Amph Waiting For Superman: Gunnverse DCU/Elseworlds (New Trailer!)

I think we all know who will be playing Wonder Woman

 

Man of Steel wasn't the worst movie of the summer and it wasn't even all that bad, it's just that the advertising lead a large number of people to believe the movie was something other than what was delivered. The trailers are beautiful and amazing and fantastic and awe-inspiring, but the film itself sort of loses focus on what it's trying to be. The movie is a disappoint because of wasted potential, not because it's godawful. It's beautifully shot, the action is intense, and people are acting the hell out of it, it's just that the script beneath it all is really murky and mired in paranoia - the complete opposite of Superman.

 

It's similar to the logo of Wayne and Luthor's company. I think they made it on purpose to hint the possible future threat.

If that's Brainiac, then he is a Krypton AI like in the cartoon and SV TV series.

 

so the real gripe you had was the whole alien walks among us part? me personally i thought that was a cool take because if we all really think about it how would people react if legitament ( not superman) aliens walked among humans?

i beieve thats the reason why they went with that to add more of how would the audience feel if this happened to them sort of thing.

 

No. I in fact think he was saying the opposite. And being completely frank, my real problem with the movie was that:

A. The premise didn't make sense

B. The "conflict" between the villain and Superman had an obvious, unobjectionable solution that actually would've been easier and more in-line with Zod's stated goals to implement. They never bothered to give in reasons why he didn't just colonize elsewhere (even in the same star system!) instead of having a huge fight with Superman.

C. The unbelievable level of carnage and the implausibly long 90-minute "finale" action piece.

 

or maybe instead of overanalyzing everything just enjoy it as a fun movie. i can argue and say avengers had a very bland plot but in the end it was 2 hours worth of pure fun in the end. same with mos imo

 

You can say that. You should say that. I say that all the time.

 

I think you're jumping to concl-

*looks at person's username*

Oh...

 

No, the gripe I had was that Pa Kent tells Clark that he shouldn't do anything because people might be afraid of him. The gripe I had is that Superman is sort of fine with the collateral damage he and Zod caused, but killing Zod is what makes him howl in anguish? What about the human lives he was supposed to save like his space dad Jor-El told him he could actually do BECAUSE HE'S SUPERMAN? The idea that Superman is a symbol for hope just gets hammered home time and time again, except he doesn't actually do anything all that hopeful. We never see the effects of Superman saving anyone other than Lois, and we don't actually see him saving anyone. Hell, he doesn't really give anyone hope. His space crib becomes a weapon that they use to kill the remainder of his people.

We have these stunning, beautiful shots, but they mean nothing. The Christ allegory the film is so clearly going for falls flat because, well, Supes doesn't really do anything noble to save anyone's life, he just sort of punches some guys and helps trash Metropolis. The whole "aliens among us" thing doesn't work because the minute the real aliens show up (Zod et al), they flat out say, "Oh BTW dudebros our homeboy is on your planet and has been for years and he's totally basically human except he's not so like...yeah." We don't see much of people reacting to the news that an alien, singular, has been chilling out on Earth for twenty-seven years or whatever length of time. Clark just goes to the nearest Catholic church and gets himself framed in such a way that it makes you remember, "Oh right, Christ imagery is a thing they do with Superman sometimes." Literally the only person Clark gets any reaction from about "aliens walking among us" is a man of the cloth which seems like a total dig at religion at first but they salvage it.

Granted, the military folks talk to Superman, and I will say this, their fear and paranoia suddenly seems pretty reasonable at the end considering he just trashed Metropolis.

My gripe with the movie is that it just doesn't work as well as it should. They had all the talent and they just turned in a dark and gritty take on Superman, which isn't really all that interesting beyond pretty visuals and special effects because we'd already had three full movies of our dark and gritty paranoid vigilante.

 

I think the worst part is the beginning, it didn't explain Krypton's destruction well enough.

And why did they change Perry White to a black guy?

 

That machine belongs to Zod and is Krypton technology, so if it's really Brainiac's symbol, that means he is mostly Krypton AI.

 

What, that people would be scared of an alien being that had the powers of a god?

Does there have to be a reason to go elsewhere?

I take it you've never read a Superman comic, or watched a cartoon?

1. Collateral damage happens all the time in Superman lore. Metropolis was trashed a lot between 1986 and 2011, in the comics, cartoons and films. It's not uncommon for that to happen. Hell, he doesn't even care in "Superman II" until he's got his ass handed to him.

2. Superman saved the family from Zod, when he was going to burn them with his heat vision. Not to mention he saved the entire planet from the World Machines.

3. He locked them up in the Phantom Zone type location. Not kill them.

4. The symbol of hope is that he demonstrated that he wasn't in league with Zod and that he had their interests at heart. That's the start of it.

Except we see that Lois isn't afraid of him. We see that Hardy realizes that Superman isn't a threat and that the military starts fighting alongside him.

The city was going to be trashed regardless. All Clark did was stop it from getting worse.

 

Did it actually matter? Did it actually at all, in the scheme of things, matter? Because what really made no sense was Jenny Olson and why we should give a damn about her; apparently scenes were cut which gave her more to do hence why the audience is expected to care if she dies or not.

But, making Perry black - who cares? His race is wholly unrelated to his character.

 

Did you seriously just ask me whether characters should have motivations behind their actions? Especially important actions that the entire plot of the movie turns on? Really?

. . .

 

double post.

 

Zod has a motivation. Restarting the Kryptonian population. Anything beyond that is unimportant.

 

Wocky we've had this debate before. You don't want to give MoS credit for setting up the DCU on film and for reintroducing the Superman character to a modern audience. Moreover, if you want to compare it to a film like Spiderman II, The Dark Knight or Hensleigh's The Punisher (don't dare speak ill of this film, anyone!) then you will be disappointed because they were near-perfect takes on the genre and the character. MoS is more like Batman Begins (very earnest) or Spiderman I (an overlong origin story) and it has to do a lot of heavy lifting to set the world and the series up.

As a Superman fan, I loved the film. Loved it. So did sinister. I'm not saying you're wrong not to, but I'm gonna high-five sinister now for it.

//high-fives

 

If it's "unimportant" then why did he invest so much effort in not moving anywhere? His actions contradict your words.

 

It's good overall, better than SR obviously. But I really hope they get John Williams to do the music of the sequel.

 

I think because Zod was so single minded as a result of the Kryptonian breeding program thing. I will concur that Superman II's Zod had a more obvious motive ("Let's take our anger out on the son of our jailer! And conquer some people too! Yeah!" - Terence Stamp) for his actions but I took from it that MoS Zod had spent so long looking (and wasn't getting any younger) that they weren't willing to risk any more let-downs. Desperation to restore the civilisation, part of his programmed protective mentality, was his driver.

 

That has as much chance of happening as Taylor Swift and I have of getting back together.

 

The MoS Zod was good as a character, we understand from his view but not portray good enough as the antagonist. Let Jor El kick his ass was a stupid move, the antagonist should not get beaten like that until the end, he should be powerful and strong so the one who defeated him would be really awesome. During the invasion of the Earth they also didn't show his power well enough. Faora had better performance than him both in the fight against Superman and the humans.

 

Ender: Well, your spot-on assessment of the real Spiderman movies greatly mollifies and reassures me. Ultimately, though, I think that unlike those films, this one was too burdened by plot contradictions (like the one we're discussing now) to have been any good. Even were it not, I'm very skeptical of hoping for improvement as a series progresses. Iron Man started out with a similarly midling, pretty bad (though not outright terrible) first entry, and I tried to be optimistic that it would at least hold that tone. Instead it just became enormously worse.

Speaking of the whole Zod motivation thing, though, I'm unconvinced. Your explanation is probably the best I've seen yet, but I just can't see it as plausible. He passed five other planets on the way in. Venus is right there, too. I don't even see how someone from an intergalactic space-faring civilization would even consider that a different risk than settling Earth to begin with.

 

I don't know what you're talking about anymore. Is your cat walking on your keyboard again?

 

You didn't enjoy Iron Man 2? Iron Man 3 I watched a crowded Emirates flight from Rome to Dubai and that might account for my feeling underwhelmed by it (I'd been awake since 6am that day and the flight, notionally for 10pm, was delayed due to Italians). Question is, Wocky, are you a comic book fan?

Because I would guess you're not, at least, not a serious one. And this isn't a putdown - it's just that the comic films comic geeks love, the love for reasons of child-like joy. Dark Knight touched on wonderful moments in Batman history - the obsession that the Batman has for his quest, and its cost; the scene, lifted from The Long Halloween, atop GCPD with Dent, Batman and Gordon agreeing to take down the mob (and that line "He does that"); the Joker's comments that he doesn't want to kill Batman and they're destined to do that dance forever... - it all fit what we'd read on the page and made it look smart, and adult, and everyone loved it.

Similarly, with Superman... he'd dated, somewhat. The Chris Reeve film came along at a time when audiences were cynical and needed some escapist joy, with something to believe in. They got Star Wars, and they got Superman, and these were hugely influential films as you know. Certainly impacted on my childhood in the early 80s. So to see people excited for it, and a take that didn't just have us assume Superman was how he was because that's how he was, they showed us how Superman got to that place.

I just think you're watching these films and getting something different out of them and that might be because one set of expectations is governed by wanting to see the stuff on the page go to the screen.