Originally posted by NephthysFair enough.
Dude, he wasn't even that hammy at all. He was more intense than over the top. His big 'I WILL FIND HIM!' wasn't meant to be cheesy or hammy, it was meant to be psychotic and crazy. Without pulling the 'appeal to the majority' fallacy, even the critics I've seen that hated the movie agree that he was pretty great as Zod.'Operatic' was the phrase I saw him described as.
Originally posted by NephthysIt was a visual joke that contradicted what everyone says he is and what Pa Kent taught him he should be. You know that over-the-top scene in Superman II where he f*cks that guy up in the bar at the end? That was out of character too.
It was a joke.You know the things you guys are complaining we didn't get enough of?
Originally posted by NephthysI was also expecting Anakin and Padme to hook up, but their reasons for being romantically invested in one another are non-existent outside plot necessities. Just like in Man of Steel. They share a few scenes and lines together--one of the big ones offscreen mind you, where he tells her his story--and by the end they're kissing amidst the ruins of a city and the corpses of thousands. Helluva weak romantic build-up.
It was flirting. It seems that you're bringing in your preconceptions of Superman that don't match with the actual movie. At no point do they actually get together or anything, the movie is very clearly just showing the start of what could be a relationship. And how does it come out of nowhere if you're expecting it?
Originally posted by NephthysI know. So show us that he knows that too. Show us that he cares.
Well you specifically compared it to Superman rescuing people, repairing the damage and taking the fight elsewhere in Superman 4 (awful movie btw). Such a comparison only highlights the difference in tone. This Superman isn't able to fix everything and avoid all consequences and be the perfect superhero. He can't shoot repair-beams from his eyes and when he tries to change arena's Zod punts him right back again. I just want you to accept that thats not a fault of the movie.I will admit that the cut from Superman freaking out to shenanigans with the military was jarring, yes.
Originally posted by NephthysAnd I wasn't either. But I was confused as to why he wasn't also sad at the far more terrible city-wide destruction and loss of life that occurred. You know, all the stuff that happened because of Zod. Zod who was only Earth because of Superman. You know, makes sense.
You don't. Its clearly a traumatic thing and it has an obvious reason for being so. I was just pointing out the interview for further elaboration, which is the whole point of interviews. You don't need it to justify what happened though. I mean, pretty much everyone already knows that Superman doesn't like killing people. Almost no-ones going to be confused as to why he was so sad afterwards.
Originally posted by NephthysYeah that's what I said with a shrug leaving the theater.
....... oh well??? 😐
Originally posted by NephthysI shouldn't have to, no. But showing Superman in a big fight and battle and saying "look, he's showing us his humanity, and understanding the consequences of his actions and presence on Earth" only covers one half of the issue that his character should face. Fight for the humans all you want, that's great! But after the smoke clears, the ash settles, the last skyscraper topples over, and the bodies are counted, maybe also show us Superman reacting to those things post ex facto, and his role in causing in them?
Actually he saved the world by destroying the World Engine. Its only afterwards, when Zods clearly lost and refuses to surrender when Superman gives him the chance to, that they fight.And he cared enough to snap the guys neck to save innocent people. You just can't say that Superman didn't care about people in this movie. That's retarded. Comparing him to a closet villain and Bella Swan is just laughable. He is constantly putting himself out there to save other people. Constantly holding himself back and hiding from the world, despite how much it hurts his life, despite having to watch his dad die in front of his eyes, because [b]they aren't ready.
Because of the effect it would have on the rest of the world. You later claim that Superman lacks humanity. Bullshit. He gives everything for humanity. You can't question Supermans commitment humanity. You just can't.[/B]
Maybe the DVD will have an extended addition where those scenes are added at the end. Maybe they did film them, but at 140 minutes, couldn't afford to squeeze them in after that neverending battle/climax. I hope so, cuz it'll add some much needed depth to the character after such a massively consequential and harrowing battle.
Originally posted by NephthysHe's not guilty. But it would show some very appropriate humility and grace if, even for a moment or two, the movie shows us him feeling guilty. A moment where, distraught at what's happened, he considers leaving Earth to save it from any repeat damage and threats--saying humans would be better off without him. Maybe have Lois tell him the opposite, convince him that we need him to stay, that we're on a new threshold and are going to need him as a guide. Echoing Jor-El's words back to him? Establish a humble depth to both of their characters? Build some rapport between Superman and Lois that better explains their romantic feelings toward one another? Just something along that vein, instead of nothing. But I guess they didn't have time for that and all the fight scenes, so... yeah, whatever. "Tough", I guess.
Tough.He shows tons of compassion and has nothing to be guilty for.
Originally posted by NephthysNo, because the Avengers and all the Marvel films are f*cking cartoons come to life. A very different atmosphere and tone. And they knew it. They relished in their silliness and goofiness, with just the right amount of drama, comedy, and camp. I wouldn't say Man of Steel fully knew what it was trying to be.
Again, too bad. The movie wasn't catered to your needs. Just because you wanted it isn't a strike against the movie. Theres no reason why he should feel responsible. You think Thor should feel responsible for the shit Loki pulls?Afterall if it wasn't for Thor he wouldn't have done any of the stuff he does. Did you want a scene of Thor weeping in New York as well?Also you complain about him brooding too much and then want him to brood more? Lolwut?
Originally posted by NephthysGiven that Superman is the main character, his title is the film's title, and he has a history to live up to in an audience's eyes... no, it's not small. Lois Lane having no use other than as a piece of meat that characters exposit to, is a small complaint. The fight scenes taking a sudden turn toward QTEs and Matrix ripoffs, is a small complaint. Kevin Costner and Russel Crowe's acting is a small complaint. The Daily Planet staff getting too much camera time when they're in danger despite the fact no one knows anything about them and no one cares if they live or die, is a small complaint. Most of what I said in my third post of this page, is a small complaint. The various little nitpicks about plotholes or editing, are small complaints. But the things that are meant to shape and mold the Superman character, both in trials at the film's end, and the flashbacks of his "growing scenes" aren't small. And neither are the problems surrounding them. Such as:
I can't see how this is a big problem. You want one more scene of Superman showing compassion for humanity after an entire movie where he sacrifices for them and fights to save them. I'm sorry dude, I'm really not trying to shit on you or anything, but I just see this as a really petty and ultimately small complaint.
Pa Kent's utterly useless sacrifice, leaving his wife and super-powered alien child behind to watch as he slowly and unconvincingly gets encompassed by a tornado... that could have easily been averted if he just went under the bridge with Ma Kent and sent Clark to rescue the dog. Way to risk f*cking up your kid's already damaged psyche and leaving your wife a widow for no good reason whatsoever. And all to... make an example or something? The f*ck was up with that scene!
And that truck gag had deeper ramifications:
Originally posted by Rage.Of.OlympusExactly.
- Pa Kent gives speech about not using powers no matter what in public.
- Tosses a Truck into a tree in daylight because a bully hillbilly hurt his feelings.
Even if that's written off as a flaw in his younger self, it's not something that we ever see him moving beyond or learning from (that's probably in part due to the wacky sequencing of the flashbacks, and partly because the character was poorly written). Overreacting bad, restraint good. He shows restraint at first, then totally overreacts. That's kinda backwards. Does he ever learn not to do that again? I don't know, the movie never shows us.
Originally posted by NephthysHey I live closer to America than you do, you tea-swilling wHore.
He's grown up his whole life in Kansas. He's more American than you, you Canadian bastard.
you guys act like there will be no follow-up movies.. arguing over showing emotions and shit.. wait until the next one.. and the one after that.. then we can have a big picture on how kal-el developed into superman and clark kent, the "journalist" that we all know so well.. this is only the first movie of the reboot.. he has plenty of time to feel guilty and contemplate and sh!t.. let's be patient..
Originally posted by super pr*xySaying that one movie is excusable for not possessing core elements in character development and personality because the next film will (or rather, might) have them instead, is just stupid.
you guys act like there will be no follow-up movies.. arguing over showing emotions and shit.. wait until the next one.. and the one after that.. then we can have a big picture on how kal-el developed into superman and clark kent, the "journalist" that we all know so well.. this is only the first movie of the reboot.. he has plenty of time to feel guilty and contemplate and sh!t.. let's be patient..
Originally posted by super pr*xy👆
you guys act like there will be no follow-up movies.. arguing over showing emotions and shit.. wait until the next one.. and the one after that.. then we can have a big picture on how kal-el developed into superman and clark kent, the "journalist" that we all know so well.. this is only the first movie of the reboot.. he has plenty of time to feel guilty and contemplate and sh!t.. let's be patient..
I thought it was clear Superman would go emo over everything that happened in the sequel.
Although I have no problem with people complaining about it.
Originally posted by Kotor3👆 AWIL was a gamechanger. Even Dunne was awesome.
I do not know if you ever saw ‘American Werewolf in London’ and ‘American Werewolf in Paris’ or any Werewolf picture afterwards. Even though special effects are superior now, every time I see American Werewolf in London, I just appreciate the special effects and how they were done much more than what I see in modern werewolf movies. It is probably because I know it was harder to do then and it was revolutionary.
On a separate note: "Superman Begins" is an excellent summation.
Originally posted by super pr*xy
you guys act like there will be no follow-up movies.. arguing over showing emotions and shit.. wait until the next one.. and the one after that.. then we can have a big picture on how kal-el developed into superman and clark kent, the "journalist" that we all know so well.. this is only the first movie of the reboot.. he has plenty of time to feel guilty and contemplate and sh!t.. let's be patient..
exactly..
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Saying that one movie is excusable for not possessing core elements in character development and personality because the next film will (or rather, might) have them instead, is just stupid.
actually it isn't no one here on this message board that WB doesn't even care about has not even seen what scenes Goyer and Snyder took out when the script was re written..
secondly Kal was developed quite nicely, while Clark for obvious reasons wasn't.. when Goyer starts writing the sequel I am sure Superman will be developed even moreso than he was, while Clark should be pretty much perfect
Originally posted by Nephthys
6 Billion saved. 😎
Every time I hear that kind of justification, I just facepalm.
It's okay that Superman helped kill a few people by tossing Zod through a Skyscraper, he saved the World! That logic is so disrespectful to everything he stands for.
If even one innocent person died because it rained fatal glass due to him shoving Zod upside a Skyscraper, the military would be well within it's rights to take him out.
Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
Every time I hear that kind of justification, I just facepalm.It's okay that Superman helped kill a few people by tossing Zod through a Skyscraper, he saved the World! That logic is so disrespectful to everything he stands for.
If even one innocent person died because it rained fatal glass due to him shoving Zod upside a Skyscraper, the military would be well within it's rights to take him out.
Considering he's only pushing Zod through the building to stop him from killing everyone I don't see why not. Even if he did kill people by throwing Zod through a building (and thats never shown to be the case), those are acceptable casualties in order to subdue him. If Superman hadn't of fought him, he undoubtedly would have caused a shitton more death and damage than their fight did. And no-one else could do it. You can argue that Superman was 'incompetent' in the way he failed to minimise collatoral damage, but guess what? He's the only guy they had who could stop Zod. Untrained Kal was the only option.
No, they wouldn't. 😬