Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
RPG Post

Superman: The Man Of Steel

Recommended Posts

Does look like PVC or something, yeah.

,,

Also, something I noticed with Spiderman too...skintight outfits seem to incorporate that hexagon grid a lot these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably somebody out there feels that we need more texture. On the bright side maybe this will go extreme and we'll get Captain America in his fish-scale tunic for the next movie as an example of extreme texturing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He does look like he's been turned into a basketball by Red Kryptonite, but I've gotten used to the costume. I felt that the blue would be too overwhelming, but that's a very big red cape and that helps to balance it out.

,,

Glad to see Adams on that cover. I am liking what I see of Amy Adams as Lois:

,,

EiEn9D1.jpg

,,

And while I know next to nothing about what she's doing in the plot, it's been a tough two years for Lois fans and I'll take what I can get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New (and final?) trailer. 

 

 

There are a lot of adopted children in my family, so no lie: "you ARE my son" got me right in the stomach.

 

Not that I wasn't sold already, but: mediations on the nature of the outside in society, check. The superhero as an explicit ideal, check. Wrestling with a divided heritage, check.

 

Superman punching a guy so hard and so fast he doesn't even have time to hit the ground between blows? Oh hell check.

 

pre_1366223290__superman-punch.gif

 

It's bad to get overhyped about anything. I know it could all go wrong in an eyeblink. But dammit, you can't be a Superman fan without a little appreciation of hope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's nice to finally see some of Lois in the movie.

,,

I'm curious if Clark will still be a reporter in the film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is footage from Comic-Con that I haven't seen, that reportedly has Clark picking up a pair of glasses in a Meaningful Way.

This is just speculation, but I wonder if it wouldn't be a thing that if this movie is about Superman wrestling with which side of his divided heritage he will follow, if he only figures out at the very end that he can try and be both, and the last few scenes are him building Glasses Clark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea of him not being classic Clark in this film. It looks like there is a lot going on and I don't think a retread of that reporter introduction looks as interesting as anything in the trailer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's tough to follow up John Williams, and I don't envy Hans Zimmer's job. But I have to admit, despite it being a very different kind of music than the classic theme? I really, really like where he went with this.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love it. I am incredibly stoked for the U.K. release of the movie - day off booked and everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like really elements of it, but it also reminds me of some of the generic synth music I use for videos at work. I feel like instead of updating the Superman theme it is more of a modern Also Sprach Zarathustra.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today's the day. The reviews aren't great, but hopefully it is good. Let us know what you thought of the movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never buy into the critic reviews. They rarely match up with how I feel about movies after watching them. Was it entertaining? Did I enjoy it? Those are the two questions that count for me. After that, then I'll get around to picking the movie apart if I didn't like it, or if the story was significantly changed from the source material. The Hobbit, for example, really bugs me. Great visuals, and I'm happy they made the movie, but they needlessly changed the story in significant ways from the book. Still looking forward to the second half, but seriously, some of those changes just didn't need to be made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw it! Here is two thousand words on it.

,,

For a long time, I struggled with John Byrne's take on Krypton back in the late 1980's. There were elements in it that I thought were silly and at times downright ruinous. I felt, in a lot of ways, that it neglected what I considered to be crucial elements of Superman - the nature of his identity, for example, which I've argued about before, or how it chose to handle Luthor by making him the Kingpin. And of course, John Byrne cannot write a woman to save his soul.

,,

I'm also used to Superman in media disappointing us. Superman, to his fans, is an intensely personal character and one misplaced word can break the spell. He's also fundamentally a character about hope, altruism, seeing the best in others and not taking the easy way out, which are not popular qualities in modern action cinema or media. (Far more people cheered on Jack Bauer torturing people than we'd like to admit.) Attempts to make him "relevant" can be interpreted as code for "make him Batman with a different colored cape."

,,

So I'll understand if the minor flaws and one big flaw in Man of Steel break the movie for you, because that big flaw's a biggie. But I'm legitimately amazed to say that despite those flaws, I thought it was really good - in fact, mostly great.

,,

We all know the story. Doomed planet, desperate scientists, last hope, and kindly couple. Enough new wrinkles are introduced, however, that the story never feels like a retread. After a brisk opening on Krypton that sets the pace for the rest of this film - it moves fast - the movie immediately cuts to Clark Kent as an adult, struggling with his desire to belong to society via helping people and his fear of losing his anonymity and being rejected by the same. It's a relatable fear to have, and one of the tricks the movie pulls is not changing very much at all about Superman while incorporating universal themes and fears that everyone has. No one on Earth is an alien, but everyone at times feels alienated.

,,

The one who's truly been reimagined by Zack Snyder is Zack Snyder himself. Gone is Snyder's love of ramping and slo-motion and style as its own substance. He sticks to a hand-held camera and any pauses in the action are incorporated into the action itself - the villains pausing to savior the fear in their enemy's eyes, for example. This won't alleviate fears that Snyder has no substance, since many of the techniques he makes use of her have been used in other films (circular pans around Superman, for example, or the handheld-style zoom-refocus that Battlestar Galactica incorporated into its bag of tricks.) But this is Snyder's best film to date.

,,

It helps that Snyder's typical weakness - his tendency to coax less than stellar acting out of his cast - is shored up by a truly stellar cast. From Cavill on down, there's not a weak link in the bunch, though there sure are some weak lines (that credit goes to David Goyer, screenwriter for the Dark Knight Trilogy, whose overwrought dialogue is not so much worse in this film as having worn out its welcome.) There are a few scenes that hit the themes of the movie square on the head, but the themes are, to me, relevant and powerful enough that I can forgive them.

,,

The movie is essentially about trust and acceptance. Clark accepting who he is. Clark trusting that the world will accept who he is. Clark trusting Lois to guard the secrets he entrusts her with, and Lois in turn trusting Clark with her life. Jor-El and Lara trusting that the ship will make it to Earth despite the long-forgotten and imperfect science of space travel being all that they can rely on (in one of the movie's finer touches, Krypton's xenophobia and short-sightedness is what dooms it, as their society stagnates, draws inwards, and gives up the stars.) Zod's inability to accept that his world is gone drives the plot.

,,

The problems in this movie come down to a few plot issues, which I'll delve into after the spoiler warning below - along with story details that I felt far outweigh what the movie gets wrong.

,,
Great Krypton! Spoilers -- my ONE weakness!!
,,

At times, the plot moves at such an accelerated clip that moments go underexplained even when the explanation is present - for example, we find out that the reason Lois is brought onto Zod's ship is because she was interrogated just as surely as Clark is, but it's a dashed off line of dialogue that is easily skipped. Likewise, the keys that drive Krypton's technology have uncertain properties - the key that powers Kal-El's ship seems to wind up in two different places, implying that it can be duplicated, but if it's stated as such then I must have missed that.

,,

More problematic, and the single biggest problem in the movie, is the climax, where - after a truly terrific fight with Superman against a skyscraper-sized starship that attacks with nanobot tentacles - the Kryptonian criminals are sent back to the Phantom Zone. But Zod remains, and throws down with Superman in a devastated Metropolis. Zod's mastery of his powers is growing by the minute, and it's implied that the anguish of his hypersenses is driving him insane. At the climax, Zod tries to turn his heat vision onto a family of four, and Superman stops him by breaking his neck.

,,

Yep.

,,

Yes, I realize that Superman killed the Phantom Zone criminals in Superman 2, and that at the time they were defenseless, having lost their powers. Yes, I'm aware that the same problem undercuts the theme of The Dark Knight, where not fifteen minutes after upholding his One Rule, Batman breaks it by killing Harvey Dent. Yes, I know that this is how the aforementioned John Byrne era of Superman ended, and yes, I know that superheroes are more kill-happy in the movies than in the comics, though we sure did get through four Spider-Man movies without Peter Parker killing anyone. And yes, this is the best version of this mistake, as Superman doesn't toss off a quip - he breaks down in tears over what he's been forced to do. He's not James Bond dispatching a thug, he's a cop who's just had to fire his pistol at someone.

,,

It's still something that Superman shouldn't do. (Not doesn't do - the aforementioned times, Superman's killed plenty - but shouldn't. There is a difference.) Superman shouldn't take the low road. He shouldn’t go for the easy way out. What makes Superman Superman is that he will move Heaven and Earth to find a better way. His greatest victories are when he wins via cleverness and inspiration - qualities that win the day in his first fight with Zod, and in the two-pronged assault on the World Builder that exemplifies the trust that Superman has in us and that we in turn place in him.

,,

Both of these are absent in this last battle. Superman wins with brute force. It is an amazingly thematically tone deaf moment and I totally understand it if fans of Superman reject the movie over it, much as it took me a long time to come around on what John Byrne did with Superman.

,,

So why do I still think Man of Steel is mostly great? Because while it gets this wrong, it gets so much else right.

,,

For example, in the fight in Smallville, where Superman is outnumbered two to one, and then the military shows up to open fire on all of them, the battle begins with Superman distrusted by the military that not too long ago he surrendered to. Despite this, when Faora destroys a helicopter that moments ago was shooting at him (and a town full of civilians) Superman catches the man who falls out of it and checks to ensure he's all right. Later, after the Kryptonians have departed and Superman emerges from the rubble, he faces a wall of rifles. The man Superman saved lowers his rifle, and they all follow his example, as Superman's actions have won their trust. It mirrors a flashback moment where, after saving a bully at school from drowning, the bully winds up Clark's best friend. Superman's best victories are when he turns enemies into allies, even if only briefly.

,,

Another standout is Lois Lane, who Christopher Bird argues is the best female character in comics. There is no interpretation of Lois in any movie that even comes close to this one. She is Superman's partner. Not his girlfriend - his partner. She knows who he is before he even does. She's in on his secret from the beginning and is willing to risk jail rather than expose it. She keeps all her clothes on (it's Clark who gets objectified, running around shirtless in the movie's first big rescue and being called a hottie by one of the female soldiers.) Alyssa Rosenberg argues that by this virtue alone, Man of Steel is possibly the most aggressively feminist superhero movie of this generation, and I have a hard time disagreeing. Amy Adams pounds a stake through the heart of Silver Age Lois and her blatantly sexist characterization, then buries it in the ground with garlic stuffed in its cheeks. Good riddance.

,,

There's also the virtue of Laurence Fishburne as a note-perfect Perry White - a role that's traditionally been white - and having a "Jenny" rather than a Jimmy at the Daily Planet. This summer has seen a lot of whitewashing, from Star Trek Into Darkness casting *** as **** to The Lone Ranger trying to convince us that Johnny Depp counts as a Native American. Man of Steel goes the other direction - a far more welcome one.

,,

Then, of course, there's the action. I'm actually not sure if it is the best superheroic action put on film - at the least, it lacks the protectorship of The Avengers, where the team takes pains to rescue people even if they're slaughtering bug robots by the dozen - but a close second is not bad at all. They're directed with amazing technical skill and are full of lots of clever touches, like Superman slicing a steel beam in half with his heat vision just before it connects. While it's nowhere near as funny as The Avengers, there are some great moments of physical comedy and sight gags, like Clark's revenge on a sexist, violent trucker that assaults him, or his first failed attempt at flight.

,,

Finally, all of it's anchored by Cavill as Superman himself, who is the model of earnestness that Superman must embody, while delivering a new spin on it. There is some Christ imagery, but it's nowhere near as blatant as people are making it out to be. If the Donner films were about Superman-as-Christ, this is Superman as a Christian - searching for meaning, pondering difficult ethical quandaries, suffering from the occasional shortsighted comment or action that he immediately regrets. Young Clark is even seen reading Plato at one point, one of many subtle character touches, because of course Clark Kent would ponder ethics from an early age. Cavill paints a portrait of a Superman for whom being Superman is not a state he occupies but one he continually strives towards with superhuman might. It's an interpretation that allows Superman to grow into being Superman.

,,

Postscript: the last two lines of the movie are perfect.

,,
,,

So overall, Man of Steel is really good, with one flaw that may be forgivable or unforgivable as the case may be. I would rank it on par with Dark Knight Rises but below The Dark Knight and above Batman Begins, using the most directly comparable recent superhero movies. I do want to see it again and I think it has a lot to offer the Superman mythos, especially in its treatment of Lois Lane. If there's any lesson Superman has for me, it's to see the best in something. When I look at this movie through those eyes, I find a lot to like.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw the movie. Loved it. Will see again. Twice. At least.

,,

Rereading this thread from the beginning was entertaining, a microcosm of the internet's early doubts, complaints about the costumes, etc, up to the trailers getting us all hyped and now finally the reviews are coming in.

,,

MIke, you gave an excellent review and I feel only the need to comment on the spoliered section, so...

,,
Spoils! I has them!
With respect to Superman's final decision (and I've read a LOT of commentary on both sides so far), my ultimate feeling about is that it was the right way to go for the movie, and here's why:

People have this precious notion of who Superman *should* be...but the Superman most people think of, whether it be comics, the animated Universe, or the Donner films (more on them later), all have for the most part presented us with a mature, seasoned Kal-El, who is comfortable in who he is, what he is capable of, and what he represents to the good people of Earth,

In this film however, his confrontation with Zod was his first real fight, EVER (well including scrapping with Feora and Nam-Ek). He'd only just learned to fly, and here is being attacked by a born-and-bred soldier and tactical genius who hits him harder than anything poor Supes has ever had to endure.

With regards to some people complaining about why he didn't lure Zod away...for starters they were fighting mostly in ground zero of the World Engine, and second, Zod plainly stated his intent to start killing off humans one by one in revenge...If Supes had flown away, Zod wouldn't have chased him. Then Zod gave him the ultimatum...you die or I die, and finally threatened an innocent family. There was no more way to send him to the Phantom Zone. It was do or die.

Lastly, after doing so, Kal-El broke down with grief, and when Lois runs to him he collapses into her arms the most vulnerable he has ever been, devastated.

There was a comic where Supes goes to a pocket universe where Zod and his cronies have killed billions...Supes makes the choice to kill them with green kryptonite, and then return to his regular universe with the full knowledge of what he has done. He even says how nothing can ever be the same, and ends up going on an extended soul-searching walkabout of sorts.

It came out today that Nolan was originally against the choice, but Snyder felt like superman's vaunted morality, being that this was an origin story, needed a strong reasons. And, ultimately I agree with Snyder. This was a defining moment for Kal-El, where hopefully he will come back from it and say "never again." In the end, when Goyer showed Nolan the scene where it was kill Zod or watch family die, Nolan came around saying "ok you sold me."


Now speaking personally, I feel the "Supes Never Kills" rhetoric, while I can understand it, is outdated. To me, not killing ever is more of a Batman thing. For example in the recent Death in the Family arc, Bruce gets called out for letting Joker live. It is only Batman's pathology that has kept Joker alive time and again, and he always escapes and murders more people. But Bats is insane so we get it. Any rational human being would probably be like, nope...you are too dangerous to let live...you need to, and deserve to be no more.

The truth is, in a more realistic take like the movies are giving us, sometimes the stakes are kill or be killed. The Phantom Zone projector was destroyed. Even if they -could- have somehow captured Zod, no prison could hold him, and there was no hope of reform. Personally I see it as a mercy killing...the rabid dog that was mad and had to be put down. It is to Supes credit that he did not see it as such...rather not only was killing Zod a crushing decision he had to make, but it was destroying the last piece of his home (though he doesn't yet realize Supergirl is around somewhere).

My only real issue with the film was that right after this scene, the tone changed to something more comedic, with the whol e"he's hot" line and whatnot...I wish they had spent more time on the gravity of the moment before. However...this is fertile ground for the sequel. Aside from the people he saved directly, the general public is going to be scared shitless of this paradigm-changing first contact event. And...of course Lex Luthor is going to exploit that. not only will he get the contracts to rebuild a shining new futuristic Metropolis over ground zero of the attack, but he will launch a political campaign against Supes playing on people's fear and mistrust. He is going to harvest the Kryptonian tech (perhaps painting Zod's battlesuit purple and green?), and perhaps even Zod's body as Lex has a penchant for cloning Superman. Maybe we might even see a Metallo.

All in all, I am STOKED that this movie came out, and not only did Justice to the character (with particular mention of the amazing sic-fi intro), but also made him relevant and relatable as the most human portrayal of Superman yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whew! After seeing the film & looking over this thread, there's not much I could say about this film that hasn't been said already. Anyhow, here's my 2 cents:

,,

1- Nolan finally got the Superman concept done right, especially when compared to the warmed-over D.O.A. turkey that was Superman Returns.

,,

2- The psychological/emotional realism in this film was a huge factor in it's (AFAIK) overwhelming success. Superman may be an outsider in Terran/North American society, but he comes off as highly authentic and highly sane. They even show him drinking a beer while watching a football game, for cryin' out loud! How much more "typical/good Midwestern young man" can you get?

,,

3- The new take on Krypton seemed to incorporate all the best bits from the previous comic/film versions and made it up into something both alien (to Terran thinking) and relatable (since Kryptonians were never meant to be humanoid aliens with a Starfish Alien* mentality). It's not a developmental track one could easily see in the future of RL present-day humanity, but remains a unenviable possibility IMHO.

,,

*= As per the TV Tropes page of the same title.

,,

All in all, Man of Steel rocked my world. Whether it and it's possible sequel can do so well enough to plow the ground for a Justice League movie remains to be seen. DC's last attempt at a Green Lantern movie stank horribly. Likewise, the problems with getting a good Wonder Woman movie off the ground (which I consider part of the necessary foundation for the Justice League film) have been written about in exhaustive detail elsewhere.

,,

Now, back to my attempts to hammer out something postworthy for Aberrant: Nexus... :banghead::lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Wonder Woman would be awesome if they gave it a Clash of the Titans vibe (as much as the remake and the sequel sucked, the greek mythological underpinnings could work great in the context of a Wonder Woman movie done right), and Aquaman's Atlantis is basically like Game of Thrones underwater, which would likewise be awesome.

,,

Glad you dug it Sprocket!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More spoiler discussion below.

,,
,,

A recent Empire podcast had them revealing that Nolan initially balked at having Superman kill Zod and that in the original draft Zod was sucked into the Zone with the rest of the Kryptonians. So I'm not sure that I buy the "Superman had no choice" argument - yes, you can argue that he did, but it was set up to be that way by the writer and director, who could have chosen otherwise and very nearly did. I'm not mad at Superman for killing because Superman isn't real. I'm not really mad at Goyer and Snyder either, I just disagree with the artistic statement they chose to make.

,,

I don't think Superman's morality and commitment to nonlethal force is old-fashioned - in fact, I see it as radically progressive. An old-fashioned morality is on display in Game of Thrones instead, where the king can do as he pleases and heads are mounted on spikes. The "Man of Tomorrow" nickname represents not technological progress but social progress; the idea that we will one day not just have better technology but be better people. I think they do a good job sowing the seeds on this by having Krypton's death be due in part to social stagnation - in many ways they died long ago.

,,

Moreover: I'll let my Twitter friend Tom Foss weigh in with an excerpt from his review:

,, ,,
,,

... this is one of the best tactics to write a compelling Superman story: pit aspects of his character against each other. Stop the villain or save the civilians?



The problem is that Snyder & Co. don't get the second part of that tactic, the follow-through: when presented with those dilemmas, the best Superman stories realize that Superman's real power is to find a third way. When presented with the choice between compromising one value or another, Superman's greatest superpower is being able to find another way.

,,
,, ,,

I'd have been far more happy with the movie if Superman had found that third way. I like the movie. For its portrayal of Lois Lane alone I think it belongs in the Superman canon. But Superman failing to find a better way with Zod strikes me as a flaw. It doesn't kill the movie for me but I honestly think you could cut that entire last fight out and not lose anything. Superman's character is illuminated far better in the Smallville fight (rescues the military when needed, wins them over) and the World Engine battle (Superman trusts the military to do their part, takes risk upon himself and beats up a spaceship that shoots snakes.) By that point in the narrative, Superman's already chosen Earth pretty definitively.

,,

That said: that selfsame interview also states that Snyder and Goyer intended this to be Superman's "never again" moment, much like the similar moment was made out to be at the end of John Byrne's run on the comics. If 2 Man 2 Steel (or Man of Tomorrow or The Adventures of Superman or whatever they call it) has Superman confronted with a similar dilemma and has him find that third way, then I'll accept this as a proper priming of that storytelling pump. I'm not sure I'll ever really like it - but then again, my Superman wears trunks, and I came around on the trunkless look (still needs a red and gold belt though. Superman's got to keep his money in something.)

,,
,,

Re: the Justice League film. Sadly, I don't think WB has as much faith in their superheroic properties as Marvel does, to the point we're going to get Rocket Racoon in a movie before Wonder Woman, which is pretty crazy. I would prefer a different director/writer team take on a JL movie, too - if I had to pick anyone on Earth I'd pick Brad Bird. No diss to Snyder/Goyer, but one of the emerging strengths of the Marvel movies is their willingness to use different directors as needed. And as much as Man of Steel is Snyder's best film, Brad Bird's worst movie is still better than it.

,,

Finally: it is weird that the DC movies are the gritty, realistic films now and it's Marvel that's quippy, somewhat nonsensical bright and shiny fun. That is a complete 180 from how they sold themselves to me in my youth. It's a nice reminder that the differences between the companies aren't as wide as we may like to think - ultimately they are here to extract money out of us by leveraging our affection for their properties, and we should be mindful of the fact that they aren't really beholden to any superheroic philosophy beyond the almighty dollar.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brad Bird would be amazing! Though I must disagree that his worst movie (MI4) is better than Man of Steel (definitely Snyder's best work, though I still contend that Sucker Punch was almost universally misunderstood...even I did not fully get the twist ending upon my first viewing). Brad's best movie IMHO is The Iron Giant (with Incredibles being a VERY close second), in which the titular robot wants to BE Superman. Excellent idea Sir! Someone get on the hotline to Warner Brothers...

,,
Moar Discuss
I am familiar with that podcast. Ultimately even Nolan was sold on the choice. I concur it is controversial, and yes they did write in the Kobayashi Maru dilemma on purpose...however I agree with Snyder in the interview saying that they needed a solid reason to cement Supe's morality. To justify him taking that stand moving forward. ,,

Personally I dug the final fight...Zod finally getting used to his new powers, shrugging off his armor and rising into the air. It was the kind of superhuman knock-down-drag-out fight we've always wanted, but never before have gotten to see on the silver screen in "live-action" form.

,,

Personally speaking, had they gone with the original script and just had Zod sucked back into the Phantom Zone singularity, it would have been less satisfying on a visceral level.

,,

Supes will eventually have to kill again, when they introduce Doomsday down the line.

,, ,,

One aspect of the movie that I loved was that they preserved the Americana of Superman ("I grew up in Kansas") while making it clear Superman fought for ALL of humanity, and not just "The American Way." The bits where he was all straight up with them ('You're afraid because you can't control me, and you never will") and shooting down their drone was awesome.

,,

Also...Rocket Racoon FTW!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having finally seen Superman and having had time to think about it, I came away with the following thoughts:

,,

1) Superman didn't have to kill Zod, even with the set-up they had. He had the strength to break his neck; why didn't he just move his head away? Close his eyes? It was such a freaking blanant set up that I couldn't help but roll my eyes. They had that time to wangst back and forth about what Zod was about to do, there was plenty of time for Superman to nullify the danger to the civilians. Not that he was able to save the thousands of others dead. I get that it was personal, and I

do like that they didn't make him make that choice over Lois or someone he knew. He killed to save strangers. ,,

2) Did he not consider what he'd do with Zod after capturing him? Did he think Zod would just... stop because Supes had defeated him. While it might have been interesting to deal with that, I know why they didn't do it. I get that they're setting things up for other movies. I know Clark's a Boy Scout.

,,

3) How was law-abiding Clark Kent getting phony documents for all his name changes, hmm?

,,

4) I love that Lois found him before he really became Superman. I don't know that anyone's taken that angle before, and I liked that. But I would have liked it more had Lois been a minority. It would have adored the director who did that, then looked at the screaming fans and said, "What? Zoe Sandala is a brunette. That's true to the comics!" Then, I wanted Jane Foster to be black, just because I love it when racists lose their shit over the thought of the Norse gods being attracted to a black woman. It makes me happy in my place that likes to see mean asshats upset.

,,

5) Dear Hollywood, can we stop framing fights of good vs. evil in Christian overtones? Christianity isn't the only religion out there that has credos about right and wrong, the correct way to treat people with respect and dignity or the moral backbone to look evil in the eye and spit in it. It is estimated that less than one-third of the world is Christian (barely less, at 32%). You had Clark go see a priest (no doubt because of their confidentiality) to ask for advice. I go to comic book movies to watch fights of good vs. evil without having a single moral code lifted over the others. Good should fight evil because it's the right thing to do, not because their religion tells them to do so. I heard on NPR that you're doing it so that more Christians watch your movies. How about doing what's artistically right, and not what will rope in another million at the box office?

,,

There. My thoughts. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So this happened.

,,

KTQFYZ2.jpg

,,

I'm of two minds. I think it's the right move to take, instead of meandering through Superman's equivalent of Iron Man 2 when we all know we're waiting for the big teamup. This gives us a less big teamup that's still a pretty huge deal. We can wait a few years after Justice League to delve into another Superman solo film. And it looks like the cast from Man of Steel is largely back, so in a sense this will be Man of Steel 2 With Special Guest-Star Batman - and this is an ideal way to reintroduce Batman, rather than run through the origin again.

,,

On the other hand, the Nolan trilogy just concluded - I could stand to wait a little while longer, especially with how well received the Nolan films were. It's not like we're rebooting Green Lantern here, a movie best forgotten even though I liked it okay at the time. Moreover, I could go twenty straight years without seeing Superman and Batman fight again, and the news that they drew a little inspiration from Dark Knight Returns doesn't fill me with a whole lot of hope there. I realize there's never been a big screen Superman/Batman fight, so maybe that's unfair of me, but I'm just tired of superheroes being jerks to each other. Basically I want Superman & Batman, not Superman Versus Batman. I want them to shake hands or high-five at the end as they get finished kicking evil's ass.

,,

But we'll see. If it's out in two years then they are going to have to announce the casting of Batman pretty soon. Me, I'd pick George Clooney just because. Batman & Robin wasn't his fault, after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree....should not be vs. (though it looks like that is where they're going).

,,

The only reason Batman beats Supes in the comics is because of Kryptonite...but it seems they have done away with the glowing green space crystal in the Man of Steel Universe.

,,

In truth, the only reason Batman tends to win is because he is the more popular character. In reality, Supes would mop the floor with poor Bruce.

,,

As for something constructive, I'd prefer they use something similar to World's Finest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...