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

Well, I guess I can grant that. There is no point where it openly violates its own remarks on this issue. However, I do think they muddy it so deeply that one wonders why it was even included. They were never clear about it at any point, did lots of things that would contradict any intuitive way it could've been set up, and then never did anything with. . .whatever result that combination leaves you. So yeah. I bet the film would've just been better off without this.

 

Also, back to an earlier point, I flatly reject the notion of Man of Steel is Superman Begins because Batman Begins almost explicitly addresses the issues that Man of Steel doesn't in Wayne's becoming of Batman.

They show, over the course of the film, people reacting to Batman -- Batman inspires a young kid (to grow up to become King Joffrey, but still!) and Alfred explicitly takes him to task for collateral damage (even in the case of "It was Rachel!"). At the end, they cover the specifics: "You’ve started something- bent cops running scared, hope on the streets..."

You know... everything they entirely fail to mention in Man of Steel. There's no one who isn't afraid of him, other than Lois. That's Perry's reason for having Lois drop the story (or am I misremembering?), that's Jonathan's entire raison d'etre... it's a movie about someone defending a people who don't deserve it; who don't believe in him, who have no hope. The only two people he marginally inspires -- Hardy (in a great scene) and Hamilton (I guess because he's a scientist and thinks "meh") -- both die. Everyone on the street has no reason to trust him for all of the damage he causes and the military is still distrustful at the end (to which the response is: more property damage). The only hope they show us at the end is Clark as a child emulating something that, functionally, shouldn't exist in that universe (though that's up for a meta debate).

Further, you have the writers saying things like this:

Yes, because a central tenet or even a "I don't kill because killing is wrong" is somehow a crutch... good work!

 

(1) Admittedly it's a blink-and-you-might-miss-it moment, but Jenny "Olsen" does say "He saved us!" in respect of Superman. Storywise she's meant to represent wider humanity, I guess. Hardy also declares publicly to all his buddies that Superman is not their enemy. And at the end of the film, we have everyone from Perry through to Lois shaking his hand, welcoming him to the planet both figuratively and literally.

(2) You missed the second part of the quote, which is the "outside of the narrative" part. That is, there has to be a reason within the story for a character adopting a central tenet like that. If you were overtly pursuing the Messianic route as Donner did, that's a much easier exercise since the allegory is about as close as you can get to Superman being Superjesus - so much so that Schumacher went on to ape the Messiah angle without having the courage to adopt it as fully as Donner did. Jesus, in the mythic sense, doesn't need a reason to have a code against killing or never lie or say he's for truth, justice, and the American way with a straight face. (And you might note that even in the Donner film, that statement was met with an arched eyebrow by Lois and a statement that Superman was going to wind up fighting every elected politician in the country.)

The problem is that this isn't the Donner Superman; it's a Superman for a generation that has been increasingly told tonot suspend disbelief for mythic archetypes unless they're heavily disguised or unless they are accompanied by that awful god of logic who demands longwinded rationalisation for every frickin' thing a fictional character does. So be it; welcome to the post-modern world where even the Hero's Journey has to be looked at cynically by a bunch of blowhards who have nothing better to offer for the human psyche. Anyway, getting back to the point: absolute moral standards are out of fashion, clearly. Me, I'm prepared to look past the trappings and the blowhards and the non-Terrenzod to see it's the same mythic archetype underneath. The writer felt refusing to kill for an alien who has been crapped on by his life and by humanity in general was a rule he didn't want to arbitrarily impose without a crucible in which to form that belief.

 

"Killing is wrong."

I learned it from my parents / in Sunday school / from society that I grew up in / etc.

Pick one.

And the "welcome to the Planet," while ironic, is not emblematic of the hope of mankind welcoming an alien -- it's an in-joke and one that Lois, the only one who knows, is in on.

 

Saintheart: You make excellent points, but in regards to the Donner film, Superman's compassion is so much not innate but rather a natural product of his upbringing by Ma and Pa Kent. Even in their handful of scenes, their profound decency is well-established.

Considering that Kevin Costner and Diane Lane inhabited their roles fairly well and were, IMO, the only two redeeming qualities to this trainwreck, there needn't have been a Zod fatality. The sequence in which Superman (rightfully) goes ballistic on the female villain threatening his mother could have ended with a moment where the hero had the opportunity to kill her. And, after much agony and reflection, he refuses to do so. The impetus for said decision would be implicit. Instead, Snyder and Goyer opted to foist more death onto Man of Steel.

 

Like I said, absolute moral standards are out of fashion in narratives. I'm not doubting that killing is wrong, but learning it from your parents is one thing; having it preached at you from a movie screen - to today's generation - is another.

And I'd be really surprised if, in-universe, it is only Lois who knows. That wasn't the take I got from Laurence Fishburne's performance at the end there.

 

Yes, as this is almost the entire point of Superman -- the alien who can do all of these amazing things is not innately better than humanity, but he is that way because of humanity.

Well, right... the whole "secret identity" thing is stupid since he flat tells the General he's from Kansas. But, yes, we're honestly apparently supposed to believe in that scene that no one knows but Lois. Because this is Superman Begins...

 

I hope in the director's cut, Superman rips Zod's head off and throws it at Lois.

 

Perry is also an absolutely terrible journalist, because he believes the public doesn't deserve the truth.

The thing is, though, killing Zod isn't as big a deal as people are making it out to be. Superman did exactly that in the comics, but the difference is the comics had spent time building up how much he values life, freedom, all those great ideals we associate with Superman. More than that, he chooses to kill Zod in the comics, and it's not a choice he makes lightly. They followed it up with people calling him out on it, Superman being filled with remorse and self-doubt, and an actual struggle as he comes to terms with what he did and swears to never take a life again. In short, they made a very compelling and worthwhile story out of it.

Man of Steel doesn't do that. Zod says, "one of us will have to die," and he's absolutely right, and Superman proves him right. There wasn't a victory at the end of the movie, just a resignation to fate. Superman doesn't make a choice, he reacts - and honestly, Zod's death doesn't bother me as much as Superman's lack of respect for life. This is endemic to this movie; Superman only ever does things because other people tell him to. Jonathan Kent dies because he tells Clark not to save him. Superman only becomes Superman because Jor-El tells him to. Superman kills Zod because Zod says it's the only way to stop the violence. I will say this, maybe Superman is acting in the interests of the greater good - Metropolis gets trashed, but it's better than the world ceasing to be and the human population being exterminated by Zod - but this isn't addressed, hinted at, or implied by the movie. Jor-El says Superman can save everyone, but he fails to do that. He saves the world, yes, but it's an extremely pyrrhic victory. I can hope they'll address this in the sequel, though I doubt they will.

The climax of the movie is in Metropolis, and it gets absolutely trashed because Superman has to stop the machine on the other side of the planet. Why isn't that one guarded? Does he stop that one because the scary Zodlings aren't there and can't hit him? Or is it just because the plot demands it of him so that Metropolis can be absolutely demolished via imagery that strongly echoes 9/11? I'm not saying that in a Superman movie there won't be collateral damage, but seriously, is there much left of Metropolis at all? Then he and Zod get into a boxing match in the ruins of the city and destroy it some more. In Smallville, Superman does some token "rescue the soldiers and some innocents" thing, but at no point does he just sort of lure the bad guys away from the civilians. "He couldn't, did you see that close quarters fight?" He had plenty of opportunity, and the only reason we get to see Smallville's main street get wrecked is because Snyder wanted to show something close to home. I'm not pulling this out of thin air, if you go back to the marketing for this movie, the reason they included 7-11 and other known names (aside from sweet sweet money) is because a 7-11 blowing up has more impact than some fictional gas station. Snyder says about as much.

Okay, so: the World Machines or whatever they're called are a clear MacGuffin, or at least the fact that they need a pair is, because seriously it's just an excuse to get Superman out of Metropolis while it gets trashed. Once it's trashed, I guess everyone is dead, so they can trash it some more, that I can live with a bit more, but they do get into city blocks that look remarkably unaffected by the World Machines (or is it Khan's Genesis Device? I honestly can't recall the name) and then the final confrontation between Zod and Superman (is that Penn Station? It certainly looks like it) has people who seem to be going about their day as though the apocalypse didn't just nearly happen. Seriously, the train station is weirdly in tact considering what just happened - maybe the destruction of Metropolis is just exaggerated by Snyder's style, I couldn't say.

As to the folks making the bombing run on the Kryptonian ship, the plane crashes into the Kryptonian ship. It's even given an ironic echo by Hardy - "A good death is its own reward," - making it pretty clear that this is a suicide run. Superman's space crib, emblazoned with the Kryptonian symbol for hope, is turned into a weapon to stop his fellow Kryptonians, who are, granted, pretty clearly not nice people. I'm certain the plan was to bomb the ship with the space crib (seriously, his crib is weaponized) but Faora kind of forces them to go big or go home and so Hardy crashes the plane into the target.

At the end of the movie, everyone seems pretty accepting of Superman (except General Swannick, and good for him - seriously though, Superman is trashing millions of dollars of equipment just because they don't trust an alien whose brethren nearly destroyed the planet; Superman is kind of a dick), and the Daily Planet exists once more! Didn't it fall down earlier in the movie? Maybe they just bought a new building in Metropolis' other downtown core; who are we to say they don't have spares? I think I could have handled a lot of the destruction in Metropolis if they'd shown Superman trying to avoid it or at least helping with reconstruction (again, maybe in the sequel).

All this being said, I liked the movie when I watched it. "You are my son!" made me tear up a bit, as did a huge amount of the stuff shown in the trailers. It felt so good when Superman beat the crap out of Zod for threatening Martha Kent. Superman was impressive (even if the first flight bit was really lame), Cavill was excellent, and the cast did great with what they were given. They sell the hell out of it all, and Snyder's eye for impressive visuals and mise en scene is one of the best in Hollywood; however, this doesn't translate to giving the narrative a good flow or structure. The screenplay isn't bad in terms of dialogue (but "**** splash?" Really?), and it certainly knows what beats it's trying to hit, but it lacks something - perhaps the cohesiveness given by a director who really understands storytelling, or perhaps that is present in the screenplay too. This isn't a bad movie, just a disappointing one. All my complaints came after I watched it, but during I was massively entertained.

 

I dunno, Sean Astin's Samwise was popular with audiences, and the Harry Potter of the movies is squeaky clean. Why not take the chance? Why doesn't DC hire someone who actually believes in heroes (Brad Bird *cough*), and see how the kids take to the Big Blue Boyscout?

And if you're right, and the younglings balk at nobility, then we've got far bigger problems then a bad Superman movie.

 

i will say this new ben affleck film called runner runner looks interesting


George Clooney comments on Ben Affleck playing Batman, noting that he "terribly destroyed" the character.


http://collider.com/batman-superman-david-goyer-george-clooney/

 

It wasn't really Clooney's fault though. Studio interference and directorial eccentricity were the main culprits.

 

agreed. if anything id like to see o donnel back as robin or nightwing but w/e.

 

What's O'Donnel doing nowadays?

 

Technically, it's all Tim Burton's fault - he made the movies too violent and dark, so the studio brought in someone who would lighten it up. Everyone did their job, it's just the almighty dollar dictated a lot of the changes and tonal shifts.

 

Yeah I guess since Batman Returns was so morbid. The PG13 was a joke to be honest.

 

ncis la

 

NCIS-LA

Edit: ninja'd

 

That's too bad.

 

That and that he's a bit too old to be a sidekick or former sidekick...not that he was ever a good Robin to begin with, IMO.

 

He's not too old!

 

Eh I'm not going to repeat my arguments in favour of Man of Steel, even though dp4m is regurgitating his arguments against it which I responded to. Circles make me dizzy.

 

That's not really an option.

Still it does not prove he captured the council.

Ok he got important things to do, he did it, and then his coup failed in less than one day when he could had the council as hostage. Does it look like a good preped coup?

What? And disable it would also cause it to crash.

Zod needed the Codex from Kal El, it would be stupid to start a war with the humans before that because their resistance might cause Kal El to hide, thus they might never be able to find the codex.

I believe it's from the background novel of MoS or something. it mentioned Zod's name and his relationship with Jor El. Again, there is proof in the movie, from Zod himself.

Zod doesn't look like someone who would throw out such nonsense, we don't see him act like that in the movie.

 

Thought you were going to just leave it as opinions, Slowpoke.

Um, actually it is. According to your own Rigorous Demand For Proof (tm), provide proof that it isn't. On what passes on film, they're imprisoned inside a spaceship. When they are released from the Phantom Zone, they are nowhere near Sol's empowering rays and are therefore entirely vulnerable. One that has these holes called "docking bays" and even, possibly, these things called "airlocks" inside their ship. They even have these odd sharp things called "knives". With any of these rather sophisticated devices, it is entirely simple for any one of them, or all of them, to end their own lives, stop their own pulses, kill themselves, suicide, kick the bucket, check out early, buy the farm. It is therefore entirely an option, especially combined with overt devastation on display amongst them when they emerge from the Phantom Zone to find Krypton a cinder.

Would you like to buy a vowel, darling?

You again appear to be making a Rigourous Demand For Proof (tm) without applying the same stringency to your own half-assed propositions.

As it is, Zod doesn't need to have a "good preped coup". Jor-El has already told the Council the planet is basically doomed. It would appear the Council largely understands that fact. Zod's coup has the character of a desperation move, just as Jor-El's demand to take control of the Codex is similarly a desperation move. Both take place against the background of Krypton's impending destruction; each is Jor-El or Zod's respective attempts to try and stop the inevitable in the way that seems right to them. We also do not have any scenes of Zod "preped"-ing his coup, so we have no idea exactly how well-thought out he regarded it to be, or indeed how exactly it came unstuck. All we have is the coup, Jor-El's theft of the Codex, battle scenes Big Action Scenes, Zod confronting Jor-El with an undefined proportion of his co-conspirators -- not the entirety unless you have Rigourous Proof (tm) otherwise, and one ship capturing Zod and announcing his insurrection is over. Coups, no matter how well-planned, are not necessarily infallible. As an example, in WW2 the Japanese Army's high command attempted a coup against the Emperor himself to prevent him from signing the peace treaty that ended the war in the Pacific. As you can see, the coup failed. That does not mean the coup was not well-planned. It also does not impact on Zod's character.

Again, pursuant to our agreed and entirely stupid rules of Rigourous Demands For Proof (tm), please provide proof that the contents of the ship would be at all damaged or destroyed by being brought down with a surgical strike from one of Zod's trained gunners. Particularly given the said ship we are discussing self-evidently is durable enough to survive re-entry into Earth's atmosphere without injuring the very delicate contents, i.e. Kal-El, that it was carrying.[/quote]

You just assigned them godlike superior technology, enough to walk over humanity. Your assertion is logically inconsistent.

State your proof from the movie, from Zod himself, which is highly debatable. Given the joke that usually passes for a "novelisation" of a movie, I don't give any more rodent ass for backstory from a novelisation than I do a random Internet site.

Er, about ten minutes prior to that speech Zod has had a BSOD moment. Let me quote for you, Slowpokethang:

General Zod: Look at this. [Referring to ashes of his ship] We could have rebuilt Krypton on this planet, but you chose the humans over us. I exist only to protect Krypton. That is the sole purpose for which I was born. And every action I take, no matter how violent or how cruel, is for the greater good of my people. And now, I have no people. My soul, that is what you have taken from me!

Anything Zod says after that amounts to the words of a man driven mad by the destruction of his entire people. His speech to Kal-El is driven by racism against humanity and Kal-El in particular, and is also an attempt to demoralise him in the course of combat. If you can't see that, it amounts to wilful blindess on your part.

 

Slowpowned!