finally saw it today. Overall, a bit disappointing I have to say. Man of Steel and it's popularity, both with some genre audiences and the general public help to illustrate why the JJ Abrams era of Star Trek and the Michael Bay actioners of today make so much money. It's wat the public wants, quick and fast action. This movie was a mixed bag. For the same reason I never came to Star Trek because of cool ships and aliens, I never came to Superman for action. It's probably why, although I like a number of genre mediums, I am not actually much a general genre fan. I like these franchises for different reasons. Superman, for me, is as much a character for hope as he is for superpowers. It's the hope element that attracted me to the character, not how many cars he can lift. I felt that was lacking somewhat in this movie. In fact, I would go as far as to say the cast were criminally under-served. I felt that Cavill filled the tights much better than Brandon Routh (not to take away from Brandon but he was clearly chosen for his likeliness to Chris Reeve) but I walked out of teh movie feeling that I didn't even know who this Superman was, a feeling I have not had before, even in the days of Kirk Alyn and George Reeves. I was almost disgusted that he learns to fly and become Superman in the course of just a few minutes. It's an insult to the volumes of comic books that have been written to show what a challenge it was for him to adapt, and it's even more frustrating when, as a child, he is shown to be having trouble. Not only was the origin story heavily borrowed from the Donnerverse, even down to some of the lines, but it all felt far less emotional and epic than the Donner counterparts. Numerous scenes come to mind, such as the brief and casual nature that Jor-El strolls in to the Kryptonian council and announces the word will end, totally lacking the gravitas of the Brando scenes, or the generally criminally abused Zod, who is given very little development and the great actor that is Michael Shannon is left to give stock deliveries of his lines. His Zod is, alas, utterly forgettable. Furthermore I just couldn't get to grips with the notion that Superman managed to beat an entire legion of Kryptonians who all are as strong as he is. While perhaps overused, one of the great things about Luthor is that it's not brawn v brawn. He's a human who relies on his mind to fight Superman. This movie didn't require the use of the mind, it just required shit to be destroyed. No, what this movie about is the visuals and that is enough these days for the modern audience, and that includes many on this board judging by the reactions on here to popular actioners. Don't get me wrong. The action was great. It was a joy to see Superman's flight and powers finally realised in the majesty that they represent. I thoroughly enjoyed all the fight scenes, although I found my favourite to bye the first scene where he puts on the suit because I didn't feel he was just one of the Kryptonian numbers at that stage -another reason I liked Cavill in the role. But, for fuck's sake, the many barely has any lines in the entire picture. Who is this Superman???? So annoyingly underdeveloped that I didn't feel I new this man of steel when the movie ended. I found myself looking more fondly on Superman Returns as I left the cinema. I just felt it had more heart. What it lacked was decent action. But, in striving for the anti-Returns I feel Snyder has gone the exact opposite. Sacrificing character for actions all the way. Perry & Lois? I just didn't engage with that at all. They cold have just as easily been someone else. Same again with Martha Kent. Jor-El's consciousness? Talk about a totally forgettable way to go out. Only Costner was interesting. In some respects I wish that had taken Cavill, the suit and the action from this and put it with the heart from Returns. The attempt to redo the Donner origin, both for Krypton and Zod, is excruciatingly inferior. Ironically, I don't have a problem with any of the common complaints for this film. The neck break didn't bother me. Superman had little choice. Same for the falling skyscrapers and the Smallville destruction scenes. He had to fight the villains and/or their technology, which posed a larger threat of death than falling buildings. No, as I say, my biggest complaint was lack of heart. If anything my perfect Superman film would be the Cavill version when the added development of the Routh version, with the Returns heart and the Steel action. The only scenes in this entire film that brought a smile to me face (aside from the aforementioned flying scenes) were the glasses scene and the Costner scene at the very end. Oh, and the score was awful. Instantly forgettable. A Superman for the action to order generation. Not awful. Just average.
Just saw it today. Overall, I liked it, but I was expecting a more radical departure from the Donner films, whereas this seemed to be just a blending of Superman 1 and 2. A couple of things stood out that I liked very much: The idea that the Kryptonians caused their own demise by decadence That we see Superman initially struggling with flying -- actually reminded me of Greatest American Hero The paired scenes in the church and interrogation room where he decides to leave his fate in the hands of humanity The idea that Zod lacked choices and was essentially programmed by the corruption of Krypton to be who he is I guess my biggest complaint is that while enjoyable, it didn't really update the myth in any meaningful way.
I liked these updates: 1. Jonathan Kent's pessimistic view of human reaction to Clark is actually proven WRONG, and that his steadfast protection of Clark's real nature leads to his demise. 2. Lois Lane is made much less gullible by avoiding the whole Clark-is-just-Superman-with-glasses-on routine, and smarter in that she's able to use actual investigation skills to track Clark down.
I actually was just watching part of Superman II. There were, as near as I could tell, no on-screen deaths or likely deaths. Zod & Co. at one point decide to use Superman's sentimentality against humans and target them, prompting Superman to go out of his way to save people, and then break off the fight to lure Zod and the others out of heavily populated Metropolis. Even when Zod & Co could use lethal force against people, they tended not to. (For instance, they use superbreath to blow away the crowd that for some reason thinks they can do better than Superman instead of just heat visioning them to death or snapping their necks.) In Man of Steel, the direct on-scene death count due to Kryptonians has to be somewhere in the dozens. Faora probably kills 10 soldiers singlehandedly in that one scene. Superman also seems more or less indifferent to helping bystanders out. Or perhaps more charitably, he has his hands filled dealing with the two ships and can't be everywhere at once.
I think the American and Russian astronauts qualify as killed on screen. The first American has his spacesuit torn open, the Russian is kicked into space (with his air hose torn away), and the second American appears to be crushed in the Artemis spacecraft. Here's the problem: you either treat the material seriously or you don't. If we're to believe General Zod (the Superman II version) is the kind who would subjugate a world, it makes little sense for him to exercise restraint in killing people. A real life tyrant would be using his powers to make dreadful examples of people pour encourager les autres. Superman does show concern for individual people (other than friends, family) several times in Man of Steel: the soldier he catches, the people he advises to remain indoors, and the family he ultimately saves from being roasted. I do think, however, that the film probably could've used a scene where Superman explicitly shows/expresses concern for the populace in Metropolis. Something like this:
Fair enough. I was talking about the part I watched, which was roughly from depowered Superman getting his butt kicked at the diner to finally beating Zod & Co. Despite the damage that was done in that time frame -- a bus gets thrown, heat vision explodes a bunch of cars, there's at least one throw or two through a building, debris falls -- we don't have anything that explicitly seems like fatalities. I mean, not to Godwin myself, but real-life tyrants killed by the thousands and millions. But typically not indiscriminately and not without purpose. In a world where there are three people as powerful as Superman and there's essentially no Kryptonite or other things that can slow them down, I could see there being no need to establish one's superiority or make an example of people. You just are superior. Also, there are various reasons Zod might not kill humans just because. For instance, he wants to be thought of as a benevolent ruler unless provoked. Or he may just think killing the average person is beneath him, in a way similar to you or I not bothering to go out of our way to swat flies. I think it's a different thing from happening upon people in danger and acting or telling them to try to be safe (what Superman in MOS does) versus actively going out of one's way to protect people (what Superman in SII does). That may not be the fairest comparison because Superman II has had years of being Superman to grow into being Superman, while MOS has not.
Oh, and Ursa blowing down that helicopter with her super breath couldn't have ended well for the guys on board. I don't imagine Zod would kill just for the hell of it--he doesn't seem to be that psychotic--but there are instances in the film where he is willing to kill people who are of no possible threat to him. Some folks are hard-headed, and nothing short of killing them is going to convince them to submit. Zod doesn't strike me as being possessed of a whole lot of benevolence. The one time he mentions benevolence is to describe his "protection:" those under it will be allowed to live. Well, he seems ready enough to have everyone at the Daily Planet killed just before Superman shows up. He tells Non and Ursa: "Kill the rest." And he seems perfectly willing to explode a bunch of cars and (almost) a tanker truck in the middle of a crowded city in order to keep Superman busy. Agreed, and on that score MoS would've avoided a lot of criticism if there had just been an instance or two of that. They're only the invention of their writers.
This movie was such a missed opportunity. Like the 1978 movie, we are in a low spot for America. We want hope. We want something to believe in. They had a golden opportunity to knock this one out of the ballpark. Instead they went dark. They went gritty. They went angsty, troubled antihero. One of the most brilliant (and probably underappreciated) bits in "Avengers" was when Colson is showing Cap his [terrible] new outfit and Cap says something along the lines of "I'd have thought the American Flag would be a bit outdated." and Colson replies along the lines of "It is something people need these days." To compare to the Evil Superman III look of Man of Steel, look at the iconic helicopter rescue from the 1978 film. If you don't get a lump in your throat it is because you hate babies. And puppies. And you wish Hitler was still alive. And Roman Polanski was free to drug and sod...whoops! Media Central! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HN7OBEd5hRM
Troubled antihero? What film were you watching? You had a man finding himself, yet still being selflessly heroic even from an early age, and able to put aside his fathers fears to place his trust in humanity. It was darker and grittier than the Donner movies, but hope and faith in people was at the very heart of the film.
Finally watched this too. Nice demonstration of CGI prowess with a few horrible green screen scenes no film student with a little self esteem would use (or Peter Jackson... oh wait, never mind the Ents ) So, big action scenes. No real emotional impact. Some twisting of long-established canon. Well why not, why not throw off the contraints when you're rebooting for the second time in under 10 years. It does what STAR TREK (2009) did to that other franchise, start anew and kill a few darlings. Doesn't feel like a Superman movie, though. It has David Goyer written all over it and thus it's a dark tale. Really, how often do we have to see the Supes origin story? Every bloody time there's a new movie? Really? Yes I get it, it was essential to the story but enough is enough. If there is still a person on this planet who doesn't know about the alien growing up in that idealized All-America, that person's probably not in the target audience. Anyway. I'll talk about my expectations for a Superman movie here: Everybody knows the character(s) in it. They are burnt into the public consciousness far beyond the reach of most other pop culture. When you walk up to somebody on the street and ask "Who is Superman?" they will answer "The good guy with the red cape". They'll also know he's very strong and can cook eggs with his eyes. There won't be talk about heavy philosophy, angst, loneliness, or explaining the S on his chest. It means Superman for chrissakes. It promises some fun, action and a lot of cold war era chest thumping. Of course the Nolan/Goyer team just can't waltz with that. Whatever those two tackle goes from light entertainment to something complex and dark. Which is good and fine for Batman. It's not too good for Superman IMHO. There is a nice little comparison I read somewhere. It's between Gotham City and Metropolis. Since both cities exist in the same universe and both represent New York, somebody asked what's the difference anyway. Gotham is NY by night. Metropolis is NY by day. A good explanation by Frank Miller and who are we to argue. Well, the new Superman exists in a place where the lights are definitely out. It's no real surprise they are merging the two franchises already with the next movie. Of course I can appreciate what those two - or Nolan togehter with his brother - are doing, but there is ONE huge problem: There is no place for any fun in their worlds. All dark, all gritty, all angsty, all paranoid. Again, that's perfect for Batman and their own non-franchised movies. IMHO it's not ideal for Superman who always struck me as a little lighter and more fun, especially since his powers are so over the top it's really hard to play it straight. I don't know how they do it in the comics but I guess all of Krypton has turned up on Earth in the form of kryptonite by now since it's the only thing that can stop him. In short: the DC heroes could use the light touch Marvel applies. DC heroes are mostly untouchable and unbreakable so there's no real reason to make everything so heavy, from the reflections on life to Hans Zimmer's score. Well. For the record: I didn't mind the neck snapping. It had an emotional impact on Supes and went well with the whole theme of struggling to be the 'good guy' for all of his life. Also, it's the only way to be relatively sure we won't see the 392nd miraculous return of an old enemy. It's atypical, of course, not even Bats really kills but puts them away to where they can easily escape for another round. Snapping is more realistic. And I guess after that quite destructive superfight he'll want to tread lightly as to not Incredibilize and thus outlaw himself. I especially liked the final scene with the drone and his 'I grew up in Kansas, General. I'm about as American as it gets'. That was one beautiful bow to how Supes has been transplanted into modern times but is still a relic of a romanticized America that's gone, one which quite likely never even existed. A final verdict is kind of hard. Since I'm usually on the losing side with comic book movies - I like the WOLVERINE movies and I think DARK KNIGHT RISES is the best of the bunch - I'll go with a solid 8/10 'because I was entertained nevertheless with special kudos to Amy Adams' Lois Lane, who's finally not a cinematic damsel in distress'.
A friend of mine (who owns a comic book shop) had a great script suggestion... When Faora says "And if history tells us anything...it is that evolution always wins." My friend suggested that, when Supes attacks, he should yell "NOT IN KANSAS, BITCH!"
I know, "Kneel before Zod" will always be a classic. However I do like the new Zod, when played by Terrence Stamp Zod was just a plain villain wanting to take over the Earth for his own. The Michael Shannon portrayal did not come across as evil, but as someone who knew while he was doing evil he did it because his duty and allegiance made him honor bound to do what he did. What ever he was doing was ultimately as he put it, for the good of Krypton and the people of Krypton. He was breed and born to be a defender of Krypton so his actions were not necessarily evil, they were what he had to do to protect his home and his people. And when he was cast into the Phantom Zone, he was being punished for what he was created to do.
Richard Donner did a prequel comic, where Zod, Ursa, and Non were originally as much good guys as Jor-El, and Non was even as smart as Jor-El. But, the council was so corrupt, to keep the impending doom covered up to prevent a panic, they lobotomized Non, who was going to go public, which scared Jor-El into submission, but enraged Zod and Ursa into open rebellion. Then, the trial scene in Superman occurs, then the relative centuries in the phantom zone drove them crazy, and made them really evil.
I do remember catching something about Non being lobotomized but not the Zod and Ursa being good. I thought Non was lobotomized because he was so strong and vicious that was.the only way to control him.
