veryfuller said:
I'm not arguing he has to be put in a filmmaking box, I'm saying that he doesn't seem like a fit for this particular property, and I would not say he is the "perfect writer/director" for it. And irreverent humor is one thing....but he hasn't made a movie that has the tone of sincerity that I think any Superman film has to have.
He could end up knocking it out of the park, but I'm not going to be hopeful of that until I see him do it.
Brian Earl Spilner said:
I guess 7 billion isn't a lot.
TCTTS said:The Porkchop Express said:It's not that he didn't want Clark to become Superman, it's that he was scared that the world would find out before Clark was ready, and thus tear him apart, or put him in a cage, or treat him like nothing more than a freak.TCTTS said:Brian Earl Spilner said:
Yes. He got done dirty.
As for heart, empathy and emotion, Man of Steel had it in spades.
Where? Was it when Pa Kent committed suicide via tornado, which had zero effect on the plot, since Clark ended up becoming Superman anyway, and none of the things Pa was concerned about ended up happening, thus rendering his death pointless? I guess I did feel empathy for the people in Smallville when Superman got in a fight there and basically destroyed the town in the process, which, it turns out, was merely a warm up for destroying an entire metropolis a few days later, and saving almost no one in the process. That was very emotional for those people too, considering they lost everything, and clearly deserved a way better hero (not to mention, screenwriter) too.
It was one of the dumbest deaths I've ever seen on screen. It would have made so much more sense for Jonathan to let Clark save him, then simply either ignore or explain away to the few people who would have actually seen Clark save him, as them being crazy or making sh*t up or whatever. Then, Jonathan could have continued to "protect"/guide Clark as an actual father is supposed to do, rather than being absent for the rest of his life/suicided via tornado. Especially after Clark had already used his powers in front of people in Smallville, and then continued to do so in the wake of Jonathan's death, hence Lois tracking down all those stories of a mystery hero saving people. The tornado thing, had Clark saved Jonathan, would have simply been another unprovable story in aseries of unprovable stories.
But the point of the scene is that he's willing to sacrifice his own life to protect his son from the rejection from mankind that he knows he'll have to encounter soon enough. Which he eventually does, of course.
The heart and empathy and emotion all start when he shows Clark the spaceship and young Clark says, "Can't we just keep pretending I'm your son?" and Costner starts crying as he says, "You ARE my son."
I'll give you that. Great moment.
The empathy is there when Clark restrains himself from beating up the bullies that mess with him at the fertilizer store. And the emotion is there when he saves the whole bus despite the one kid mocking him moments before.
Those were admittedly pretty good scenes too.
It's there when Jor-El is willing to sacrifice his own life to give Clark a chance millions of miles away.
Jor-El and everyone else on Krypton was about to die anyway. He sacrificed nothing, other than an extra day or two with his infant son.
When Clark is seeking to escape from himself, but fate keeps intervening. The scene on the oil tanker is the very definition of what Superman is. Selfless and unstoppable.
Good scene, but again, one that directly goes against the spirit of Jonathan's sacrifice, considering Clark still wasn't "ready" yet, whatever that means. In fact, nothing about Clark's character development ever signaled that was finally "ready" to be Superman. It needed that moment, yet it never came. Instead, he simply found the ship, tried on the suit, and then gave himself up to the military a few days later. I still can't believe that's how he was introduced to the world, after another alien (Zod) got the big reveal (to Earth) first. It would have been so much better to force Superman into a situation where he had to save people, thus revealing himself to the world in the process (Oh my gosh we're not alone.), everyone celebrates him (Dad was wrong!), only to THEN have Zod show up, and have everyone start questioning Superman/be pissed at him for bringing so much destruction, Superman's a freak, he doesn't belong here, etc (turns out, dad was right).
The entire battle of Metropolis is literally that, Superman being forced into a situation where he has to reveal himself to the world and fight Zod to save the planet. Also the "this man is not our enemy" is the "celebratory" scene you wanted. I guess I'm confused why these don't work for you. Because they're in a different order in the movie?
When Zod threatens Hot Mrs. Kent, you get fantastic Superman RAGE and then he takes extreme pride in what his Earth parents taught him on how to control his senses when Zod loses his helmet and can't handle all the feedback.
I mean I guess it's kind of cool that he's learned to control his senses, but that doesn't do much of anything to save his town. All Superman does in that sequence to "save" anyone is to tell them to "Get inside." Super fights with nothing but super punches and super rage are ultimately so damn boring. Superman actually having to physically save people *while* fighting Zod would have been so much better, and so much truer to his character. Yet we get none of that, not even in Metropolis.
The climax and BEST part of the entire fight is when he has Zod in a headlock, and has to choose whether to kill Zod to save the family, or let him live and the people die. No super punching or super rage.
I've said it before here. Superman is the hero I wish was real. He's not as cool as Batman or Ironman or Wolverine, but he's the guy we all could look up to and try to be more like (no offense to Jesus).
Agreed! But the Cavill version wasn't that person. While I think the Gunn version could very well be.
I really hope Gunn can give us something special. But when Superman is fighting Braniac's drone army while listening to "Dancing in the Moonlight" by Blue Harvest, don't say we didn't warn you.
Ha, I have faith that Gunn is smart enough not to simply make the Guardian of the Galaxy.
TCTTS said:Brian Earl Spilner said:
I guess 7 billion isn't a lot.
So much of the charm of Superman is him saving individual people, or a group of people, here and there. It's saving them from everyday dangers, like a firefighter with super powers. More importantly, it's the balance of him having to keep his anonymity in Metropolis while *also* saving people in Metropolis. The dual, competing lives, etc. Yet we got none of that in Man of Steel. Yes, he saved the world, but that's something we needed to see him work up to in a sequel or something. Because immediately saving everyone had the effect of feeling like he saved no one, especially considering how much of Metropolis he and Zod leveled in the process.
TCTTS said:Brian Earl Spilner said:
I guess 7 billion isn't a lot.
So much of the charm of Superman is him saving individual people, or a group of people, here and there. It's saving them from everyday dangers, like a firefighter with super powers. More importantly, it's the balance of him having to keep his anonymity in Metropolis while *also* saving people in Metropolis. The dual, competing lives, etc. Yet we got none of that in Man of Steel. Yes, he saved the world, but that's something we needed to see him work up to in a sequel or something. Because immediately saving everyone had the effect of feeling like he saved no one, especially considering how much of Metropolis he and Zod leveled in the process.
i do not know.Brian Earl Spilner said:
It sounds like you just wanted a remake of Superman: The Movie. (Aka Superman Returns)
Why reboot it if it's basically the same movie, just better looking? The Superman as the ultimate boy scout thing had been done for 5 movies at that point.
That's a gorgeous graphic novel. I love the reveal when he tells his parents that Lana has known for decades that he's Superman and just kept it a secret.Claude! said:
Have you read the "Superman For All Seasons" graphic novel? I think it tracks, at least in spirit, a lot of what you would've preferred to see in a Superman story.
that was my point. bruce wayne is irrelevant. he is a stagnant character with no depth outside of "muh parents died". he cannot move past that and his general moping provides almost nothing of value for storytelling.Brian Earl Spilner said:
The thing with Batman is it's rarely about him. Give him some great villains and people will keep watching.
It's why people love The Dark Knight.
The Batman did feel a bit more Bruce Wayne heavy, and also leaned way more into the detective side than anyone else had done in a live action movie, so that set it apart. Basically a noir thriller that happened to star Batman.
Quote:
But the point of the scene is that he's willing to sacrifice his own life to protect his son from the rejection from mankind that he knows he'll have to encounter soon enough. Which he eventually does, of course.
Quote:
The entire battle of Metropolis is literally that, Superman being forced into a situation where he has to reveal himself to the world and fight Zod to save the planet. Also the "this man is not our enemy" is the "celebratory" scene you wanted. I guess I'm confused why these don't work for you. Because they're in a different order in the movie?
Quote:
The climax and BEST part of the entire fight is when he has Zod in a headlock, and has to choose whether to kill Zod to save the family, or let him live and the people die. No super punching or super rage.
Brian Earl Spilner said:
I'll be honest, it just sounds like because it's not the EXACT Superman movie you would've made, you're making it out to be something far worse than it is. There's plenty of emotion and heart in the movie, but you dismiss it because you didn't like certain scenes or decisions.
It's not a perfect movie by any means, but it's far better than you give it credit for, imo.
Madmarttigan said:
TC is in a **** on things mood today it seems.
Man of Steel is by far and away the best Superman movie. Period. I with you BES.
Claude! said:
Have you read the "Superman For All Seasons" graphic novel? I think it tracks, at least in spirit, a lot of what you would've preferred to see in a Superman story.
IF you read that one, you have to read Red Son too.Brian Earl Spilner said:Claude! said:
Have you read the "Superman For All Seasons" graphic novel? I think it tracks, at least in spirit, a lot of what you would've preferred to see in a Superman story.
Not really a comics guy, the only graphic novel I've read is Watchmen. I'll check it out.
TCTTS said:
Let's liven it up a bit, let's laugh again at a situation or two Clark finds himself in with Lois, and then let's use that humor to set up genuine, affecting emotion in the ways Gunn is so incredibly skilled at doing.
Aggies76 said:TCTTS said:
Let's liven it up a bit, let's laugh again at a situation or two Clark finds himself in with Lois, and then let's use that humor to set up genuine, affecting emotion in the ways Gunn is so incredibly skilled at doing.
This would work for me as long as it doesn't get campy and borderline silly the way the later Christopher Reeves movies did.
I like what Snyder was doing with Superman, in his words "taking him out of the comic book and putting him into the real world". The world would be scared to death of an alien like this until he earned their trust. I think this is where Snyder was going but he got off course somehow. I like Superman as a serious character and I hope Gunn doesn't take him too far the other way.
TCTTS said:
I thought Cavill absolutely *looked* the part, more than maybe any actor ever will, but I honestly thought his portrayal was dry as hell. It wasn't *bad* by any means, and at times his Superman was quite good. But there was zero difference between his Clark and his Superman, there was no struggle in juggling identities, no nuance, no real pining after Lois, no existential inner turmoil as he fell in love with with her, etc. He was just one-note Mr. Stoic for three movies, who happen to let a smile seep through once in a blue moon. And again, it was a good note for what it was, but Clark/Superman can and should be so much more complex as a character than what we got in the Snyderverse.
Red Son is fantastic.The Porkchop Express said:IF you read that one, you have to read Red Son too.Brian Earl Spilner said:Claude! said:
Have you read the "Superman For All Seasons" graphic novel? I think it tracks, at least in spirit, a lot of what you would've preferred to see in a Superman story.
Not really a comics guy, the only graphic novel I've read is Watchmen. I'll check it out.
fig96 said:Red Son is fantastic.The Porkchop Express said:IF you read that one, you have to read Red Son too.Brian Earl Spilner said:Claude! said:
Have you read the "Superman For All Seasons" graphic novel? I think it tracks, at least in spirit, a lot of what you would've preferred to see in a Superman story.
Not really a comics guy, the only graphic novel I've read is Watchmen. I'll check it out.
I didn't love Man of Steel or the general portrayal of Superman in that and the following films, primarily because they tried to go sort of dark and brooding and it just didn't work. I never bought into the toneSuperman is truth and justice and apple pie, something that doesn't generally play well with the current superhero landscape.
I still feel like the ideal solution is a standalone retro Superman. Set it in a nondefined 50s/60s art deco Metropolis where he has to save the city from a mad scientist with some giant robots before encountering Luthor or Braniac or another classic villain.
Quote:
Superman: Legacy tells the story of Superman's journey to reconcile his Kryptonian heritage with his human upbringing as Clark Kent of Smallville, Kansas. He is the embodiment of truth, justice and the American way, guided by human kindness in a world that sees kindness as old-fashioned.
The Porkchop Express said:TCTTS said:
I thought Cavill absolutely *looked* the part, more than maybe any actor ever will, but I honestly thought his portrayal was dry as hell. It wasn't *bad* by any means, and at times his Superman was quite good. But there was zero difference between his Clark and his Superman, there was no struggle in juggling identities, no nuance, no real pining after Lois, no existential inner turmoil as he fell in love with with her, etc. He was just one-note Mr. Stoic for three movies, who happen to let a smile seep through once in a blue moon. And again, it was a good note for what it was, but Clark/Superman can and should be so much more complex as a character than what we got in the Snyderverse.
So the real dilemma breaks down to you having terrible taste.
