i don't get this "oh, he's not superman because superman won't even think of doing that!"
weren't people clamoring for a darker superman story? and when it come, it gets condemned.. make up your damn minds.. or get to the realization that this is superman now.. this is his evolution.. we demanded him to be like this and less of a boy scout.. now that he is less of a boy scout, we say that he should be boy-scoutier than any boy scout out there.. maybe he should've stopped fighting zod for a bit and helped an old lady cross the street so he could get a g*ddamn badge..
I loved the movie. The crazy collateral damage With the fights between kryptonians stood out to me but not in a real negative way.. It just made superman look like a rookie which he was. How can a rookie superman fight toe to toe with an equal and play damage control on a massive enough scale to matter? It makes sense to me and also seems like perfect fuel for someone like Lex to already have a serious negative opinion of him thats not just based off him being kryptonian.
Someone I know has a serious issue with the end of the movie. [SPOILER - highlight to read]:
despite the crazy damage and loss of life Clark snaps Zods neck just to save one family from death. Honestly even that makes sense if you think about it again from a rookie superman point of view. Zods a threat and he focused purely on putting him down and protecting himself from his attacks until the loss of life of those around him was blatantly pointed out to him with a direct attempt on their lives.. In which superman had to act.
I don't see how him 'suddenly caring' about a couple of ppl somehow makes the intense destruction make less sense.
This isn't a seasoned superman, I mean come on he learned to fly shortly before the actual invasion! He was totally learning on the go.
I don't think it was Superman suddenly caring for Humans. I just think it was a snap back to reality for him. Zod said he'd kill everyone, and even when faced with certain death, instead of trying to resist against Kal, he attempts to a family to break his spirit
I think it's because, on one hand, Supes represents what is best in humanity, that aspect which enables us to rise above selfishness, anger and violence, striving for compassion and doing what's right. Superman is, as Freud might say, the ego ideal.
OTOH, I personally found it fascinating to see a superhuman, godlike being depicted in as realistic / believable a fashion as the subject matter allows. Someone who doesn't know yet their place in the world, who doesn't have a full grasp of his abilities, someone who's going to make mistakes, rouse human suspicion, and given the scale of his power, someone who has to deal with the consequences of that power not always wisely used.
This is a Superman just starting out, and his experiences will help him become the Superman who inspires.
Shinier than a speeding bullet.
Also its clear what they meant now when they were saying there was going to be some realism in this. They were never talking about making his powers realistic, but the way those powers would be used and cause damage if they were to be real.
I think also real this way; Perry White even says it: can you imagine how people would react if they knew someone like him was out there?
I remember actually discussing this back in grad school. My point was that if someone like Superman were real, the first thing the government would do is consider him a potential threat to national security and start looking for ways to control or neutralize him. Given how human beings are, this seems almost obvious, imo.
Shinier than a speeding bullet.
Pretty much. It's not realistic in terms of Superpowers, but more in line with reactions and destruction. Seriously, like look at Avengers. The chitauri had the cube, can create wormholes, navigate space, use all sort of technology so why is it that they had no weapon close to doing any damage to a city. I can understand if their priority was to conquer, but it wasn't. We clearly saw that they were destroying the city, yet they had no weapon that would lay waste to an entire city, or an entire block for that matter. If the nuke had been dropped in the city, all their forces on earth that were deployed would have been killed. Surely, they choose to attack a race which were technologically behind, but still able to do more damage I watched Avengers and questioned if the world was ever in danger. Sure, they couldn't shut the portal, but had it come to the point that Avengers were not there, a Hydrogen Bomb) would have won the battle. It would have been costly and damaging though
We saw in MoS a more realistic approach. No weapons were able to damage the Kryptonians, or the world eater. They pretty much shut the lights off on the entire planet just so they can send a message.
Last edited by xJLxKing on Jun 27th, 2013 at 11:22 PM
Never been a clearer "Beware the Superman" message in a movie imo. It is not random destruction, it is the horryfying but logical result of aliens with kryptonian powers, kryptonian tech and kryptonian motives duking it out on earth. At the end we still have one of said ailiens running around playing the hero.. and he has just shown he is willing to kill.
The main problem with the death toll (one of them anyway) that everyone seems to be missing is that Superman HIMSELF is unnecessarily causing a lot of it. When Zod punches Superman through a building, causing it to collapse, thatís forgivable because thatís Zodís fault. When Superman throws a train or Zod through a building and causes it to collapse and undoubtedly kill countless innocents, thatís not something that can be attributed to the villains, the stress of saving the world, or the fact that Supes is a rookie; thatís just Superman and his own stupidity/reckless disregard for human life and it makes him look like a terrible hero.
All it would have taken was one quick scene in the fight to show Clark using his X-Ray vision or hearing to determine something like, ďHey, thereís people in that direction so Iíll try to lead Zod in this direction.Ē Or maybe the occasional worried expression, just to show that, yes, he canít save everyone, but he still cares. Or maybe a scene showing Superman helping out in cleaning up Metropolis. Just something. ANYTHING. But we donít even get that much, so Superman just seems like he doesnít give a damn, even when buildings are falling down like dominoes.
The other major problem is that the film doesnít really acknowledge it. By the end of the film, a solid chunk of Metropolis is wiped out and hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, and Metropolis has essentially suffered one of the worst tragedies ever. And then it ends on this weird happy note where Superman and Lois Lane make out and steal a line from ďSpeedĒ and then life in Metropolis seems to resume like normal a few days later with Clark going to work at the Daily Planet (which Iím positive was destroyed too). Ultimately, the consequences arenít felt. No one cares.
This movie wants to be ďdarker,Ē but it still tries to present us with a happy fairy tale ending ignoring the losses. It wants to be more ďrealisticĒ with the collateral damage, but then itís completely unrealistic in how everyone else reacts to the damage and to Superman himself. They praise him as a hero even they know nothing about him and they had no way of seeing him save the day. It tries to have its cake and eat it too.
I donít care if Superman isnít a huge boy-scout or even if heís willing to kill as a last resort (after all, he did it back in Superman II); Iím all for trying something different. But I donít think itís too much to ask for a Superman who wonít throw a goddamn train in my direction on the off-chance that he MIGHT knock Zod on his ass.
Alternatively, people like to compare this to the destruction in the Avengers, but in that film, you had the heroes going out of their way to help citizens when they could or to rally the cops to help citizens in the chaos. The worst they ever got was what, when Hulk ran through an office building? But it IS the Hulk, so some recklessness is to be expected and even then you could clearly see in that scene that he didnít run anyone down (so even the worst of any of the Avengers still wasnít nearly as bad Superman).
And at the end of the Avengers, you see memorials erected in honor of the casualties, showing that, yes, the day was saved, but a lot of people still died in the process.
this f*cking complaints are getting old.. I seem to remember the avengers eating shawarma after the new york incident, amidst the rubble and the collateral damage.. and stop comparing MoS to the avengers, please.. just go watch the avengers and leave MoS alone.. haters gonna hate..
I actually like Man of Steel just fine. It's very enjoyable (most of it anyway) up until the climax.
But good lord is that last battle just awful. It's way too long, poorly filmed, overly CGIed, rather dull, and just plain duuuuuumb. It's so bad that it kind of brings the rest of the film down a notch or two with it.
Ive seen your posts, you're not even a superman fan, so why complain? also superman did punch zod into space, zod then kicked the wayne satellit towards supes, pushing him down to earth again. Last i checked superman can only be blamed for ramming through that nuclear reactor and to smallville, with zod, thats about it, no other damage in the movie can be blamed on him.